HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - C-3270 - Bonita Canyon Sports ParkMarch 14, 2000
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. 13
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK, CONTRACT NO. 3270 - APPROVAL
TO ADVERTISE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVAL
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approve the plans and specifications
Authorize staff to advertise for bids for the construction of the project.
3. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration.
DISCUSSION:
On May 24, 1999, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with
EPT Landscape Architects for the preparation of plans and specifications for the Bonita
Canyon Sports Park. Key staff members from the Community Services, General
Services, Utilities Division, Building, and Public Works departments met regularly with
EPT to review the progress of the project and provide input to the consultant on design
plans and specifications. The Community Services and Public Works staff met several
times with representatives from the community.
PROJECT COST:
EPT requested preliminary cost estimates from contractors they have worked with in
the past. The following summarizes their current estimated construction costs based
on input from the contractors:
Base Bid (Including Freeway Reservation Trail area) $5,973,000
Additional Bid Items
West Park Tot Lot
60,000
West Park Tennis Courts
65,000
West Park Basketball Court
44,000
Mid Park Restroom Facilities
296,000
Total Project Estimated Construction Cost $6,438,000
SUBJECT: BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK— CONTRACT NO. 3270 — APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION APPROVAL
March 14, 2000
Page 2
These construction cost estimates do not include necessary construction support
services. The Public Works Inspection /Engineering staff will perform construction
management for the project. (Initially, it was anticipated outside construction
management would be necessary for a park of this magnitude). General Services and
Utilities staff will also assist in the inspection needs. Outside specialty services for
geotechnical testing are required and are estimated to be $50,000. The property was
found to be an archaeological active site and a Native American representative will be
required on -site during all mass grading operations. The representative's costs are yet
to be determined.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
A five -week bid period has been provided with the bid opening scheduled for April 27tH
This will allow the contractors adequate time to prepare their bids in the most
competitive manner. Assuming good bids are received, an Award of Contract can be
considered at the May 16th Council meeting.
The project construction will last from June 2000 until May 2001, at which time all the
plant materials and turf will have been planted. Depending on the late spring and
summer growing period, field use could begin as early as the fall of 2001.
FUNDING
The bond proceeds from the Irvine Company development of the Bonita Village (given
to the City for the development of the park), increased from the original $3.2 Million to
$5.9 million. In addition, Council has approved $60,000 for the area formerly known as
Freeway Reservation Park, which is now the open space area south of the West Park.
Council also approved two separate grant applications for Federal and State
environmental enhancement funds. The State application was not approved, and the
Federal grant is still pending. Portions of the Freeway Reservation funds were used to
hydroseed the MacArthur berm slopes and will be providing the necessary erosion
control for this winter season.
Based on the existing funding, Staff anticipates the City will only be able to afford the
base bid without any additional alternatives. The following is a summary of the current
available funds.
Account Number Account Description Amount
7441- C4120434 Bonita Canyon Sports Park $5,909,000
7014- C5300035 Freeway Reservation Park $48,000
Total: $5,957,000
a
SUBJECT: BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK — CONTRACT NO. 3270 — APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION APPROVAL
March 14, 2000
Page 3
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3, an Initial Study was prepared for the
proposed project. The only area of concern identified in the initial study was potential
impacts in the area of cultural resources. No other impacts were identified which require
further analysis or mitigation. A complete discussion of these issues is contained in the
initial study.
CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS:
The project area has been identified to have cultural or archeological resources
located on the site. This area has been mitigated by the Irvine Company as part of he
Bonita Village development. However, a requirement for our park project will be to have a
Paleontologist on -site during excavations and grading. In addition, a registered
Archeologist will be required during the entire project. If cultural or archeological resources
are discovered, no further grading will occur in the area until adequate provisions are in
place to protect the resources.
On December 21, 1999, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and public
notification was distributed to the residences within 500 feet of the proposed project
site. The City has received three formal letters from residents. Two letters were
accompanied by additional letters or signatures of support. (See attached letters).
West Park Resident Concerns
West Park Resident concerns were communicated to the City through their Board of
Directors. Input was provided regarding the heights of the berms along MacArthur and
the elevation of the playing fields relative to backyards. Based on the resident input,
the soccer fields were lowered and the berms were raised. This modification satisfied
resident concerns. (Formal response attached).
Port Cardiff Concerns
Port Cardiff residents raised concerns relating to sports -field lighting, potential traffic
signals, excess sports fields, parking, and overall park impacts to the neighborhood.
After providing assurances that there will be no night - lighted fields and an explanation
of efforts made to involve the community in the planning process of the park, Port
Cardiff residents seemed to be satisfied. (Formal response attached).
3
SUBJECT: BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK — CONTRACT NO. 3270— APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION APPROVAL
March 14, 2000
Page 4
Port Sheffield Concerns
Port Sheffield residents contacted the City regarding parking and noise impacts. They
were concerned that park users would be allowed to park along the southerly side of
Ford Road, adjacent to the rear of their residences. Ford Road is an arterial road and
parking will only be allowed in selected areas - west of Mesa View, on the park side of
Ford Road. This would be accomplished by restriping the road to a single lane traveling
west on Ford Road, west of Mesa View. Parking restrictions will be reviewed in more
detail as the park nears completion. The main parking lot on the East Park is sized to
handle both the east and west fields. With the assurance that no parking restrictions
would remain in force on the Harbor View side of Ford, the Port Sheffield residents
were satisfied.
Based on the above described Initial Study and comments received from the public,
Staff recommends the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Attached).
Respectfully submitted,
&SZ
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Webb, Director
By: A'J"
Micha'61J. Sinaco , P.E.
Utilities Engineer
Attachments: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter from Mark Zucker, President Harbor View Homes Association (West Park residents)
Letter from Martin Natland (Port Cardiff residents)
Letter from Jon P. Martino (Port Sheffield residents)
Formal response to Mark Zucker
Formal response to Martin Natland
F: \Users \PBW\ Shared \COUNCIL \Fy99 -00 \March -14 \Bonita Canyon C- 3270.doc
4
Cit fY OF NEWPORT BEACh
Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3311
flE4US� N
To: $1- '
❑Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk, County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Public review period:
DECLARATION
uirl L:. f �•J
GARY LPN" j "y LE, U fk- F;.�rde
H J! _ DPPUT�'
From: City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(Orange County)
Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk:
December 21, 1999 to January 21, 2000
Name of Project: Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Project Description: The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project. The proposed
park will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon Communities. The park is
divided into an eastern and western portion.
Bonita Canyon Park East is located north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road,
between Prairie Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Improvements will include three (3) youth
baseball fields, one (1) multi - purpose baseball /soccer field, three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot,
pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas, restroom and equipment storage facilities, on -site parking
for 240 vehicles, and open space with undulating earth berms.
Bonita Canyon Park West is located at the southeast intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and
MacArthur Boulevard. It is located adjacent to and runs parallel to MacArthur Boulevard, south
of its intersection with Bonita Canyon Road. Improvements will include three (3) youth soccer
fields, a tot lot, picnic areas, pedestrian walking trails, a basketball court, two (2) tennis courts,
restroom and equipment storage facilities, and on -site parking for 115 vehicles.
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 ❑ on file at the Public Works Department.
The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be
considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a
notice of the time and location is attached.
Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to
examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned.
If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the
close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from
the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these
impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness
of this document.
If you have an questions o ould like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -331 I.
c
December 21, 1999
nelael Sinacori P. . Public Works Department Date:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider
the adoption of a Negative Declaration for Bonita Canyon Park Facility Proiect on property
located at the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Road.
The proiect proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Facility- Park Protect. The
proposed park will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon
Communities. The park is divided into an eastern and western portion.
Bonita Canyon Park East is located north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road,
between Prairie Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Improvements will include three (3)
youth baseball fields, one (1) multi - purpose baseball/soccer field, three (3) Youth soccer
fields, a tot lot, pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas, restroom and equipment storage
facilities, on -site parking for 240 vehicles, and open space with undulating earth berms.
Bonita Canyon Park West is located at the southeast intersection of Bonita Canyon Road
and MacArthur Boulevard. It is located adjacent to and runs parallel to MacArthur
Boulevard, south of its intersection with Bonita Canyon Road. Improvements will include
three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot, Picnic areas, pedestrian walking trails, a basketball
court, two (2) tennis courts, restroom and equipment storage facilities, and on -site parking
for 115 vehicles.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the applications noted above.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development as proposed,
and with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, will not result in a significant
effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration 30 -day public review period is December 21, 1999 to January 21, 2000. The
City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation.
Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available
for public review and inspection at the Public Works Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659 -1768 (949) 644 -3311.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council will consider adoption of the
Negative Declaration on the 8th day of February, 2000, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California,
at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you
challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3311.
i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
NOTICE OF INTENT
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title: Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project File No.
Location: Southeast corner of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita
Canyon Road
Division/Department
Responsible for Proposed Project: Public Works Department
Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Contact Person: Michael J. Sinacori Telephone: (949) 644 -3342
• Description: The project property is located in the City of Newport Beach, in southern
Orange County. The site is situated inland from coastal Newport Beach, less than one
mile south of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard.
(Reference Exhibit A).
The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project. The
proposed park will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon
Communities. The park is divided into an eastern and western portion.
Bonita Canyon Park East will run parallel and south of Bonita Canyon Road. Prairie
Road fronts the park to the east and MacArthur Boulevard to the west. Improvements
will include three (3) youth baseball fields, one (1) multi - purpose baseball/soccer field,
three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot, pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas, restroom
and equipment storage facilities, on -site parking for 240 vehicles, and open space with
undulating earth berms. (Reference Exhibit B).
Bonita Canyon Park West will be located along the eastern frontage of MacArthur
Boulevard, from its southeast intersection with Bonita Canyon Road, to a point
approximately to 440 feet to the south. Improvements will include three (3) youth
soccer fields, a tot lot, picnic areas, pedestrian walking trails, a basketball court, two (2)
tennis courts, restroom and equipment storage facilities, and on -site parking for 115
vehicles. (Reference Exhibit Q.
•
• II. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND COMMENT PERIOD
The public review and comment period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is from
December 21, 1999 through January 21, 2000. Lead Agency must receive all written
comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration by 5:00 p.m. on January 21, 2000.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and all supporting references and technical studies
are on file and may be reviewed in the office listed above. The decision - making body
will review this document and other sources of information before considering the
proposed project.
III. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY NOTICE
The project site is not listed on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the
Government Code regarding the presence of hazardous materials and/or related
contamination.
Date: December 21, 1999
i
l�J
Page 2
BONITA CANYON PARK - EXHIBIT A
m
w
a
m
[C�
e
3
zZ
0
�O
z�
au
z2
w
i
ca
V
O
U
v
CL
R
V
W
�i
ca
a
i
S 11qzq � �
I
i
H
I
�
Ir
1
d
r
a
m
[C�
e
3
zZ
0
�O
z�
au
z2
w
i
ca
V
O
U
v
CL
R
V
W
�i
ca
a
u
s
w
avoa
'->T NOiuVgJ
if
R
F
a
I1
of
3
o=
0o w
�u f
r.
cz
0
0
U
o
a.
m
u
•
•
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for the proposed
BONITA CANYON PARK FACILITY PROJECT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Lead Agency
The City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Applicant
The City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Prepared by:
David Bartlett Associates
6082 Jade Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92674
December 21, 1999
•
is
11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: Bonita Canyon Park
2. Lead Agency
Name and Address: City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768,
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
3. Contact Person
and Phone Number: Michael J. Sinacori, P.E., (949) 644 -3342 or
Dave Bartlett, Project Consultant (714) 898 -0600
4. Project Location: Bonita Canyon Park East is located on parcels of land
north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road
between Prairie Road and MacArthur Boulevard;
Bonita Canyon Park West is located adjacent to
MacArthur Boulevard south of Bonita Canyon Road,
Newport Beach, CA
5. Project Sponsor's
Name and Address: City of Newport Beach ( Public Works Department
P.O. Box 1768 9 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Michael J. Sinacori, P.E.,
6. General Plan
Designation: Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached/Recreational Environmental
Open Space
Governmental Educational Institution Facilities
Zoning: PC
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.)
The project property is located in the City of Newport Beach, in southern Orange
County. The site is situated inland from coastal Newport Beach, less than one mile
south of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), at the southeast
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 2
corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard.
is (Reference Exhibit A).
The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project. The
proposed park will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon
Communities. The park is divided into an eastern and western portion.
Bonita Canyon Park West is located adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita
Canyon Park East is located north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road.
Both park parcels combine to provide the City of Newport Beach a dynamic and
innovative passive and active recreational feature. The park program for Bonita
Canyon Park East includes the following:
(a) Three 200 -foot youth baseball fields
(b) One multi - purpose baseball/soccer field
(c) Three youth soccer fields
(d) Two restroom and equipment storage facilities
(e) Parking on the site for 240 vehicles
(f) Tot lot
(g) Pedestrian walking trails
(h) Green open spaces with earth berms
(i) Picnic area
• The park program for Bonita Canyon Park West includes the following:
(a) Three youth soccer fields
(b) Restroom equipment and storage facilities
(c) Tot lot
(d) Picnic area
(e) Pedestrian walking trails
(f) Parking for 115 vehicles
(g) Basketball court
(h) Two tennis courts
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The project properties are located in an urbanized area of the City of Newport
Beach, in southern Orange County. The site is situated inland from coastal
Newport Beach, less than one mile south of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor (SJHTC), at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon
Road and MacArthur Boulevard. (Reference Exhibit A).
Bonita Canyon Park East is located north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon
Road, between Prairie Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Surrounding land uses
include Bonita Canyon Road, single - family residences, and the Church of Latter-
Day saints to the north. Ford Road and single- family residences are located to the
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facdo); Project
Page 3
south. The existing Pacific Bell Office Building and the proposed site for Bonita
• Canyon Park west are located to the west. A vacant parcel that is proposed for a
future church and child day center is located to the east. (Reference Exhibit B).
•
•
Bonita Canyon Park West is located at the southeast intersection of Bonita Canyon
Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is located adjacent to and runs parallel to
MacArthur Boulevard, south of its intersection with Bonita Canyon Road.
Surrounding land uses include MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Bonita Canyon
Road and the existing Pacific Bell Office Building to the north, and single - family
residences and open space to the south. Single- family residences and the proposed
site for Bonita Canyon Park East are located to the east. (Reference Exhibit Q.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.) No other public agencies are involved with the project.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 4
a°
a
s
BONITA CANYON PARK - EXHIBIT A
m
m
r—.
PMIRl£ %ROADP
ii 1tt
u
a
m
C
e
�Z
0
d
a
R
N
ca
v
V
O
U
a)
ca
u
m
G
;i
MIA .:.. ^C {%f r..
IT
21
^
:52:
r F
u
a
m
C
e
�Z
0
d
a
R
N
ca
v
V
O
U
a)
ca
u
m
G
u
z
x
a
m
a
E
3
CZ
,0 p0
rc�
<c
�r
�F
�'
K
m
f
z
G
IY�
iW
V
�i
U
N
R
V
W
I
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
• The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use Planning
❑ Population & Housing
❑ Geological Problems
Resources
❑ Water
❑ Air Quality
L J
❑ Transportation/
Circulation
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Energy & Mineral
❑ Hazards
❑ Noise
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 5
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities & Service
Systems
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Recreation
•
0
•
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑
Miq ael J.Sinaco ' P.E.
Prepared by: (Signature)
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonito Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 6
t-L— 2t —410,
Date
�zl u 149
Date
•
Environmental Checklist
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with general plan
❑
❑
■
❑
designation or zoning? ( 4 )
b)
Conflict with applicable environ-
❑
❑
❑
■
mental plans or policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? ( 1, 5, 7 )
C)
Be incompatible with existing
❑
❑
❑
■
land use in the vicinity? ( 4, 6 )
d)
Affect agricultural resources or
❑
❑
❑
■
•
operations (e.g. impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? ( 4, 6 )
e)
Disrupt or divide the physical
❑
❑
❑
■
arrangement of an established
community (including a low -
income or minority community)?
(4,5,6)
II.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official
❑
❑
❑
■
regional or local population
projections? ( 4, 6 )
b)
Induce substantial growth in an
❑
❑
❑
■
area either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)? ( 4 )
•
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita
Canyon Park facility Project
Page 7
•
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.
POPULATION AND HOUSING (coat.)
C)
Displace existing housing,
❑
❑
❑
■
especially affordable housing? ( 4 )
III.
GEOLOGIC
Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a)
Fault rupture? (1, 3, 8)
❑
❑
❑
■
b)
Seismic ground shaking? (1, 3, 8)
❑
❑
❑
■
C)
Seismic ground failure, including
❑
❑
❑
■
liquefaction? ( 1, 3, 8 )
•
d)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic
❑
❑
❑
■
hazard? ( 1,3 )
e)
Landslides or mudflows? ( 1, 3)
❑
❑
❑
■
f)
Erosion, changes in topography or
❑
❑
■
❑
unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill? ( 1, 3 )
g)
Subsidence of the land? ( 1, 3)
❑
❑
❑
■
h)
Expansive soils? ( 1, 3 )
❑
❑
❑
■
i)
Unique geologic or physical
❑
❑
❑
■
features? ( 1, 3 )
IV.
WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates,
❑
❑
❑
■
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? ( 3 )
•
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita
Canyon Park facility Project
Page 8
•
0
•
Potentially
Significant
Impact
IV.
WATER (cont.)
b)
Exposure of people or property to
❑
water related hazards such as
flooding? ( 1, 3 )
C)
Discharge into surface waters or
❑
other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(1,.3)
d)
Changes in the amount of surface
❑
water in any water body? ( 1, 3 )
e)
Changes in currents, or the course
❑
or direction of water movements?
(1,3)
f)
Change in the quantity of ground
❑
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? ( 1, 3 )
g)
Altered direction or rate of flow of
❑
groundwater? ( 1, 3 )
h)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
❑
(1,3)
i)
Substantial reduction in the
❑
amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water
supplies? ( 1, 3 )
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than No
Significant Impact
Impact
❑ ❑ ■
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 9
•
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 10
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
•
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
V.
AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a)
Violate any air quality standard or
❑
❑
❑
■
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
(3,7)
b)
Expose sensitive receptors to
❑
❑
❑
■
pollutants? ( 3, 7 )
C)
Alter air movement, moisture, or
❑
❑
❑
■
temperature, or cause any change
in climate ?( 3, 7 )
d)
Create objectionable odors? ( 3)
❑
❑
■
❑
•
VI.
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic
❑
❑
■
❑
congestion? ( 3, 4, 5 )
b)
Hazards to safety from design
❑
❑
❑
■
features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment? ( 3, 4, 5 )
C)
Inadequate emergency access or
❑
❑
❑
■
access to nearby uses? ( 3, 5 )
d)
Insufficient parking capacity on-
❑
❑
❑
■
site or off -site? ( 3, 5 )
•
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 10
•
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.
TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION (cont.)
e)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians
❑
❑
❑
■
or bicyclists? ( 3, 5 )
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies
❑
❑
❑
■
supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( 3, 5 )
g)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
❑
❑
❑
■
impacts? ( 3, 5 )
VII.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened or rare
❑
❑
■
❑
species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
(1,6)
b)
Locally designated species
❑
❑
❑
■
(e.g. heritage trees)? ( 1, 6 )
C)
Locally designated natural
❑
❑
❑
■
communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? ( I, 6 )
d)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh,
❑
❑
❑
■
riparian and vernal pool)?
(1,6)
e)
Wildlife dispersal or migration
❑
❑
❑
■
corridors? ( 1, 6 )
Negative
Declaration jor the
Proposed Bonita
Carryon Park Facility Project
Page II
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
•
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VIII.
ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy
❑
❑
❑
■
conservation plans? ( 3, 4, 5 )
b)
Use non - renewable resources in a
❑
❑
❑
■
wasteful and inefficient manner?
(3,4,5)
C)
Result in the loss of availability of
❑
❑
❑
■
a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the
state? ( 1, 3, 4, 5 )
IX.
HAZARDS
•
Would the proposal involve:
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or
❑
❑
❑
■
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ( 3 )
b)
Possible interference with an
❑
❑
❑
■
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(3)
C)
The creation of any health hazard
❑
❑
❑
■
or potential health hazard? ( 3 )
d)
Exposure of people to existing
❑
❑
❑
■
sources of potential health
hazards? ( 3 )
e)
Increased fire hazard in areas with
❑
❑
❑
■
flammable brush, grass, or trees ?( 3 )
Negative
Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 12
•
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.
NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a)
Increases in existing noise levels?
❑
❑
■
❑
(3,4,5)
b)
Exposure of people to severe
❑
❑
❑
■
noise levels? ( 3, 4, 5 )
XI.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new
or altered government services in
any of the following areas:
a)
Fire protection? ( 3, 5 )
❑
❑
❑
■
• b)
Police protection? ( 3, 5)
❑
❑
❑
■
C)
Schools? ( 4, 5 )
❑
❑
❑
■
d)
Maintenance of public facilities,
❑
❑
■
❑
including roads? ( 3, 4, 5 )
e)
Other governmental services?
❑
❑
■
❑
(3,4,5)
XII.
UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposal result in a
need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the
following utilities?
a)
Power or natural gas? ( I, 4, 5)
❑
❑
❑
■
b)
Communications systems? ( 1, 4, 5)
❑
❑
❑
■
•
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park facility Project
Page 13
•
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.
UTILITIES & SERVICE
SYSTEMS (cont.)
C)
Local or regional water treatment
❑
❑
❑
■
or distribution facilities? ( 1, 4, 5 )
d)
Sewer or septic tanks? ( 1, 4, 5)
❑
❑
■
❑
e)
Storm water drainage? ( 1, 4, 5)
❑
❑
■
❑
f)
Solid waste disposal? ( 4, 5 )
❑
❑
❑
■
g)
Local or regional water supplies?
❑
❑
❑
■
(4,5)
XIII.
AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
•
a)
Affect a scenic vista or scenic
❑
❑
❑
■
highway? ( 1,4, 5 )
b)
Have a demonstrable negative
❑
❑
❑
■
aesthetic effect? ( 1, 4, 5 )
C)
Create light or glare? ( 4, 5)
❑
❑
■
❑
d)
Affect a coastal bluff? ( 4, 5)
❑
❑
❑
■
XIV.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a)
Disturb paleontological
❑
■
❑
❑
resources? ( 1, 5 )
b)
Disturb archaeological resources?
❑
■
❑
❑
(1,5)
C)
Affect historical resources?
❑
❑
❑
■
(1,5)
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita
Carryon Park Facility Project
Page 14
•
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV.
CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.)
d)
Have the potential to cause a ❑
❑
❑
■
physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( 1, 5 )
e)
Restrict existing religious or ❑
❑
❑
■
sacred uses within the potential
impact area? ( 1, 5 )
XV.
RECREATION
Would the proposal:
a)
Increase the demand for ❑
❑
❑
■
neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? ( 4, 5 )
•
b)
Affect existing recreational ❑
❑
❑
■
opportunities? ( 4, 5 )
XVI.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A)
Does the project have the ❑
❑
❑
■
potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self - sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the
major period of California history
or prehistory?
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Carryon Park facility Project
Page l5
• Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS
OF SIGNIFICANCE (cont.)
B) Does the project have the potential ❑
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals?
C) Does the project have impacts ❑
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable
(Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and effects
of probable future projects.)
D) Does the project have environmental ❑
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
❑ ❑
0
0
0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 16
• c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the
project.
0
•
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 17
•
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Background /Project Location
The project property is located in the City of Newport Beach, in southern Orange County. The
site is situated inland from coastal Newport Beach, less than one mile south of the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bonita
Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. (Reference Exhibit A).
As noted previously, The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Parks East and
West. The proposed parks will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon
Communities. The parks are divided into an eastern and western portion.
Bonita Canyon Park East will run parallel and south of Bonita Canyon Road. Prairie Road fronts
the Park East site to the east and MacArthur Boulevard to the west. Bonita Canyon Park East
will include three (3) youth baseball fields, one (1) multi - purpose baseball /soccer field, three (3)
youth soccer fields, a tot lot, pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas, restroom and equipment
storage facilities, on -site parking for 240 vehicles, and open space with undulating berms.
(Reference Exhibit B).
Bonita Canyon Park West will be located along the eastern frontage of MacArthur Boulevard,
from its southeast intersection with Bonita Canyon Road, to a point approximately to 440 feet to
• the south. Improvements to Bonita Canyon Park West will include three (3) youth soccer fields,
a small skateboard course, a tot lot, picnic areas, pedestrian walking trails, a basketball court, two
(2) tennis courts, restroom and equipment storage facilities, and on -site parking for 115 vehicles.
(Reference Exhibit Q.
C,
J
Negative Declaration for die
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Projecr
Page 18
SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES
• Identification of Environmental Effects
The following analysis reflects the findings contained in the preceding Environmental Checklist.
I. Land Use and Planning
a) Would the proposal conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Less than Significant Impact; The proposed project site is surrounded by an
established residential neighborhood. The Newport General Plan has designated
the Bonita Canyon Park East project area between Mesa View Road and Prairie
Road as Governmental Educational Institution Facilities. The proposed Bonita
Canyon Park East project site that runs east and west between Bonita Canyon
Road and Ford Road, between Mesa Road to the east and the proposed Bonita
Canyon Park West site to the west, has a Single - Family Attached and
Recreational Environmental Open Space designation. Bonita Canyon Park West
which will be located along the eastern frontage of MacArthur Boulevard, from
its southeast intersection with Bonita Canyon Road, to a point approximately to
440 feet to the south, has a Single Family Detached designation within the
General Plan.
• The zoning designation for the entire subject property is Planned Community
District. The proposed project and related improvements do not conflict with
either the adopted land use designations or zoning in that the community park
facility will be integrally related to the population and surrounding uses it is
intended to serve.
•
b) Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
No Impact: The site is located within the South Coast Air Basin under the
jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The contractor selected to undertake the sewer
facilities improvements will comply with the AQMD's regional air quality
planning goals and with specific regulations of the 1994 Air Quality Management
Plan that apply to such construction projects. Under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the Regional Water Quality Control
Board will require that the project site obtain coverage under the City's General
Construction Permit for stormwater discharge. No other agencies have
jurisdiction over the project; therefore, no policy impacts will result.
C) Would the proposal be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
No Impact: The land in question is designated open space within an established
community. As indicate in (1a) above, the neighborhood surrounding the project
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita C rayon Park Farihi i, Project
Page 19
is comprised of residential development that will ultimately benefit project
• implementation. During construction improvement, however, the residents in the
affected neighborhood will be subject to short-term, construction related effects
(e.g., increases in noise and air quality, construction- related traffic, etc.); these
impacts are short-term in duration and considered nuisances rather than
significant impacts associated with land use compatibility.
d) Would the proposal affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses?
No Impact: The proposed project area is located in an developed area. No
agricultural activities exist on the project site. Project implementation will not
affect either agricultural resources or operations.
C) Would the proposal disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low- income or minority community)?
No Impact: The project site is designated open space within an established
community. The project will not change the physical arrangement of the
community, but rather result in the replacement of a portion of a passive open
space area with an active recreational area. There is no possibility that the project
could disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.
• II. Population and Housing
C�
a) Would the proposal cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
No Impact: The proposed project is a park. It does not include any element
that would increase employment or housing in the area and thus increase the
population of the area.
b) Would the proposal induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)?
No Impact: The project is an active community park facility designed to serve
the existing population. It would not induce growth in the area.
C) Would the proposal displace existing housing especially affordable housing?
No Impact: The project site is designated "Open Space" in the General Plan
and is currently vacant. There is no existing housing on the site and none is
planned for the site. None of the related construction activities for the park will
result in the displacement of existing housing, including affordable housing.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Cmq-on Park Facility Project
Page 20
t[I. Geophysical
• a) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
fault rupture?
No Impact: According to the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan, the only active fault zone to occur within the City limits is the
Newport Inglewood structural zone. Although surface faulting does not appear to
be a potential hazard within the areas where the improvements are proposed, the
Newport- Inglewood structural zone is seismically active and is capable of
producing a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. It is not likely that the proposed park
improvements will be adversely affected as a result of fault rupture. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
b) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seismic ground shaking?
No Impact: As noted previously, the site is proposed an active recreational area
and related facilities. The project site is located within the Newport Inglewood
Fault Zone and would, therefore, be subject to the seismic shaking effects of
activity along that zone. The Public Safety Element categorizes the project area
as one of moderate ground shaking potential (i.e., Category 3) and unadvisable for
the location of critical facilities. The proposed active recreation park area and
• related facilities are not critical facilities but will be designed in accordance with
applicable criteria and standards for such facilities.
C) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact: Although the area is subject to potential moderate ground shaking
from earthquakes occurring with region, the potential impacts associated with
ground shaking are considered less than significant. The General Plan does not
identify any ground shaking or liquefaction potential for the site. No geologic,
seismic or flooding constraints for the project site are identified on the General
Plan.
d) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
No Impact: The proposed project does not have a significant potential to
subject persons or property to seismically induced seiche or tsunami. Although
the subject property is located approximately two miles east of Upper Newport
Bay, the project site's elevation, as well as various topographic and structural
impedances would restrict the movement of seismically- induced water movement.
Although not impossible, the potential for flooding by seiche or tsunami is highly
. improbable given the history of such occurrences in the City. No volcanic
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facilily Project
Page 2 /
hazards are present in the City or the region.
• e) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
landslides or mudflows?
No Impact:: The Public Safety Element indicates that the project site is not
comprised of any natural or manmade slopes having the potential for failure or
mudslide in the event of seismic activity or other triggering mechanism, such as
rainfall. The project would not increase the potential of landslide or mudslide.
Therefore, no significant impacts will result from site development.
f) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill?
Less than Significant Impact: During construction of the proposed park
and related facilities, excavation and grading will be required. Although only a
temporary impact, the erosion potential will increase in the winter months (i.e.,
southern California's wet season) should construction occur at that time.
Ultimately, the site will be landscaped and no exposed earth surfaces will exist
on -site. Structures, asphalt, and landscaping will prevent soil erosion from wind
and rainfall. All grading activity would be in accordance with the City
Excavation and Grading Code and thus any impacts would be reduced to an
insignificant level.
g) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
subsidence of land?
No Impact: The Public Safety Element states that no areas of significant
subsidence potential were identified in Newport Beach during a city -wide
geological assessment. Ground subsidence is not anticipated as a result of project
implementation.
h) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
expansive soils?
No Impact: The project area and the surrounding properties are identified in
the Public Safety Element as being in a zone where possible moderately too
highly expansive soils are unlikely (i.e., Category 3). The soils into which the
proposed park and related facilities will be laid will be adequately prepared to
ensure that any potential subsidence will not affect those facilities.
i) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
unique geologic or physical features?
. Less Than Significant Impact: As Indicated on the USGS 7.5- minute
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Cagpott Park Facility Project
Page ?2
Laguna Beach quadrangle, no unique geologic or physical features exist in the
. project area. With only minor, temporary alterations to the site's topography
resulting from site construction, no impacts to unique geologic features will
occur.
IV. Water
a) Would the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or in the rate and amount of surface runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed park and
related walkways, and parking areas will introduce impermeable surfaces to the
project properties. The asphalt paving and walkways will decrease absorption
rates and increase the rate of surface runoff into an existing partially channeled
natural drainage channel on the north part of the site adjacent to Bonita Canyon
Road. However, implementation of the proposed project will result in similar
runoff volumes as were experienced during the sites' undeveloped status. On -site
storm drain facilities subject to review by the City Engineer will be included in
the project design and will ensure that runoff quantities are maintained at levels
that will not exceed the design capacities of off -site flood control facilities.
b) Would the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
• No Impact: The project area is not located in an area that is subject to potential
flood hazards. Further, project implementation will not result in exposing
existing residents and/or property, including the proposed park and related
facilities, to flooding.
•
C) Would the proposal result in discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
Less than Significant Impact: Drainage from paved surfaces will occur as sheet
flows and be directed into existing streets until its ultimate discharge into the
City's storm drain system. Development of the property could result in additional
surface water runoff and an increase in the amount of urban pollutants that enter
the storm drainage system. Because the site is located in an urbanized area, these
storm flows will not be discharged directly into surface waters and will not result
in significant impacts to water quality. Further, the project will be required to
comply with applicable construction activity and long -term NPDES permit
requirements through the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) for urban runoff pollutants. The WQMP will implement all applicable
Best Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in the Countywide NPDES
Drainage Area management Plan to ensure that potential adverse effects on water
quality are minimized.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Coal on Park Facility Project
Page 23
• d) Would the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
No Impact: Project implementation will not significantly change the amount of
surface water in any water body. The additional impervious surfaces or other
similar features that are proposed would not result in a significant increase in
surface runoff.
e) Would the proposal result in changes in currents, or the watercourse or
direction of water movements?
No Impact: The proposed project is a park and related facilities with significant
landscaping, as such, the surface runoff into an existing partially channeled
natural drainage channel on the north part of the site adjacent to Bonita Canyon
Road would not be significantly affected by project implementation. The site will
be graded to generally maintain predevelopment drainage patterns. Post -
development storm runoff will continue to drain toward adjacent street gutters and
inlet structures. The project site is not in the immediate proximity of any surface
water bodies and no changes in currents or the course or direction of water
movements will occur.
f) Would the proposal result in change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability?
No Impact: Extensive landscaping of the proposed park will allow for
groundwater recharge in the unpaved areas of the project site.
g) Would the proposal result in altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
No Impact: No groundwater resources will be affected. Therefore, the direction
or rate of flow of groundwater will not be affected by project implementation.
h) Would the proposal result in impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact: As indicated in IV(g), impacts to groundwater will not occur.
Therefore, no impacts to groundwater quality are anticipated.
i) Would the proposal result in substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?
No Impact: Because the project will not result in additional demands for water
. resources, particularly those satisfied from groundwater supplies, no impacts to
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canpon Park Facility Project
Page 24
groundwater supplies are anticipated.
is V. Air Quality
a) Would the proposal violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
No Impact: The greatest potential for fugitive dust generation is during grading
and excavation of the site. In addition to fugitive dust emissions, equipment
exhaust will be released during temporary excavation activities and mobile source
emissions from generated by workers commuting to the construction site. These
short-term construction- related impacts, although not considered significant, may
be a nuisance to nearby residents. However, dust will be minimized as a result of
site watering required by City and Air Quality Management District regulations.
Once construction and operation of the park facilities are completed, no air
quality impacts are anticipated.
b) Would the proposal expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
No Impact: As indicated in VI(a) and VI(d), construction and installation
activities may result in the generation of fugitive dust and emissions from vehicles
and construction equipment. Although these emissions may be considered a
nuisance to residents who may be sensitive to exhaust emissions, odors, and dust,
• they will continue only through installation of the park facilities and will not
constitute a significant impact to sensitive receptors.
C) Would the proposal alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
No Impact: The proposed construction and installation of the proposed park
facilities to serve the existing neighborhood will not result in the alteration of air
movement, moisture, or temperature of cause any change in climate. The
excavation and installation operations are short-term in nature and will not have
any affect on climatic conditions.
d) Would the proposal create objectionable odors?
Less than Significant Impact: During allowable construction work hours,
various types of construction equipment necessary to undertake grading,
excavation and installation of the park structures and related facilities will be
used. Most of the construction equipment will be diesel powered. The emissions
from most of the equipment will cause a diesel odor that may be noticeable during
working hours within the immediate construction site. This may create
objectionable odors and emissions during the short-term construction period. Any
perceptible impacts from individual construction activity exhaust will be confined
. to occasional whiffs of characteristic diesel exhaust odor, but not in sufficient
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Fac&4: Project
Page 25
• concentrations to expose any nearby receptors to air pollution levels above
acceptable standards. These odors, which are not considered to be significant,
will cease after completion of construction. After completion, the public park
would not generate objectionable odors.
VI. Transportation /Circulation
a) Would the proposal result in impacts to increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
Less Than Significant Impact: The project would generate vehicle trips within
the City of Newport Beach and increase traffic in the project area during sporting
activities. However, the project may reduce regional vehicle trips because the
residents of Harbor View and Bonita Canyon Communities will no longer have to
travel outside their communities for usage of recreational facilities.
b) Would the proposal result in impacts to hazards to safety from design
features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or from incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
No Impact: In order to ensure the safety of park patrons and surrounding
residents crossing Bonita Canyon Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and existing local
streets, safety measures such as crosswalks, traffic signals and other safety
devices will be installed.
C) Would the proposal result in impacts to inadequate emergency access or
access to nearby uses?
No Impact: The project has direct emergency access to MacArthur Boulevard,
Bonita Canyon Road, Ford Road, as well as existing local streets. Construction
activities associated with project implementation may result in the loss of access
to existing residences in the project area. Although this potential loss of access is
temporary in nature (i.e., construction- related), it will be the source of a constant
nuisance and inconvenience. As such, it must be addressed in a construction -
staging plan to ensure that access to each residence can be maintained.
d) Would the proposal result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
No Impact: Upon completion of the project, 355 on -site parking spaces will be
provided.
e) Would the proposal result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian and
bicyclists?
No Impact: There is a potential hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists during
• construction activities. However, this is a short-term impact that is not considered
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Can) on Park facility Project
Page 26
to be significant and will cease after completion of the project. Upon completion
• of the project, a pedestrian trail linkage to neighboring parkland as well as Bonita
Canyon and Newport Center will be completed.
Would the proposal result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle ranks)?
No Impact: Implementation of the proposed public improvement project does
not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation.
Additionally, bike pathways currently exist along Bonita Canyon Road and
MacArthur Boulevard.
g) Would the proposal result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
No Impact: The construction and installation of the park and related facilities
will not affect either rail, waterbome or air traffic facilities. The project site is not
near any rail, waterbome or air traffic facility or function. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated.
VII. Biological Resources
a) Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
• animals, and birds)?
No Impact: The project area, including the surrounding neighborhood, is
developed. Impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
were previously mitigated as required by the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Planning Area 26 (Bonita Canyon) Zone Change and subsequent
development.
b) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g.
heritage trees)?
No Impact: The project site is free of any heritage trees. Therefore, no
significant impacts to heritage trees will occur.
C) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated natural
communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
No Impact: Impacts to locally designated natural communities were previously
mitigated as required by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Planning
Area 26 (Bonita Canyon) Zone Change and subsequent development.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 2 7
d) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally wetland habitat (e.g. marsh,
• riparian and vernal pool)?
No Impact: The project site is free of wetland habitat. Therefore, no
significant impacts to heritage trees will occur.
e) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally wildlife dispersal or
migration corridors?
No Impact: Impacts to locally wildlife dispersal or migration corridors were
previously mitigated as required by the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Planning Area 26 (Bonita Canyon) Zone Change and subsequent
development.
VIII. Energy & Mineral Resources
a) Would the proposal conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
No Impact: Project implementation will not conflict with any adopted energy
conservation plans or policies. No impacts are anticipated.
b) Would the proposal use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
No Impact: All energy requirements associated with project implementation
will occur during construction and will not significantly impact energy resources.
No impacts are anticipated.
C) Would the proposal result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the
state?
No Impact: The proposed park and related facilities project does not affect any
existing mineral resource. Therefore, project implementation will not result in the
loss of availability of a known regionally significant mineral resource. No
impacts are anticipated.
IX. Hazards
a) Would the proposal involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation)?
No Impact: The project would not use hazardous substances other than
pesticides and herbicides associated with maintenance of the park facility. These
. substances will not be stored on site and will he used in a manner consistent with
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Can) on Park Facifiro Project
Page 28
• normal park landscaping practices.
b) Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: MacArthur Boulevard is identified as major evacuation routes in
the City of Newport Beach. Project implementation will not pose any impacts to
the utilization of these and other routes identified in the City's Public Safety
Element. No significant impacts are anticipated.
C) Would the proposal involve the creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
No Impact: The proposed project is a park and related facilities to serve the
surrounding residents and the City of Newport Beach. Aside from construction
activities, which may constitute a nuisance, no health hazards or potential health
hazards will be created if the project is implemented.
d) Would the proposal involve exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
No Impact: The proposed project is a park and related facilities to serve the
existing surrounding residents and the City of Newport Beach. Aside from
• construction activities that may constitute a nuisance, no health hazards or
potential health hazards will be created if the project is implemented. No
significant potential hazards currently exist in that neighborhood and/or have been
identified in the Newport Beach.
e) Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
No Impact: The project area is developed with single - family residential
development. The project area will be characterized by landscaping common to
park development and related sports facilities. Additionally, the construction of
the park and the related irrigation and landscaping would reduce the fire hazard
potential on the site. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with increased
fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees will occur.
X. Noise
a) Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: The construction and operation of the
proposed park would create noise and increase existing noise levels. However,
noise exposure levels are not anticipated to be severe, given the nature of the
. noise to be created and the separation of the park and existing residential uses.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 29
• However, to abate any potential nuisances from construction noise, the City's
Municipal Code (Section 10.28.040) limits the hours of construction and
excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6;30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. The City will ensure
that construction time limits are enforced for the duration of construction activity
on the project site.
Players and spectators associated with the play field at the park will generate
noise during the day and evening hours. Distance and tree and shrub massing to
improve land use compatibility will attenuate some of this noise. The City will
enforce the operational hours of the park and related recreational activities.
b) Would the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
No Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed park would create
noise and increase existing noise levels and this may expose nearby residents to
unacceptable noise levels. Construction equipment generates noise levels in the
range of 60 to 90 dBA. The ambient noise levels currently are typical of those in
quiet residential areas (i.e., approximately 60 dBA Leq). The introduction of
construction in this area will expose residents of the area to intermittently higher
noise levels, including those, which approach 90 dBA, depending on the type of
equipment used during construction. Although the increase in noise in the project
area will be greater than that which currently exists, it will be temporary in nature
• and cease upon completion of the project.
Xl. Public Services
a) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in fire protection?
No Impact: Project implementation will not result in any adverse impacts to
fire protection. Once construction of the facilities is completed, no impacts to fire
services are anticipated.
b) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in police protection?
No Impact: The project does not propose development that would affect the
existing level of police protection. Once construction of the facilities is complete,
no impacts to police services are anticipated.
C) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in schools?
No Impact: The project does not propose development that would affect
• existing school facilities. As previously indicated, no growth- inducing impacts
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita C'ani-on Park Facility Project
Page 30
Will occur as the proposed project is intended to serve existing development in an
. urbanized area of the City. No new development is anticipated as a result of
project implementation that would result in the generation of new students.
Therefore, no impacts to school facilities are anticipated.
d) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
Less than Significant Impact: No significant impacts to existing roadways
are anticipated as the Public Works Department currently maintains all public
roadways within the City of Newport Beach.
The City will need to address potential impacts related to the need for additional
field maintenance personnel from it General Fund.
C) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in other governmental services?
Less than Significant. The project will require approval of Regional Water
Quality Control Board. No impacts are anticipated. No other governmental
services will be affected by project implementation.
• XII. Utilities & Service Systems
a) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to power or natural gas.
No Impact: SCE Company is required by law to provide service to any
development within its legally defined service area- No need for new systems or
substantial alteration of the existing system Is foreseen. Park demand for natural
gas is anticipated to be little or none.
b) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to communications systems?
No Impact: The telephone company provides service to residential
developments adjacent to the project site, No need for new systems or substantial
alteration to the existing system is foreseen.
C) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment distribution
facilities?
No Impact: The project would not have any impact on local or regional water
treatment or distribution facilities. An existing water main runs along Bonita
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 3 l
•
•
11
Canyon Road. The project would not have any impact on local or regional water
treatment or distribution facilities.
d) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to sewer or septic tanks?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Newport Beach Utilities
Department provides wastewater collection services for the project area. The
City's Engineer will estimate the sewage flow generation expected of the
proposed project and calculate facility sizing within the park site. It is anticipate
that the existing system will be adequate to provide sewer service to the project
site. The City will be required to provide written verification from the Orange
County Sanitation District that adequate wastewater treatment capacity is
available to serve the project.
e) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to storm water drainage?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will result in the
introduction of hardscape onto the project site that will result in an increase in
runoff. The landscaping which will be included in the project design may
partially absorb this runoff. The grading of the site may result in some limited
changes in drainage patterns, however, the grading will be designed in keeping
with the sprit of the existing topography, which will limit the amount of change in
drainage patterns. The project will be served by existing catch basins that feed
into the City's lateral storm drain lines and ultimately into Upper Newport Bay.
I) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to solid waste disposal?
No Impact: The proposed park is not anticipated to result in significant impacts
related to solid waste.
g) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies?
No Impact: The proposed park is not anticipated to result in significant impacts
related to regional water supplies.
XIII. Aesthetics
a) Would the proposal affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
No Impact: There is no designated scenic vista or scenic highway in the project
vicinity.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Can) on Park Facility Project
Page 32
b) Would the proposal have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
• No Impact: Existing views from surrounding residential areas are already and
will continue to be partially screened by vegetation and landscaping. The changes
in background views from these residential areas will not be substantial because
of the distance the site is viewed from, the existing developed character of the
surrounding land uses and the screening benefits from introduced landscaping.
Additionally, temporary visual impacts of construction activities would effect
foreground views from existing residences adjacent to the site along MacArthur
Boulevard and Ford Road. The temporary construction activities would include
grading and berming, installation of recreational elements, and landscape
construction. These construction impacts will be short term and temporary and
are not considered significant.
C) Would the proposal create light or glare?
Less than Significant Impact: New light sources will be created with the
addition of parking lighting, and night lighting for recreation uses such as ball
fields and basketball and tennis courts. These new light sources would be of
similar intensity to existing light sources in the adjacent developed areas in the
City. Therefore, these additional sources of lighting are not anticipated to result
in significant adverse impacts on adjacent land uses although they will represent
new sources of light in this area. Outdoor lighting and fixtures will be designed
• and located so that all direct rays from the lights are contained within the project
area and adjacent residential areas are protected from spillover light and glare.
d) Would the proposal affect a coastal bluff?
No Impact: The subject property is not located near a coastal bluff.
XIV. Cultural Resources
a) Would the proposal disturb paleontological resources?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: Although no surface
paleontological resources have been identified on the project area, highly
sensitive rock unit are present subsurface on the property. These units are likely
to yield fossil materials.
Mitigation Measure No. 1: Prior to the issuance a preliminary or precise grading
permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth,
the applicant shall provide a letter from a paleontologist. The letter shall state that
this individual has been retained by the City of Newport Beach, and that the
consultant will be on call during all grading and other significant ground
disturbing activities.. The consultant shall be selected from the role of qualified
• paleontologists maintained by the County of Orange Environmental Management
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Ronita Canyon Park Facilill Project
Page 33
Agency. The paleontologist shall meet with Community Development staff, and
shall submit written recommendations specifying procedures for
cultural /scientific resource surveillance. These recommendations shall have been
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of the grading permit and prior to any surface disturbance on the project
site. Should any cultural /scientific resources be discovered, no further grading
shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director if Community
Development is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these
resources.
b) Would the proposal disturb archaeological resources?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: A very important
archaeological site may exist within the project boundary. That site CA- Ora -209,
was previously tested and determined eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places.
Mitigation Measure No. 2: Prior to the issuance a preliminary or precise grading
permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth,
the applicant shall provide a letter from a archaeologist. The letter shall state that
this individual has been retained by the City of Newport Beach, and that the
consultant will be on call during all grading and other significant ground
disturbing activities.. The consultant shall be selected from the role of qualified
archaeologist maintained by the County of Orange Environmental Management
Agency. The archaeologist shall meet with Community Development staff, and
shall submit written recommendations specifying procedures for
cultural /scientific resource surveillance. These recommendations shall have been
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of the grading permit and prior to any surface disturbance on the project
site. Should any cultural /scientific resources be discovered, no further grading
shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director if Community
Development is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these
resources.
C) Would the proposal affect historical resources?
No Impact: The previous 1996 Planning Area 26 Final Environmental Impact
Report listed existing historic sites in and adjacent to PA 26, a description of each
site, its importance and the future status of the site. None of the historic sites
were identified on the project site.
d) Would the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change that would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
No'Impact: The site does not currently possess unique ethnic cultural resources
• and is not considered culturally significant. There is no indication that either the
Negative Declaration for dhe
Proposed Bonita Cam) on Park Faciltry Project
Page 34
• subject property or the adjacent properties are considered to have unique ethnic
cultural value. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to ethnic cultural
resources if the proposed project is implemented.
e) Would the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
No Impact: Improvement of the property for the proposed park facility will not
result in the restriction of any current sacred or religious uses. There is no
indication of such cultural value associated with the subject property. Therefore,
no significant impacts will occur.
XV. Recreation
a) Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
No Impact: Bonita Canyon Park will provide much needed park and open
space to the residents of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts will
occur.
b) Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities?
• No Impact: The addition of a new park facility will not have a significant
impact on existing recreational opportunities.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Can Pon Park Facill{P Project
Page 35
• SECTION 4: LIST OF REFERENCS
The public may request City assistance in obtaining and/or reviewing any of the documents
referenced below. The documents listed below are on file with the City of Newport Beach and
may be reviewed or obtained by contacting:
City of Newport Beach
Public Work Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Michael J. Sinacori, P.E., (949) 644 -3342
1. City of Irvine. Planning Area 26 (Bonita Canyon Zone Change) Final Environmental
Impact Report and Supporting Documentation (May 1996).
2. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Noise Element (Amended 1987).
3. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Public Safety Element (Amended 1975).
4. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Land Use Element (Amended 1994).
• 5. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element.
Other sources of information have also been used in the preparation of this environmental
analysis. Additional written correspondence not cited in this document is also available for
review. The resources listed below may be reviewed by contacting:
D. Bartlett Associates
Attn. Dave Bartlett
6082 Jade Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92674
(714) 898 -0600
6. Personal Site Observation. 15 and 22 May, 1999.
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993.
8. US Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Map Series. Newport Beach and Tustin Quadrangles.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project
Page 36
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGAM
• for the proposed
BONITA CANYON PARK FACILITY PROJECT
•
r�
Mitigation Measures
Trigger (T) and
Implementation (1)
City Dept. or Other
Agencies for
Review /Approval
Cultural Resources
CR - 1 /CR -2 The City will prepare written
T: Grading Permit
Director of Community
recommendations specifying procedure for
I: Grading Permit
Development
paleontological and archaeological
resources surveillance during ground
disturbing activities.These procedures will
includeidentification of the need for pre -
disturbance surveys and data /resource
recovery, monitoring during ground
disturbing activities and procedures to
address handling of previously unknown
resources during ground disturbing activities.
Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Bonita Carryon Park Facility Project
Page 37
Harbor View Homes
Home Owner's Association
Board of Directors
January 16, 2000
Mr. Mike Sinacori
Mr. Don Webb
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Ca 92658
Mr. Sinacori and Mr. Webb:
My name is Mark Zucker and I am writing to you as the President of the Board of the Harbor View Home
Owner's Association. Our Board has been kept informed of the ongoing planning and development of the Bonita Canyon
Sports Park by several of our homeowners. We all greatly appreciate your allowing us to actively participate in the
planning process.
Attached are letters that I have received from some of our residents whose homes back to MacArthur Blvd. and
the new West Park area. They have expressed to me their concerns about the noise and have offered some suggestions
about possible mitigation. They believe that by raising the height of the berm as well as leveling it, that the amount of
noise coming off MacArthur could be lessened. They have also presented me with concerns about a lack of privacy
which may result from the grade level of the park being higher than their backyards thus allowing visibility from the park
into their yards.
We would greatly appreciate any measures the city could take to help satisfy the concerns of these residents. It
would appear upon my personal inspection of the park as currently graded, that the berm could be raised if there was
enough dirt available without sacrificing the park's playing field areas. Perhaps, as was suggested in some of the letters,
the field grade level could be reduced and that dirt could be reused to increase the berm height. Not knowing the
architectural considerations that you must review, we are asking for your expertise as to the best possible way to help
address our concerns. I think we are all realistic enough to know that you cannot eliminate all the road noise or protect
the residents from park goers who are determined to peek into thew yards. But your attention to these issues now will
certainly provide a significant benefit to our residents for the future.
It appears that your intent is to present the final plans to the City Council for approval at the February 8"
meeting. We were also told that you have offered to meet with the residents at the site to discuss any possible mitigation
measures. If you are able to satisfy those residents that have expressed concern to us prior to the February 8'" meeting,
then we will gladly offer our total support to this wonderful project at the February 8th City Council meeting.
Thank you so much for your attention to this matter,
Harbor View Homeowner's Association
CAhvhoaUwnitapk.doc
E- C.E!V°ir:j
JAN 19 79
Fi18UC VWO KS
NEWPORT BEACH, CW .�.�.
NVYNN & ASSOCIATES
1601 DOVE STREET
SUITE 1 I
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
ROBERT L. WYNN
MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
Mr. Mark Zucker,
Harbor View Home
Newport Beach, CA
Dear Mr. Zucker:
(949) 752 -6923
(949) 644 -8576
FAX(949)833 -1810
President January 12, 2000
Owners Association
The City of Newport Beach has just completed the
plans and specifications for the proposed Bonita
Canyon Sports Park and Don Webb and Mike Sinacori
were kind enough to give me a copy of the grading sheets
for the Park. After reviewing the plans I believe the
Park will be a areat asset for the City and our sub-
division. After a two hour meeting with my neighbors
to explain my understanding of the grading plans and
Park with the constrained budget it was the unanimous
opinion to request the City to review the possibility
of raising the berm adjacent to MacArthur another
two to three feet. A higher berm next to MacArthur
will provide sound attenuation. MacArthur is receiving
higher volumns of traffic each year and the car noise
is bothersome especially during the night time hours.
I have double pained all of my windows facing MacArthur
and the noise is still bothersome. Also, it was
suggested that the soccer field elevations be lowered
two to three feet and this may provide the dirt needed
to raise the berm at MacArthur. The soccer fields
are two to three feet higher than the elevation of my rear
yard which will make it easier for people at the soccer
fields to view my rear yard and give me less privacy.
I believe this grading and fill (berm) can be done at
little additional cost at this time and it would be
applauded by all of my neighbors. Hopefully the
Association can understand this concern and support
this relative small change and cost to make the park
even better than now planned. I know all my block
neighbors would support and be happy with the change.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Wy n
1617 Port Ab ey P1.
0
January 14, 2000
Mr. Mark Zucker
Harbor View Home Owner's Association
Re: Bonita Canyon Sports Park, West Park Area
Dear Mark:
We are requesting the support and assistance of the Homeowner's Board on one final aspect of
the design for the new Bonita Canyon Sports Park in the West Area.
As you know, the folks on the PB &R Commission as well as those in the Public Works
Department have allowed us generous access into their design process. They have graciously
accepted our input and have incorporated many of our suggestions into the design of the park.
The park will be, without question, a rich asset to our city and will be used extensively by the
residents of Harbor View Homes. However, there is one aspect relative to noise and privacy we
would like you to address with the park's planners.
The city recently provided us with a copy of the grading plans for the West Park Area. After a
review of the plans in a neighborhood meeting, the residents whose homes back up to MacArthur
feel strongly that the berm, as drawn on the plans, does not provide sufficient sound protection
from MacArthur Boulevard. We would like the city to investigate the possibility of increasing the
height of the berm as well as eliminating any openings or low spots in the bens.
As you know, these homes were built over 30 years ago. They were not built to withstand the
levels of noise now generated from MacArthur Boulevard. The windows in these homes are old
aluminum framed and single pane. The homes have only minimal insulation to meet the code of
30 years ago. The rear property walls range from only 4-6 feet high and provide minimal, if any,
sound attenuation. Since the widening project was completed this past year, MacArthur
Boulevard has 50% more lanes and is closer to the homes than before. The noise from the traffic
comes in very loud waves as cars travel at 60 MPH in all 6 lanes in both directions during the
morning and evening rush hours. With the incredible amount of new development happening all
around this immediate area, we only expect this problem to worsen.
At this time, only the residents who are affected by the noise are asking for this additional
mitigation. However, we believe that once the park is built and our kid's sports practices and
games begin on the field, many more people will become concerned about the noise level if the
city doesn't address the problem. It is too loud at this time, to comfortably sit through an hour of
soccer practice at 5pm in the afternoon. Coaches will have to yell to be heard. We believe the
additional noise mitigation effort will help to make this park an enjoyable place to spend time.
The public review period for this project expires on January 21, 2000 and the park plans as they
currently exist, will go before the City Council for approval on February 8, 2000. We request that
you act promptly in communicating our concerns to the city so as not to cause any delays in the
park's approval process.
Respecfully submitted
p a d Nancy Greene
1701 ort Abbey Place
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
January 12, 2000
Mark Zucker, President
Harbor View Home Owners Association
RE: Bonita Canyon Sports Park — West Park Area
Dear Mark:
As the owners of 1700 Port Sheffield Place, we have been closely following the plans for
the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, especially the plans for the West Park Area located
directly behind our home. While we strongly support the overall concept of the Bonita
Canyon Park and look forward to the added benefits it will bring to our family and to the
entire community, we would like to suggest a slight variation to the proposed grading and
elevation of the West Park Area.
Until we had the opportunity to review the grading plans, dated January 4, 2000, we were
under the impression that the grading for the park would create a sound barrier berm
along MacArthur Blvd and would reduce the elevation of the park so that our backyard
would not clearly visible from the park. The proposed park grading, according to the Jan
4`h plans, however, leaves the playing fields exposed to the noise and pollution from
MacArthur Blvd traffic and leaves our backyard fully- exposed the park's higher
elevation. We propose a simple solution that will maintain the security and privacy of the
adjacent Harbor View backyards while improving the atmosphere of the park.
We suggest additional grading to lower the park elevation to a level approximately equal
to the elevation of backyards of the Harbor View homes backing up to the park. The
excavated dirt from this additional grading can be used to build a sound reduction berm
along MacArthur Blvd.
As our Home Owners Association President, please present our suggested improvement
to the City of Newport Beach as soon as possible so that city staff can consider this
adjustment to the grading plan prior to the February 8`" city council hearing.
Very truly yours:
Jim and Jean B an
1700 Port She field Place
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 759 -8590
The Wilson Family
January 17, 2000
Mr. Mark Zucker
President
Harbor View Homeowner's Association
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mark:
1 am writing as one of the residents of the homes along the outer edge of Harbor View
adjacent to the proposed plan for soccer fields and a sports complex at the comer of
MacArthur Blvd and Bonita Canyon. Though generally supportive of the plan, I am very
concerned about one critical aspect. As you know, and 1 am hopeful the Newport Beach
City Council will become well aware, the widening of MacArthur Blvd. and the new
development in the immediate area has greatly increased the incidence of increased
traffic and consequently the noise level. In the three years that we have been here we
have witnessed this first hand.
Because of the widening of MacArthur, we are now closer to the traffic than we had
been. Anyone, who has ventured out into the field as I have with my children many
times, knows that at times the noise level can be deafening, 1 am very concerned that the
quiet enjoyment of the soccer fields and sports complex will be severely compromised
unless something is done to address the noise.
As a city and community asset, this sports complex is an inspired idea and 1 commend the
City Council for approving its plans and funding. However, it would be a shame to lose
completely neighbor support because of a failure to address an eminently solvable design
flaw. All that is needed is some more dirt.
soots clearly visible be filled -in. At those points where the berm dips and traffic can be
seen, the noise screams right through to the houses. It is even louder standing where the
soccer fields will be.
Mark, I appreciate your carrying this message to the City Council for us all. I do not see
why they should object to a little attention to detail that will mean the difference between
a very successful city project and one that is, well, opposed. Please let me know what
type of response you get to our request so that we can organize for the February 8
meeting should we need to.
Best Regards,
Craig A ilson
1621 Pori Abbey Place • Ne wporl Beach • CA 92660
,'�,
}mow !3, Z op0
�'� -..rte ✓��.�.� �� - "�, � �� � . �.�_f -- �u� Lim °�--�-
January 14, 2000
Mr. Mark Zucker, President
Harbor View Home Owner's Association
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: The raising of the berm adjacent to MacArthur Road, 2 to 3 feet
(Bonita Canyon Park -West Park Area)
Dear Mr. Mark Zucker,
Greetings. I am a homeowner writing to express my concern over plans pertaining
to the proposed grading of Bonita Canyon Sports Park. As plans for a new Sports Park
have commenced, the initial grading sheets for the park present a situation with two
inevitable results: an increase in road noise and a decrease in privacy.
The noise increase will create an unnecessary burden to all residents who live
near MacArthur road, especially those who live directly behind the park. Secondly, the
decrease in privacy may lead to undesirable consequences, including more disturbances
from vagrants, delinquents, and perhaps criminals.
My home is located directly behind the land being used for the new Bonita
Canyon Sports Park. In the past I have had juveniles throw oranges at my home `just for
kicks ". An increased exposure of my house to the public will encourage more of this
reckless behavior. Consequently, there will be an increase in the liability of the property,
to myself, the Association, and the City of Newport Beach.
Upon consideration of these facts, I strongly believe that the raising of the berm
adjacent to MacArthur Road to 2 to 3 feet would be the most appropriate action to take.
The raised berm will decrease the noise from MacArthur traffic (soon noise from the
people taking advantage of the facility). It will also establish a sense of privacy and
protection to residents.
The implementation of the berm increase would be ideal and most cost effective
at this time when construction of the park is occurring. It will provide a lasting benefit to
the residents who use the park and the to residents who live behind it. As President of our
Home Owner's Association, please support our suggestion.
Very truly,
Nam Yong Lee
Resident, 1601 Port Abbey Place
A
Jon Martino
1824 Port Sheffield Place
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Tuesday, February 15, 2000
Michael J. Sinacori
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Sinacori:
This letter is to confirm that Steve Nelson, owner of 1830 Port Sheffield Pl., and I met with you
today to discuss our concerns about the parking for the new soccer field scheduled to be
constructed at Ford Road and Mesa View. At this meeting we told you we are concerned about
noise and parking. We recommended that parking be restricted along the south side of Ford Road
with No Parking Signs. We discussed your suggestion that parking might be allowed on the
North side of Ford road. This would be acceptable with us.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us to discuss our concerns. Please keep me posted if
anything should change. You can reach me at (949) 718 -9163.
Sincerely,
Jon P. Martino
P
January 22, 2000
Port Cardiff Neighbors
I am Martin Natland and live at 1971 Port Cardiff. I tried circulating the attached letter by hand but could
not find people at home. I am asking that you edit it, sign it, and get it back to me before 1/28/2000, this
Friday. I need your input to make sure all of our interests are represented. The attached concerns come
from weeks of talking with some of the neighbors. If what is said here is OK then just sign your name and
address and put it in my mail box. If you have additional comments, make them in ink sign, and also get
back to me. If the City does not get any comments from us by 2/8/00, then we have no recourse later when
we actually see what its all about. I will be sending the list of concerns in on 2/1/2000, so if you have some
ideas that the City should hear about please get them to me by Friday. They will be meeting on 2/8/00 to
consider adoption of the plan they submitted to the neighborhood in early January. I have a copy of their
plan here if you did not get one. I think this is a fine use for the land but the design should respect the
concerns of the adjacent homeowners, since we will be the ones affected daily.
Thank you for your time.
.Chapman Park use still
CITIES:', Residents},'„
'98L.y.the; council's`so
Itions. foi hall =play=
ing traffic-go ri:
"Against the. original
°intent' for the land ,Y
By ERIC CARPENTER
4'lst-ie Orange County Regute -:
six
view in June whether the
Teague is being.a good neigh-
bor.
But, residents near the five-
'acre park say the parking so-
lution is a step in the wrong
direction.
when the leagile., i
years ago.. Two . in
added over time,wi
cial.approval.,.,,,,;
Last June, the A
quested' permission
restrooms and a' sm
They say the site wasn't in -'?i•
tended for such heavy.use and :`S
'.,,,they want their park back: Ili
"I'd like to see it as a.place
where families could go. and R fl
have some quiet time;','. said -s,
.Roger `Toy, who ' grew "up b
,Fi`around the pack inithe 1960s. -<<c
dents who want quiet parks: issues
0,Two' 'diamonds were ap the ` ci
"proved ,for .;Chapman Park �p� id
"'_
(I- V1
1A 6
Date: 1/8/2000
To: City Council, Newport Beach
From: Adjacent Home Owners in Harbor View Homes
Re: Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project
Thank you for providing us with a Conceptual Plan for the Sports Park between Ford Road and Bonita
Canyon Road. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the planning of this wonderful facility. In
polling the neighbor hood regarding your Plan, the following concerns come to the surface.
1. LIGHTING. We would not like to see the parking lots or playing fields lit by overhead lighting,
such as exists at the Lincoln School field off San Joaquin Road. We would suggest ground level
lighting for the parking lot if necessary. Are there regulations for parks of this magnitude which
require lighting? If so, we would like the same variances applied here that have been applied to
the playing fields at San Miguel and Spyglass, where there is no lighting.
2. TRAFFIC LIGHTS. We would like to avoid traffic lights along Ford Rd adjacent to the homes,
especially at the intersection of Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive Fast. You have planned the
only parking lot entrance to be there and this would probably necessitate a light. Could the
parking lot entrances be placed off Mesa View, Prairie, end of San Miguel, and Bonita Canyon
Road? The problem with a fight at the Newport Hills East intersection is that the entrance is not
long enough to accommodate more than 6 cars. At the red light, school and business traffic in the
mornings will backup past the side streets blocking them. If there were an emergency, access
would be difficult.
3. EXCESS SOCCER FIELDS. We question the need for additional soccer fields west of Mesa
View Drive. There are already going to be 3 at Bonita Canyon Park West and one in the East
Park. Also, there are soccer fields at Anderson School, Lincoln, and on San Miguel. There is no
room for off - street parking for that area either. It would be better to leave that area in native
4
habitat contiguous with that around the rocky waterfall area. Maybe a foot or bike path could be
made through that area continuing to the Back Bay.
4. PARKING. We would recommend parking for the ball diamond at the West End of Fast Park in a
narrow lot on the east side of Mesa View. If there is not enough space there then a narrow lot
could be placed across Mesa View to the west. For the rest of the park, we recommend a parking
lot opposite the end of San Miguel, or along Prairie, since these areas are not residential.
5. OUR VISION. We had hoped that this whole area would be made into an open park with trees
and grass to serve the communities and provide a buffer zone for the surrounding dense
communities. We hope that the proposed Sports Park will not be a seven -day -a -week Olympic
event with continuous traffic, lighting until 10 PM, and loud cheering crowds. We are expecting
occasional weekday use before dark and heavier weekend use after 9 AM, ending before 7 PM.
We are concerned that the proposed center area will become an after -hours hangout for people
with nothing better to do. Are there control measures that can be implemented to frustrate this
from happening?
REVISION 1, 1/8/200, FILE: bonitaprl
1
Noy
March 1, 2000
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BLVD.
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3311
Mr. Mark Zucker, President
Harbor View Community Association
Att: Holly Bullock
Village Way Management Co., Inc.
22 Mauchly
Irvine, CA 92618
RE: Bonita Canyon Sports Park
Response to Comments for Environmental Review
Dear Mr. Zucker,
We are in receipt of your letter dated January 16, 2000. Since receipt of your letter,
members of the Public Works and General Services Departments met several times
with Mr. Chip Green and Mr. Robert Wynn. The concerns identified in your letter (and
the letters to you from your neighbors) regarding raising berm heights along MacArthur
and lowering the soccer field elevations to a height equal to that of backyard elevations
were discussed extensively.
In an effort to accommodate resident concerns, the berm heights are proposed to be
raised in several areas and the field has been redesigned and lowered in accordance
with your request. It is our understanding that several subsequent meetings have taken
place as plans have been revised and distributed to Mr. Green and Mr. Wynn. We
believe that all parties within your group are satisfied.
We would like to thank you and your neighbors for actively participating in the park
design. It is through input from residents that we accomplish an end product that will be
the pride of your neighborhood and the City of Newport Beach.
If you have should have any additional questions or comments, I can be reached at
(949) 644 -3342.
Sincerely,
U�LC
ael J. Si .
Utilities Engineer and Project Manager
\ \mis 1 \sys \users \pbw \shared \contracts \fy 99 -00 \bonita canyon park c- 3270 \response to comments - neg dec \harbor
view homeowners response.doc 0
a
March 1, 2000
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BLVD.
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3311
Mr. Martin Natland
1971 Port Cardiff
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Bonita Canyon Sports Park
Response to Comments for Environmental Review
Dear Mr. Natland,
We are in receipt of your letter dated January 22, 2000. Since the receipt of your letter,
members of the Public Works and General Services Departments met several times
with Mr. Chip Green and Mr. Robert Wynn. The concerns raised by you and your
neighbors regarding lighting, traffic signals, excess soccer fields, parking and your
overall vision for the park, have been discussed in great detail over the past two years. I
understand Mr. Green has spoken with you about the public planning of this park. This
letter will serve as the formal response to verbal discussion by Mr. Green and myself.
Lighting will be provided throughout the park in the form of low -level bollard trail lights.
There will also be lighting within, the parking lot areas that should not impact the
neighboring residents. As we discussed, there will be no field lighting for any nighttime
sports use of the park.
Traffic signals are not proposed at the intersection of Newport Hills East and Ford Road
at this time and we do not believe that traffic volumes will warrant the need for a signal.
Ford Road, westerly of Newport Hills Drive West, is scheduled for resurfacing shortly
after the park is completed. The City may consider adding a four -way stop at this
intersection, but that decision will be made outside the park planning process. If you
are interested in the details of this issue, please contract us later this summer.
You felt there were excess soccer fields in the park design. The layout of the park,
including the number of baseball and soccer fields, was discussed at several public
meetings. The final decision on the number of fields was reached at these meetings.
We believe the community has spoken on this issue and the park (as designed) will
satisfy as many user groups as possible.
Parking for the mid -park area was a concern. It was feared that users would park on
Port Cardiff instead of the provided parking in the main lot. Although there was a small
parking lot along Ford Road planned for this area initially, funding constraints required
a�
the parking lot to be deleted during the community meetings in an effort to build more
park improvements. If the spaces provided in the main parking lot are not sufficient and
an additional lot is needed, a subsequent capital project could be considered. The City
is also considering allowing parking on the north side of Ford Road west of Mesa View.
This decision will also be made as part of the future Ford Road improvement project.
Your vision of a park as open space without any sports was not considered in this area.
The City is planning a wilderness connection trail between the Central Park area and
the planned Arroyo Park off Bison Avenue. In addition, landscaped walking trails will be
provided throughout the entire Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Overall sports park use will
be limited to daytime hours.
We would like to thank you and your neighbors for taking an active participation in the
park design. It is through this input that we will truly accomplish an end product that will
be the pride of your neighborhood and the City of Newport Beach.
If you have should have any additional questions or comments, I can be reached at
(949) 644 -3342.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Sinacori, P.E.
Utilities Engineer and Project Manager
F: \Users\PBW\Shared\Contracts \FY 99-00 \Bonita Canyon Park C- 3270\Response to Comments - Neg Dec\Port Cardiff
Responses.doc