Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout27 - C-3311 - San Miguel Drive Widening Project11 December 13, 1999 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 27 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAN MIGUEL DRIVE WIDENING PROJECT — CONTRACT NO. 3311 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Conduct Public Hearing. 2. Approve the Negative Declaration for the San Miguel Drive Widening Project. DISCUSSION: This project will increase the left -turn lane storage capacity for westbound San Miguel Drive traffic that turns onto southbound Avocado Avenue. It will also reduce the peak hour traffic congestion which, at times, extends into MacArthur Boulevard and impedes the southbound MacArthur Boulevard cross traffic. The work consists of: • A six -foot sliver roadway widening along the northerly side of San Miguel Drive at and around the Avocado Avenue intersection. • A modification and reconstruction of the existing San Miguel Drive raised median between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. • A modification and reconstruction of the Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard intersection. • A modification of the traffic signal system at the Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard intersection. • The reconstruction of roadway pavement, curb & gutter, curb access ramps, catch basins, storm drains and the installation of new pavement striping and markings on San Miguel Drive from approximately 100 feet west of Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard. The project's engineering design and construction costs will be partially funded by the Intersection Improvement Program of the Orange County Transportation Authority Combined Transportation Funding Program. A Draft Initial Study (DIS) for this project was prepared by staff pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The DIS was filed with the Governors Office of Planning and Research, a State Clearinghouse, for review by various State agencies. These agencies included the California Department of Transportation, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Resources Agency and the State Lands Commission. The review period started on October 29, 1999, and concluded on November 30, 1999. Staff did not receive comments from these agencies. SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAN MIGUEL DRIVE WIDENING PROJECT December 13, 1999 Page 2 The DIS determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Since the work is located outside of the California Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit is not required. Staff recommends approval of the project's Negative Declaration. Respectfully s mltted, C� - —., PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director B Kong Ts .E. Associate Civil Engineer Attachment: Negative Declaration I 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3311 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Fx-x'l 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange Fx-x� Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review period: October 29, 1999 to November 30, 1999 Name of Project: San Miguel Drive Widening From Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard Project Location: San Miguel Drive from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard Project Description: This project provides for a six foot roadway sliver widening along the northerly side of San Miguel Drive and the reconstruction and modifications of medians, roadway pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb access ramps, catch basins, storm drains, traffic signal systems, pavement striping and markings, and other incidental items of work from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard. 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 attached. This document will be considered by the decision - maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. A public hearing will be held to consider this project. The time and location of the public meeting is attached. 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. You are also invited to attend the public meeting and to testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3311. Date 1 y I9 illiam Pa po Cil Engineer T City of Newport each, Public Works Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form 0 To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 Public Works Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Tel. No.: 916/445 -0613) (Orange County) Contact Person: Mr. Fong Tse, P.E. SCH # Tel No.: (949) 644 -3311 Project Location: San Miguel Drive Cross Streets From Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard Total Acres 0.92 A.P.No.Not Applicable Section Not Applicable Twp. Not Applicable Range Not Applicable Base Not AnDlicable Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. 1— PCH Waterways: Newport Harbor Airports: None Railways: None Schools:Harbor View Elementary and Lincoln Elementary Present Land Use /Zoning/General Plan Use: Commercial /APF /Administrative, Professional, and Financial Project Description: Sliver widening alone northerly side of San Miguel Drive and the reconstruction and modifications of medians roadway pavement, sidewalk curb and eutter, catch basins, storm drain, traffic signal systems and striping Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER ❑ NOP ❑ Supplement/Subsequent ❑ NOT ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ EIR (Prior SCE No.) Cl EA ❑ Final Document ® Neg Dec ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other ❑ Dmft/E1R ❑ Other ❑ FONSI Local Action Type Cl General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan Cl Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Sub- ® Other: None Required division Parcel Map, Tract map, ect.) Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sq.@. Acres Employees_ ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Power: Type Watts ❑ Educational: ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type ® Other: Hiehwav Construction — Sliver 1Videnine Project Issues Discussed in Document ❑ AestheticNisual ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ SchooWUniversities ❑ Water Quality ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Forest Land/Fire hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply /Groundwater ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geologic /Seismic Cl Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian ❑ Archeologic/Historic ❑ Minerals ❑ Wildlife ❑ Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading ❑ Coastal Zone ❑ Noise ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Dminage /Absoption ❑ Population/Housing/Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Land Use ❑ Economic /Jobs ❑ Public Service/Facilities ❑ Traffic /Circulation ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal Cl Recreation/Parks ❑ Vegetation ® Other: None Applicable • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Initial Study/ Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed project described below. The Initial Study has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The City therefore intends to adopt a Negative Declaration. Project Name: San Miguel Drive Widening From Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Blvd. Project Location: San Miguel Drive from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard Project Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Public Review Period: October 29, 1999 through November 30, 1999 Project Descri tp ion: • The project provides for a six foot roadway sliver widening along the northerly side of San Miguel Drive and the reconstruction and modifications of medians, roadway pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb access ramps, catch basins, storm drains, traffic signal systems, pavement striping and markings, and other incidental items of work from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard. These improvements will 1) increase the left -turn lane storage capacity for the westbound San Miguel Drive traffic that turns onto southbound Avocado Avenue and 2) eliminate the San Miguel traffic queue that currently impedes southbound MacArthur Boulevard traffic during the AM peak hours. Opportunity for Public Review: Interested persons are invited to review the Negative Declaration, including studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project, and submit comments. These documents and all comments received will be considered by the Newport Beach City Council prior to final action on the proposed project. A copy of the Negative Declaration, and related documents are available for review at the following location: Newport Beach City Hall . Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or the adequacy of the Negative Declaration, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of public review period stated above. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce the impacts. The City Council is scheduled to consider approval of the project and the Negative Declaration at a public meeting on Monday, December 13, 1999 at 7:00 PM in the Newport Beach Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact Mr. Fong Tse of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department at (949) 644 -3311. Date of Publication: October 29, 1999 • 1] 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: San Miguel Drive Widening From Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3311 (fax: 949- 644 -3308) 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Fong Tse, (949) 644 -3311 4. Project Location: San Miguel Drive from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 0 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial — Administrative, Professional, and Financial 7. Zoning: APF 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 necessary.) This project provides for a six foot roadway sliver widening, median modifications, roadway pavement and reconstruction, concrete sidewalk and curb reconstruction, curb access ramps reconstruction, catch basin and storm drain reconstruction, traffic signal system modifications, new raised pavement markers and striping, and other item of works from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: To the north To the east: To the south: To the west: The existing improvement consists of a 4 -lane divided roadway. Unimproved vacant land. Continuation of existing 4 -lane divided roadway. Unimproved vacant land. Continuation of existing 44ane divided roadway. CHECKLIST Page 1 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: None 0 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 ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Public Services ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance • CHECKLIST Page 2 s DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) 0 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. 0 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. ❑ 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. ❑ MI 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. ❑ MaW94� IQ Signature Date William Patanoff. P.E. Printed Name CHECKLIST Page 3 Checklist Page 4 u L-1 Less Than Issues polnnllally Signiacanl Slgniricanl With Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mtitgalion Impact Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state X scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. AGRICULTURE 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 (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pre - X pared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro- gram of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a William - X son Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X 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 X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentra- tions? X Checklist Page 4 u L-1 0 i Checklist Page 5 Less Than Issues Potentially significant significant with Less Than significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X 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- X 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X 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, X 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 X 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 X local regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ef- X fects including the risk of loss iniury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by X 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. Checklist Page 5 Checklist Page 6 0 0 Less Than Issues Potentially Significant Significant With Less Than Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact p Incorporated 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) 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, X 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 X or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers X 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 X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions X 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 X 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 X the public or the environment? 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 X airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for eo le residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working X in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Checklist Page 6 0 0 u 0 Checklist Page 7 Less Than Issues Potentially Significant significant with Less Than Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Im act p Incorporated 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 X with wildlands? 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the -project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge require- X ments? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substan- tially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater X 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 ranted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream X 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 of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface X runoff 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? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) 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? X h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death, involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not lim- ited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or miti- Rating an environmental effect? Checklist Page 7 Checklist Page 8 M 5� 0 0 Less Than Issues Potentially Significant Significant With Less Than significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plan? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that X would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Ill Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, X 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- X nance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X 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 X ro'ect? 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 X airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? 12. 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 indi- rectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infra- structure )? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the con- struction of replacement housing elsewhere? X 13. PUBLIC SERVICES — 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- X cant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable ser- vice ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Checklist Page 8 M 5� 0 0 0 Checklist Page 9 Less Than Issues Potentially significant significant With Less Than signincaol no Impact Mitigation Impact Im act p Incorporated 1) Fire protection? X 2) Police protection? X 3) Schools? X 4) Parks? X 5) Other public facilities? X 14. RECREATION -- a) 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 X be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result X 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 standard established by the county congestion management agency for desi Hated roads or hi hways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an in- crease in traffic levels or a change in location that results in sub- stantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm a ui men[ )? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the rooect- a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the con- struction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Checklist Page 9 18. 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. • Checklist Page 10 Less Than Issues Potentially Significant Significant with Less Than significant No Impact Mitigation Impact tra act P Incorporated 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? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capac- ity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the X provider's existing comrnitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ac- commodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X 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- X 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 X effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future ro'ects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X indirectly? 18. 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. • Checklist Page 10 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS San Miguel Drive Widening From Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard Project Description This project provides for a six foot roadway sliver widening along the northerly side of San Miguel Drive and the reconstruction and modifications of medians, roadway pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb access ramps, catch basins, storm drains, traffic signal systems, pavement striping and markings, and other incidental items of work from Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard. These improvements will 1) increase the left -turn lane storage capacity for the westbound San Miguel Drive traffic that turns onto southbound Avocado Avenue and 2) eliminate the San Miguel traffic queue that currently impedes southbound MacArthur Boulevard traffic during the AM peak hours. ANALYSIS The following provides the explanations and supporting analyses for the impact categories and questions contained in the previous Checklist, and identifies mitigation measures where applicable. Topics that have no identified impacts, or that have impacts determined to be less than significant without mitigation, will not be discussed in the environmental impact report. AESTHETICS Would the project : a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project is located within a fully developed commercial section of the City. There are no scenic resources within proximity of the project. The project will not have any adverse effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project is not located within a state scenic highway. There are no scenic resources within proximity of the project. The project will not have any adverse effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS PAGE I c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of tine site and its surroundings? No Impact. The project provides for a 6 -foot sliver widening for a portion of an existing roadway. The improvements will not affect the existing visual character nor the quality of the site and its surroundings. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The project does not include any lighting work. The existing street lighting arrangement within the project limits will remain as -is. The project will not adversely impact the day or night time views in the area. No mitigation measures are necessary. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project : a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 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 activities occur within the project vicinity. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with existing Zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and there are no Williamson Act contracts within the project vicinity. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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? No Impacts. The project does not involve any work that could result in the conversion of farmland. No mitigation measures are necessary. 0 CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 2 0 0 3. AIR QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in emissions during construction (e.g. dust and construction equipment exhaust). No emissions would be generated after construction is completed. It is anticipated that construction equipment will be limited to a backhoe /loader, a dump truck, a concrete mixer, and an asphalt roadway paving machine during various phases of the work. A street sweeper will be at the project site throughout the work duration. This combination of equipment is estimated to generate substantially less than the significance thresholds identified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9 -8E. Consequently, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan. Standard contract specifications require that all construction equipment be maintained in proper working order, which would minimize emissions. No additional mitigation is necessary. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. See Section 3.a above. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ofany 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. See Section 3.a above. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. See Section 3.a above. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? Less Than Significant Impact. Diesel - powered equipment used for construction could cause odors and emissions that may be offensive to sensitive receptors. However, the construction work is adjacent to vacant land and the odors should not cause any problems for the nearby businesses and residents. Consequently, the project would not generate objectionable odors during the work. The completed improvements will not generate any odors. The issue of odor generation is expected to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 3 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 0 Would the 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? No Impact. The project does not include any drainage work and will not cause additionally urban runoff into the existing drainage system. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. See Section 4.a above. 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. See Section 4.a above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratot fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. See Section 4.a above. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. See Section 4.a above. n 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 site is not included in any Habitat Conservation Plan nor NCCP area. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 4 0 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. There are no historic resources at the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resourcepursuantto §15064.5? No Impact. There are no archaeological resources at the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. There are no paleontological resources at the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. There are no known human remains at the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. 6. GEOLOGYAND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) 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. No Impact. There are no known earthquake faults or Alquist -Priolo zones within the project vicinity. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 5 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. Although there are no known earthquake faults within the project vicinity, the area is subject to strong seismic ground shaking, as is the case with all of Southern California. Due to the nature of the new improvements, seismic ground shaking will not pose serious hazards to the public. No mitigation measures are necessary. 3) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. See Section 5.a.2 above. 4) Landslides? No Impact. The project location is nearly flat and no significant risk of landslide is present. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The project area is completely urbanized and is located entirely within existing street right -of -way. No soil erosion or loss of topsoil would occur during or after construction operations. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) 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 involves a 6 -foot sliver widening of an existing roadway and traffic lanes reconfiguration within a fully developed commercial section of the City. The potential of landslide, liquefaction, or other hazards that could be caused by this project is minimal. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) 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 !Mac t. Expansive soils are generally high in clay content. The soil samples recorded for various work within proximity of this project did not exhibit clayey characteristics. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 6 qY 0 • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks. All wastewater is presently conveyed off -site via connections to the sanitary sewer system. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 materials? No Impact. No use, transport, or disposal of hazardous material is proposed for this project. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Gasoline- and diesel powered equipment would be used during construction. The standard construction contract provisions require the contractor to follow the site maintenance and cleanup procedures described in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The project would not involve the handling or transport of acutely hazardous materials and would not result in hazardous emissions. The existing school facility closest to the project location is approximately 1 mile away. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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? No Impact. The project is not located on a listed hazardous materials site. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 7 c) 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? No Impact. The project is not located within an existing or future airport land use plan area nor within two miles of an airport. No mitigation measures are necessary. n 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. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not have any permanent effects on an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan or procedures. During construction, the contractor is required by the contract specifications to provide emergency vehicle and personnel access . throughout the project limits. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. 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 is located in a fully developed urban commercial area with no wildland interface. No mitigation measures are necessary. 8. HYDROLOCYAND WATER QUALITY Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would involve the discharge of stormwater into the existing storm drain system. Such discharge would contain urban pollutants such as pesticides and oil. However, since the same runoff from the project area is currently entering the existing storm drain system, no change in the type nor quantity of runoff is expected. Construction will be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination . System (NPDES) Best Management Practices, which require measures be taken to minimize runoff of contaminants and siltation. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 8 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 (e.g., the production rate ofpre - 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 project would not have any effect on groundwater supplies nor recharge. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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? No Impact. The project would not alter the existing drainage pattern in the area. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 on- or off-site? No lmpact. The project would not alter the existing drainage pattern in the area. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) 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 project would not create any urban runoff. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. The project does not include any water work and will not degrade the existing level of water quality in the area. No mitigation measures are necessary. 9) 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. No housing is proposed for this project. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 9 h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. No structures that would impede or redirect flood flows are proposed for this project. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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. The project would not expose people or structures to flood hazards. No mitigation measures are necessary. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or nnudflow? No Impact. The project site, typical of the California coastline, is located in a low -lying area that could be inundated in the event of seiche or tsunami. The project would have no effect on these conditions as the proposed improvements are intended for traffic flow enhancement. No mitigation measures are necessary. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would tine project: • a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project is located in a fully developed commercial area of the City. The project would not physically divide the already established community. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to tine 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 would not conflict with the existing General Plan land use designation or zoning. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project would not conflict with habitat or natural community conservation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 10 • . 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? No Impact. The project is located in a fully developed commercial area of the City and no mineral sources would be affected. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plat:, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. There are no locally important mineral resource recovery areas located within the project limits. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 play: or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in any long- term noise increase. As with all public works projects, a short-term noise increase around the project site would occur during construction. All construction equipment will comply with the noise limits imposed by the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project could generate a moderate amount of ground vibration during the roadway removal work. Such vibration is typically of roadway projects. Since the amount of roadway removal is minimal, the ground vibration that could result from the work should not last more than one day. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project could not generate a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the area. Additionally, the project would reduce the noise CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 11 p, level in the area due to reduced traffic congestion. No mitigation measures • are necessary. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The project could generate a moderate and temporary of noise increase during construction. Such noise increase is typically of public works projects. All construction equipment will comply with the noise limits imposed by the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. 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? No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport. No mitigation measures are necessary. j) 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. There are no private airstrips within the project vicinity. No mitigation measures are necessary. 12. POPULATIONAND 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)? No Impact. The project is located in a fully developed commercial area of the City and is proposed for roadway improvements. No increase in population growth could result from this project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project is located in a fully developed commercial area of the City and is proposed for roadway improvements. No decrease of existing housing could result from this project. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 12 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of Isreplacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project is located in a fully developed commercial area of the City and is proposed for roadway improvements. No displacement of existing residents could result from this project. No mitigation measures are necessary. 13. PUBLICSERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new orphysically altered governmental 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 project would not adversely impact fire protection in the area. Additionally, the project will provide improved fire protection access during morning peak hours. No mitigation measures are necessary. 2) Policeprotection? No Impact. The project would not adversely impact police protection in the area. Additionally, the project will provide improved police protection access during morning peak hours. No mitigation measures are necessary. 3) Schools? No Impact. The project would not affect student generation or school operations. No mitigation measures are necessary. 4) Parks? No impact. The project would not affect parks or recreation. No mitigation measures are necessary. S) Other public facilities? No Impact. The project would not affect any other public facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 13 14. RECREATION • a) Would the project increase tl:e use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of thefacility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 project would not increase the use of parks or other recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., 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 Siegnificant Impact. Typical of all construction work, a short-term increase in traffic in the general area immediately adjacent to the work site is expected to occur during construction. The traffic increase will not be significant. Additionally, the contractor will not be allowed to close any traffic lanes during peak traffic hours. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. Except for the temporary traffic delays during construction, the improvements will reduce the traffic congestion in the area during peak hours and improve the level of service for the roadway. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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? 0 No Impact. The project will not change the current air traffic patterns in the area. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 14 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. Except for the portion of the road that will be widened by 6 feet, the project will not change the geometries of the existing roadway. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, all emergency vehicles and personnel will have uninterrupted access through the work zone. The completed project will improve emergency access during peak traffic hours. No mitigation measures are necessary. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The project will not change the existing parking capacity in the area. No mitigation measures are necessary. 9) Conflict will, adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No mitigation measures are necessary. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No hnpact. The project would have no effect on wastewater flows or treatment requirements. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 environmental effects? No Impact. The project would have no effect on wastewater flows or treatment requirements. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 15 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion: of existing facilities, the construction of which is could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project would have no effect on storm water flows. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 would not affect water supply or demands. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) 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's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project would have no effect on wastewater flows or treatment requirements. No mitigation measures are necessary. fi Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The project construction may result in the generation of excess earth material that would need to be transported off site. This would not be considered a significant impact due to its temporary nature and limited quantity. Removed native material that could not be reused on the project will be diposed of at a landfill. Removed asphalt material will be recycled by the contractor. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The project specifications require the contractor to dispose of construction waste in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations. No mitigation measures are necessary. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 16 E 0 E E 17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce tire 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 does not have the potential to degrade the environment. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that tire 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 ofprobable future projects)? No Impact. The project does not have any impact that is individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project does not have any environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. No mitigation measures are necessary. Building News Publications, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1997 Edition. City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach Municipal Code. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEOA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Don Webb, P.E. Bill Patapoff, P.E. Fong Tse, P.E. Public Works Director City Engineer Associate Civil Engineer CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 17 Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Location Map 774 0 0 11 BAKER ST. ,I m� W N co ADAMS AVE. A R N�E COLLEGE 0 CITY OF ORANGE CO. JC?' �� `QS?•� COSTA a FAIRGROUNDS �• 'j� (� CITY (7 v~i p FS9 Z = MESA a s O� qp Bq�Sr gNo IRVOINE Z & D m LL VICTORIA ST. P �' p C UPPER UNIVERSITY 9G n �'f < NEWPORT R 19TH ST. p�'P SJ BAY o a U.C.I. r,.. Q OF BISON AVE NEWP R s BEA H °ay ' � S.• �vpl RD CQ �, FDRD SAN RD \\ `b 9 ASHIO \ STORAG !' DRESER. v `� �NfWPr� pF o RD. °N BAY - ®- PROJECT LOCATION pAf%.- \ \ �� (SEE LOCATION MAP) /C \ cp9S Oc VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN MIGUEL DRIVE WIDENING FROM AVOCADO AVE TO MACARTHUR BLVD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT m 1 I U' U CENTER F FASHION ISLAND / S qN N�colq so,� SAN MIGUEL DRIVE WIDENING FROM 0 AVOCADO AVE TO MACARTHUR BLVD LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE ,,�