HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Little Corona Beach Infiltration Project – Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Design4-1
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY OF
March 22, 2016
Agenda Item No. 4
ABSTRACT:
Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the approval of the design of the new infiltration system at Little Corona Beach
in Corona del Mar.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-40, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2015-001 (SCH# 2016011037)
for the Little Corona Infiltration Project (PA2015-096), pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3; and
b) Approve the design of the new infiltration system.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
The Little Corona Beach Infiltration Project is funded by an Orange County Transportation
Authority’s Environmental Cleanup Program grant of $250,000 and the City’s FY 2014-15
Capital Improvement Program. The total cost of the project is approximately $360,000.
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:Community Development Department
Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director
949-644-3228, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY:Benjamin M. Zdeba, Associate Planner
949-644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
John Kappeler, Senior Engineer
949-644-3218, jkappeler@newportbeachca.gov
TITLE:Little Corona Beach Infiltration Project – Adoption of Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Approval of Design
Little Corona Beach Infiltration Project – Adoption of
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Design
March 22, 2016
Page 2
4-2
DISCUSSION:
Over the years, the City has noted nuisance flow accumulation at the Little Corona Beach
during the dry season immediately where Buck Gully Creek discharges into the Pacific
Ocean (see Attachment C for a vicinity map). Buck Gully is listed by the State Water
Resources Control Board as being impaired due to the presence of bacteria and the area is
further identified by the City’s Newport Coast Watershed Management Plan as requiring
focused attention. As a key component of the overall water quality program, an infiltration
system is proposed to help eliminate nuisance flows across Little Corona Beach.
The proposed project would consist of the installation of a diversion structure at the
upstream side of the existing concrete weir located at the mouth of Buck Gully Creek. The
diverted water flow will be conveyed through a proposed 8-inch pipe into a 48-inch
continuous deflection system (CDS) that will serve to remove any sediment. Subsequently,
the flow will be directed into a roughly 3,182-square-foot underground infiltration system.
Nearly all improvements would be located below the existing ground surface. During
construction, pedestrian access to the public beach would be maintained at all times along
Glen Drive. Vehicular access would also be maintained during construction along Poppy
Avenue. Upon completion of construction, the access road would remain unaffected. The
construction period is anticipated to take place within a three-month timeframe and would
last approximately 45 working days. Construction would occur Monday through Friday, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A MND has been prepared by Michael Baker International, in accordance with CEQA, the
State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The MND was routed to the City Council
in advance of this staff report to allow additional time to review the report. A copy of the MND is
available on the City’s website, at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Public Works
Department at City Hall.
The MND does not identify any project component that would result in a “potentially significant
impact” on the environment per CEQA guidelines. Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study,
the environmental categories within which the project would have either no impact or less than
significant impact were:Agricultural/Forestry Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public
Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities/Service Systems.Based upon the
analysis of the Initial Study, the environmental categories within which the project would have
potentially significant impacts were:Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, and Noise. Specific mitigation
measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less
than significant level. A MMRP has been prepared for consideration and is attached with the
Responses to Comments and Final Initial Study/MND as Exhibit “B” of the draft resolution
(Attachment No. 2).
Little Corona Beach Infiltration Project – Adoption of
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Design
March 22, 2016
Page 3
4-3
The MND was made available for public review for a 30-day comment period from January 15,
2016, to February 16, 2016. Four comment letters were received for consideration. Although
not required pursuant to CEQA, written responses have been prepared for each of the four
comment letters and they are included in the Final Initial Study/MND (Attachment No. 3). No
new significant information has been presented to warrant recirculation of the MND, and
staff recommends adoption of the MND and MMRP.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
As part of the MND public review process, the City mailed the Notice of Availability and
Intent to Adopt a MND with a detailed description of the project to all addresses within a
300-foot radius of the project site. Notices were also posted at the entry to Glen Drive from
Poppy Avenue and just before the pedestrian access ramp down to Little Corona Beach
near the public restroom facilities. Additionally, notice of the MND public review period and
process was published in the Daily Pilot.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution Adopting MND No. ND2015-001
Attachment B – Little Corona Infiltration System Design Plans
Attachment C – Vicinity Map
Attachment A
Resolution Adopting MND No. ND2015-001
4-4
RESOLUTION NO. 2016- _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2015-001 (SCH#
2016011037) FOR THE LITTLE CORONA BEACH
INFILTRATION PROJECT (PA2015-096)
WHEREAS, Little Corona Beach has experienced nuisance flow accumulation
during dry weather immediately where Buck Gully Creek discharges onto the beach area;
WHEREAS, Buck Gully Creek is listed by the State Water Resources Control
Board as being impaired due to the presence of bacteria;
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach’s (City) Newport Coast Watershed
Management Plan notes Buck Gully Creek and the subject area as needing significant and
focused work including targeted outreach, a watershed-wide irrigation upgrade program,
and a significant erosion control program at the mouth of Buck Gully Creek;
WHEREAS, the installation of the infiltration system at Little Corona Beach is
integral to the Newport Coast Watershed Management Plan, and is also a key anchor to
the overall water quality program, which will help to eliminate nuisance flows that are
discharged from the creek;
WHEREAS, the infiltration system proposes structures that are primarily
underground and that will not impede access to Little Corona Beach;
WHEREAS, pedestrian and vehicular access to Little Corona Beach will be
maintained throughout the construction of the project;
WHEREAS, the installation and operation of the infiltration system significantly
reduces discharge flows across Little Corona Beach from Buck Gully Creek, and further
allows those flows to infiltrate into the ground within an underground infiltration system;
WHEREAS, a public meeting was held by the City Council on March 22, 2016, in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance
with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing; and
WHEREAS, after thoroughly considering the Little Corona Beach Infiltration
Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and the public testimony and written
submissions of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council finds the
following facts, findings, and reasons to support adopting the MND:
4-5
City Council Resolution No. 2016- _____
Page 2
1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources
Code Sections 21000, et seq., the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of
Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, the proposed
amendments (Project) are defined as a project and as such subject to
environmental review.
2. The City caused to be prepared an Initial Study/MND in compliance with CEQA,
the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3.
3. Notice of the availability of the draft MND was provided and the draft MND was
made available for public review for a thirty-day comment period beginning on
January 15, 2016, and ending February 16, 2016. Notice of the Availability of the
draft MND was given in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and
City Council Policy K-3. Four comment letters were received during the thirty-
day public review period.
4. Although not required pursuant to CEQA, written responses to all four comment
letters received were prepared. The comments and responses were considered
by the City Council while considering the approval of the proposed project. The
comments and responses to comments do not represent significant new
information to warrant recirculation of the MND.
5. The Draft MND and the Final MND (including Responses to Comments and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) are attached as Exhibits “A” and
“B,” respectively, and incorporated herein by reference. The documents and all
related materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision was
based, are on file with the Public Works Department, City Hall, 100 Civic Center
Drive, Newport Beach, California.
6. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project,
with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the
environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human
beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental
goals that are compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in
connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified by the MND and
incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and
will reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California,
hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts MND No.
ND2015-001 (SCH# 2016011037) attached as Exhibits “A” and “B,” which are
incorporated by reference.
4-6
City Council Resolution No. 2016- _____
Page 3
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach directs the Public Works
Director to incorporate the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in the Final MND included in Exhibit “B” in the plans and
specifications for the project to be implemented.
Section 3: The Recitals provided above are true and correct and constitute, in
part, the findings of the City Council for the adoption of the attached MND.
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 22nd day of March, 2016.
Diane B. Dixon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
4-7
Exhibit “A”
Little Corona Beach Infiltration Project
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2015-001
State Clearinghouse Number 2016011037
4-8
4-9
4-10
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Little Corona Infiltration Project
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Contact: Mr. John Kappeler, P.E.
949.644.3218
PREPARED BY:
RBF Consulting
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
Contact: Alan Ashimine
949.855.5710
January 2016
JN 145143
4-11
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
4-12
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 i TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................................ 1-2
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.4 Project Background ........................................................................................................................ 2-5
2.5 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.6 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................... 2-8
3.0 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-3
4.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Greenhouse Gases ..................................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 4.10-1
4.11 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.12 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 4.13-1
4.14 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.15 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 4.15-1
4.16 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................ 4.16-1
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.17-1
4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 References ................................................................................................................................ 4.19-1
4.20 Report Preparation Personnel ................................................................................................... 4.20-1
4-13
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 Consultant Recommendation ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 Lead Agency Determination ........................................................................................................................... 7-1
APPENDICES (PROVIDED ON ENCLOSED CD)
A. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data
B. Habitat Assessment
C. Essential Fish Habitat Study
D. Jurisdictional Delineation
E. Cultural Resources Assessment
F. Paleontological Resources Assessment
4-14
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1 Regional Vicinity ........................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2 Site Vicinity ................................................................................................................................................... 2-3
3 Project Site ................................................................................................................................................... 2-4
4 Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-6
5 Construction Staging Plan ............................................................................................................................ 2-9
4-15
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
4.3-1 Construction Air Emissions ........................................................................................................................ 4.3-4
4.3-2 Localized Significance of Emissions .......................................................................................................... 4.3-7
4.4-1 Jurisdictional Impact Summary .................................................................................................................. 4.4-4
4.6-1 Principal Faults Affecting the Project Area ................................................................................................. 4.6-2
4.7-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 4.7-4
4.12-1 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards .................................................................................... 4.12-2
4.12-2 City of Newport Beach Interior Noise Standards ..................................................................................... 4.12-2
4.12-3 Maximum Noise Levels Generated By Construction Equipment ............................................................. 4.12-4
4.12-4 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .............................................................................. 4.12-6
4-16
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 v TABLE OF CONTENTS
IS/MND AND APPENDICES ON CD
4-17
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank.
4-18
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 1-1 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Little Corona Infiltration System (herein referenced as the “project”) involves the addition
of a subsurface infiltration system on Little Corona Beach at the outlet of Buck Gully, within the City of
Newport Beach (City). Over the years, the City has noted unpleasant nuisance flow accumulation at
the Little Corona Beach during dry weather immediately where Buck Gully Creek discharges onto the
beach. Buck Gully Creek is listed on the State Water Resources Control as being impaired due to
bacteria, specifically total coliform and fecal coliform. According to the City’s Newport Coast Watershed
Management Plan, Buck Gully Creek Reach 1 (the project area) had the highest impact score resulting
in this subwatershed being the focus of key project integration strategies. The Plan identified that
Reach 1, with an impact score of 240, required the most significant and focused works including
targeted outreach, aggressive street sweeping, and a significant erosion control project at the mouth of
Buck Gully. Since the Plan was prepared in 2007, the City has accomplished many of its goals in terms
of outreach and the successful installation of the Buck Gully Restoration Project. As a key anchor to
the City’s overall water quality program, the City has proposed the Little Corona Infiltration System in
order to help to eliminate these nuisance flows that are discharged from the creek and flow across the
popular Little Corona City Beach. As such, the system would capture and infiltrate nuisance water (dry
weather) surface flows diverted from Buck Gully at the existing weir structure. The proposed project
would result in water quality benefits including a reduction of trash, debris, sediment, pollutant levels,
and hydrocarbons flowing onto Little Corona Beach. Additional benefits include a reduction of
undesirable odors and an increase of aesthetic quality of Little Corona Beach. Following a preliminary
review of the proposed project, the City has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and
regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct,
indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City is
identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Under the CEQA (Public Resources Code
Section 21000-21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of the CCR, the City is required to undertake the
preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant
environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence
that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall
further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project-related and
cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that
the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial
Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed
project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration.
Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code).
The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is
intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent
discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document
and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those
agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.
The environmental documentation and supporting analysis is subject to a public review period. During
this review, public agency comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be
addressed to the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these
4-19
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 1-2 INTRODUCTION
comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and include them with the Initial Study
documentation for consideration by the City.
1.2 PURPOSE
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an
Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:
· A description of the project, including the location of the project;
· Identification of the environmental setting;
· Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided
that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some
evidence to support the entries;
· Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any ;
· Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other
applicable land use controls; and
· The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial
Study.
1.3 CONSULTATION
As soon as the Lead Agency (in this case, the City) has determined that an Initial Study would be
required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies
and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the
recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared
for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency
considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings.
Following completion of this Initial Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation with these and
other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines.
1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study, and are incorporated into
this document by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California,
92660.
· City of Newport Beach General Plan (adopted on July 25, 2006). The City of Newport Beach
General Plan (General Plan) provides a general long-term approach for maintaining and
improving the quality of life in the community and the resources of the community, whether
man-made or natural. It serves as a tool and frame of reference for use by City officials and
citizens. Other public agencies use the General Plan in determining the required capacity and
location of public facilities and services needed to serve the City’s population. The General
Plan includes a total of 10 different elements that incorporate specific goals and policies to
guide growth and preserve the qualities within the City that define the natural and built
environment. These 10 elements consist of:
4-20
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 1-3 INTRODUCTION
- Land Use Element;
- Harbor and Bay Element;
- Housing Element;
- Historical Resources Element;
- Circulation Element;
- Recreation Element;
- Arts and Cultural Element;
- Natural Resources Element;
- Safety Element; and
- Noise Element.
Since original adoption of the General Plan in 2006, the City has amended or updated
elements to further refine the City’s vision for its own long-term physical development. The
elements contained in the General Plan are those required by the California Government Code
Section 65302, in addition to four optional elements (Harbor and Bay, Historical Resources,
Recreation, and Arts and Cultural) as permitted by California Government Code Section
65303.
· City of Newport Beach General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (July 2006). The City
of Newport Beach General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR)
reviews the existing conditions of the City, analyzes potential environmental impacts from
implementation of the General Plan, identifies policies from the proposed General Plan that
serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identifies additional mitigation measures, if
necessary, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the General Plan. Based on analysis
provided within the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan was found to result in
significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics and visual quality, air quality, cultural
resources, noise, population and housing, and transportation/traffic.
· City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance . The City of Newport Beach
Municipal Code provides regulations for governmental operations, development, infrastructure,
public safety, and business operations within the City. Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the
City of Newport Beach Municipal Code represents the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Ordinance is intended to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote
and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare within the City. It is
also intended to protect the character and social and economic vitality of all districts within the
City, and to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.
· City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan . The City of Newport
Beach Local Coastal program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), approved by the California
Coastal Commission on October 13, 2005 and adopted on December 13, 2005 by Re solution
Number 2005-64, sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land use and
water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence, with the
exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch. The provisions and standards contained in
this Plan are cited throughout this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist.
4-21
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 1-4 INTRODUCTION
This page intentionally left blank.
4-22
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 2-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Regionally, the project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange; refer to Exhibit 1,
Regional Vicinity. Locally, the project site is located immediately adjacent to the Pacific Ocean on Little
Corona Beach at the lower mouth of Buck Gully Canyon; refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity. The project is
bound by East Coast Highway (PCH) to the north, Evening Canyon Road to the east, and Hazel Drive
to the west. The proposed infiltration system would be installed underground near the existing beach
access path.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Located within Corona del Mar State Beach, Little Corona del Mar Beach offers a tranquil
environmental for residents and visitors alike. Access to the beach is provided via a beach access path
(also known as Glen Drive) trending southeast from the intersection of Poppy Avenue and Ocean
Boulevard. Public vehicular access is not provided via Glen Drive, rather Glen Drive is used by various
departments associated with the City of Newport Beach including lifeguards, emergency, and
maintenance vehicles. Little Corona del Mar beach is relatively small and secluded and is flanked on
both sides with rocky reefs that offer the spectacular diving well known to local divers. The area also
offers tide pools which are a primary attraction for beach users.
The proposed project would consist of the installation of a subsurface infiltration system on Little
Corona Beach at the outlet of Buck Gully, as part of the City’s Watershed Management Plan; refer to
Exhibit 3, Project Site. The project will help to eliminate nuisance water flows that are discharged
across Little Corona Beach during the dry season. In addition, the proposed project would result in
water quality benefits including a reduction of trash, debris, sediment, pollutant levels, and
hydrocarbons flowing onto Little Corona Beach. Access to Little Corona Beach is provided from Poppy
Avenue, which is a 15 foot wide asphalt concrete (AC) access road that runs at approximately 10
percent grade down and ends immediately west of the existing weir wall. The existing weir wall was
built as part of the City of Newport Beach’s Buck Gully/Little Corona Beach Outlet modification
performed in 1998. The existing concrete weir spans across the entire Buck Gully channel outlet
providing protection against damage from both small and large storm events. Additional protection is
provided by rock riprap installed on the downstream side of the low flow weir notch and on the
upstream and downstream sides of the ends of the weir wall. The wall is constructed with a 10 foot low
flow notch centered at the channel low flow thalweg. There is additional existing rock riprap in the area
downstream of the low flow notch, which serves to provide additional scour protection. Water flows
across the Buck Gully Channel weir wall into Little Corona Beach.
Surrounding uses include:
Buck Gully (undeveloped land) to the north;
Little Corona Beach and the Pacific Ocean to the south; and
Little Corona Beach and Single family residential to the east and west.
4-23
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
ORANGE
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
261
241
241
142
1
1
22
39
5
5
5
133
55
405
405
605
15
5
57
91
72
91
71
90
74
73
IMPERIAL HWY.
EDINGER AVE.
WARNER AVE.
IR
V
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
.
C R O W N V A L L E Y P K WY.
E A S T E R
N T R A N S . C O R R .
W
HIT
TIE
R BLVD.
B E A C H
B L V D .
E L T O R O R D .
S
ANTIA
GO
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
.
CHAPMAN AVE.
I
R
V
I
N
E C
ENTER D
R.
M
O
U
L
T
O
N
P
R
K
Y
.
S T R E E T O F T H E GO L D E
N
L A N T E
R
N
J A M B O R E E R D.
M A C A R T H
U R B L V
D
.
O L D N E W P O R T B L V D .
Y O R BA LINDA BLVD.
S
AN
J
O
AQUIN HILLS
T
R
A
NS. CORRIDOR
P
R
O
P
.
F
O
O
T
HIL
L
T
R
A
N
S
.
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
HA
R
B
O R
B L V D .
KATELLA AVE.
Newport
Beach
San
Clemente
Santa
Ana
Anaheim
Fullerton
La
Habra Brea
Cypress
Buena
Park
Yorba
Linda
Villa
Park
Anaheim
Hills
Mission
Viejo
Lake
Forest
Laguna
Beach
Dana
Point
San Juan
Capistrano
Laguna
Niguel
Orange
Huntington
Beach
Costa
Mesa
Seal
Beach
Garden
Grove Tustin
Irvine
Los
Alamitos
– Project Site
Project
Site
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION SYSTEM PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 1
Regional Vicinity
NOT TO SCALE
01/16 • JN 145143
4-24
Project Site
73
1
1
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION SYSTEM PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2
Site Vicinity
01/16 • JN 145143
4-25
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION SYSTEM PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 3
Project Site
NOT TO SCALE
01/16 • JN 145143
Source: Google Earth, 2015.
- Project Site
4-26
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 2-5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The City’s General Plan designated the project site area as Parks and Recreation (PR), and the City’s
Zoning Code designated the project site as Parks and Recreation (PR). Surrounding uses are primarily
designated by the General Plan and Zoning Code as Single-Unit Residential Detached.
2.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Over the years, the City of Newport Beach has noted unpleasant nuisance flow accumulation at the
Little Corona Beach during dry weather immediately where Buck Gully Creek discharges onto the
beach. Buck Gully Creek is listed on the State Water Resources Control as being impaired due to
bacteria, specifically total coliform and fecal coliform. According to the City’s Newport Coast Watershed
Management Plan, Buck Gully Creek Reach 1 (the project area) had the highest impact score resulting
in this subwatershed being the focus of key project integration strategies. The Plan identified that
Reach 1, with an impact score of 240, required the most significant and focused works including
targeted outreach, aggressive street sweeping, and a significant erosion control project at the mouth of
Buck Gully. Since the Plan was prepared in 2007, the City has accomplished many of its goals in terms
of outreach and the successful installation of the Buck Gully Restoration Project. As a key anchor to
the City’s overall water quality program, the City has proposed the Little Corona Infiltration System in
order to help to eliminate these nuisance flows that are discharged from the creek and flow across the
popular Little Corona City Beach during the dry season. As such, this project is an integral part of the
City’s Newport Coast Watershed Management Plan and water quality improvement efforts.
2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project would consist of the installation of a diversion structure at the upstream side of the existing
concrete weir at the Buck Gully Channel discharge. The diverted water flow will be conveyed through a proposed 8
inch (”) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe into a 48” continuous deflection system (CDS) that will serve to remove
sediment. The flows from the CDS unit will be directed into a proposed 5,202 square-foot underground infiltration
system. Nearly all improvements would be located below ground surface. The primary components of the project
are as follows:
Diversion Vault: A reinforced concrete vault is proposed upstream of the existing Buck Gully concrete
weir wall; refer to Exhibit 4, Site Plan. The system will be designed with a capacity to divert dry season
flow of approximately 0.77 cubic feet per second (cfs). The structure will include a 15-foot long
concrete wall located 2 feet upstream, parallel to the existing weir wall and two side walls joining the
existing wall at the limits of the existing low flow weir notch. The vault bottom will be 12-foot thick
reinforced concrete slab. The proposed vault will be 2 feet deep on the upstream side and 3.5 feet
deep on the downstream side. The vault top will be an upstream slanting stainless steel grate. Water
flowing from the channel will fall through the screen and large debris will slide down and fall upstream of
the proposed 2-foot wall to be washed out during large storm events.
A 4-foot wide by 1.5-foot high opening on the downstream side of the vault will be added by saw-cutting
through the existing wall. The opening will be sealed using a removable slide gate that can be opened
as needed, to remove accumulated sand from inside the vault. Flow that enters the vault will be
conveyed through an 8-inch PVC pipe that will run west along the upstream side of the existing weir
wall. The invert of the 8-inch pipe will be set at 1-foot above the vault bottom to allow for sand that
passes through the grated top to fall to the bottom below the pipe invert, to be swept downstream
through the 4-foot by 1.5 foot opening when the slide gate is opened as part of regular vault
maintenance.
4-27
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION SYSTEM PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 4
Site Plan
NOT TO SCALE
01/16 • JN 145143
4-28
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 2-7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Continuous Deflection System (CDS): Dry season flows diverted from Buck Gully Channel will
be directed into the CDS. The CDS hydrodynamic separator uses swirl concentration and
patented continuous deflective separation to screen, separate and trap trash, debris,
sediment, and hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. CDS captures and retains 100% of
floatables and neutrally buoyant debris 2.4 millimeters (mm) or larger, and effectively removes
sediment. The treated dry weather flows will be conveyed through a proposed 8-inch PVC
downstream into a proposed filtration system. The system was sized in consultation with the
manufacturer and has a capacity above the proposed dry weather flows.
Flo-tank Filtration System: This is the underground filtration system that receives the debris
free dry season flows, conveyed using the 8-inch PVC from the CDS unit. The system will
serve as an underground storage that allows water to infiltrate into the ground. The system is
designed to infiltrate dry season flows within 24 hours. The flow tank infiltration system
provides a void space of over 90% and achieves the same storage capacity as other
underground tank systems with a smaller footprint. The system is made of Polypropylene
(PP), and the lightweight design will make installation comparatively quicker, safer and
cheaper. The system will be installed with inspection ports to allow for flashing out of any
sediment, if needed. The proposed module for use is the double flo-tank modular system that
measures 16 inches by 26.77 inches. Installation will be located on the south side of the
existing life guard tower, and will provide storage of approximately 8,432 cubic feet. The total
beach area used by the system is approximately 3,182 square feet. Based on the
geotechnical investigation, the existing soils have an infiltration rate of 2.48 inches/hour at the
installation depth, which is high enough to allow infiltration of the entire tank capacity at design
flow rate within less than 14 hours.
The City examined various alternatives and determined that the project is the least damaging feasible alternative for
several reasons. First, as noted in the Section 2.4, Project Background, the purpose of the proposed project is to
significantly reduce, divert, and treat dry weather flows that discharge onto Little Corona Beach that are known to
contain elevated levels of bacteria including total coliform and fecal coliform. Thus, a no project alternative and
project locations outside of Buck Gully Canyon would not address the purpose and need of the proposed project. As
for the specific location of the diversion structure (attached to the upstream side of the existing concrete weir), the
City examined alternative designs including shifting the weir to the west as well as adding to the downstream side of
the concrete weir structure to reduce impacts to on-site wetlands. It was determined that shifting the diversion
structure to the west would not be least damaging to the environment in terms of jurisdictional impacts as it would
result in more modifications to the existing concrete weir, a larger construction footprint, and significantly elevated
project costs. Therefore, the proposed project is the least damaging feasible alternative.
With implementation of the improvements described above, existing nuisance flows at Little Corona Beach from the
Buck Gully Channel discharge would be reduced significantly and allowed to infiltrate into the ground within an
underground filtration system. Water quality benefits of the proposed project include a reduction of trash, debris,
sediment, pollutant levels, and hydrocarbons flowing onto Little Corona Beach. Additional benefits include a
reduction of undesirable odors and an increase of aesthetic quality of Little Corona Beach.
2.5.1 CONSTRUCTION/PHASING
It is anticipated that storm, surface, ground, and other waters would be encountered at various times
and locations during construction. Such waters may interfere with the Contractor’s operations and may
cause damage to adjacent or downstream private and/or public property by flooding, lateral erosion,
sedimentation, or pollution if not properly controlled by the Contractor. The Contractor shall conduct all
operations in such a manner that storm, surface, ground, or other waters may proceed along the
existing drainage course and across the existing Buck Gully Channel weir wall. This flow into the ocean
4-29
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 2-8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
would be maintained at all times and diversion of water around the construction site would be required
in order to protect construction in progress. The diversion would include the construction of a small
cofferdam at the upstream limits of the work area, and the use of a plastic storm drain pipe to convey
flows through the site. The diversion pipe would be sized to convey the anticipated daily flow through
the site.
Surface runoff water, including all water used during operations, containing mud, silt or other
deleterious material due to the construction of this project, would be treated by filtration or retention in
settling basin(s) sufficient to prevent such material from migrating onto the beach or into the ocean.
During the course of water control, the Contractor would conduct construction operations to protect
waters from being polluted with fuels, oils, bitumens, or other harmful materials, and would be
responsible for removing said materials in the event protective measures are not effective.
Construction staking would occur within the limits of the construction/temporary easement.
Currently, the existing access path off of Poppy Court provides public pedestrian access to Little
Corona Beach; however, it does not provide public vehicular access. Staging of equipment and
materials would occur within the construction easement, which would be located within the vicinity of
the project site; refer to Exhibit 5, Construction Staging Plan. Construction and permanent access
would be taken from the existing access road off of Poppy Court. During construction, pedestrian
access to the public beach would be maintained at all times. Vehicular access would also be
maintained during construction. Upon completion of construction, the access road would be unaffected.
The construction period is anticipated to take place within a 3 month period and endure approximately
45 working days. Construction will occur within the City’s allowable hours for construction activities,
Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
2.5.2 REQUIRED MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of the infiltration project is anticipated to occur a minimum of four (4) times per year on a
regularly scheduled basis. The maintenance will include cleaning the intake rack and flushing any
sediment from the diversion vault. The CDS unit will have all trash removed, and sediment vacuumed
from the well. The Flo-Tank vaults will be flushed with water and vacuumed to remove any sediment in
the system. All other components will be inspected to ensure that there are no visible problems with
the system. Additional maintenance to clear the intake rack and flush the diversion vault may be
required after large storm events.
2.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed project would require permits and approvals from the City of Newport Beach and other
agencies prior to construction. These permits and approvals are described below, and may change as
the project entitlement process proceeds.
4-30
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION SYSTEM PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 5
Construction Staging Plan
NOT TO SCALE
01/16 • JN 145143
4-31
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 2-10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Newport Beach:
California Environmental Quality Act Clearance
Grading/Building Permits
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Section 404 Nationwide Permit
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
California Coastal Commission:
Coastal Development Permit
4-32
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 3-1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
3.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Little Corona Infiltration Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
John Kappeler, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
949.644.3218
4. Project Location: Regionally, the project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange.
Locally, the project site is located immediately adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, on Little Corona Beach at the
lower mouth of Buck Gully Canyon. The project site is bound by East Coast Highway to the north, Evening
Canyon Road to the east, and Hazel Drive to the west. The proposed infiltration system would be installed
underground near the existing beach access path.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. General Plan Designation: The General Plan designation is Parks and Recreation (PR) under the City of
Newport Beach General Plan.
7. Zoning: The zoning designation is Parks and Recreation (PR), under the City of Newport Beach Zoning
Code.
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project would consist of the installation of a diversion structure at the upstream side of the
concrete weir. The diverted water flow will be conveyed through a proposed 8 inch PVC pipe into a 48 inch
continuous deflection system (CDS) that will serve to remove sediment. The sediment flows from the CDS
unit will be directed into a proposed 5,202 square-foot underground infiltration system. Nearly all
improvements would be located below ground surface. The primary components of the project are as
follows:
Diversion Vault: A reinforced concrete vault is proposed upstream of the existing Buck Gully
concrete weir wall. The system will be designed with a capacity to divert dry season flow of
approximately 0.77 cubic feet per second (cfs). The structure will include a 15-foot long concrete
wall located 2 feet upstream, parallel to the existing weir wall and two side walls joining the existing
wall at the limits of the existing low flow weir notch. The vault bottom will be 12-foot thick
reinforced concrete slab. The proposed vault will be 2 feet deep on the upstream side and 3.5 feet
4-33
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 3-2 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
deep on the downstream side. The vault top will be an upstream slanting stainless steel grate.
Water flowing from the channel will fall through the screen and large debris will slide down and fall
upstream of the proposed 2-foot wall to be washed out during large storm events.
A 4-foot wide by 1.5-foot high opening on the downstream side of the vault will be added by saw-
cutting through the existing wall. The opening will be sealed using a removable slide gate that can
be opened as needed, to remove accumulated sand from inside the vault. Flow that enters the
vault will be conveyed through an 8-inch PVC pipe that will run west along the upstream side of the
existing weir wall. The invert of the 8-inch pipe will be set at 1-foot above the vault bottom to allow
for sand that passes through the grated top to fall to the bottom below the pipe invert, to be swept
downstream through the 4-foot by 1.5 foot opening when the slide gate is opened as part of regular
vault maintenance.
Continuous Deflection System: Dry season flows diverted from Buck Gully Channel will be
directed into the CDS. The CDS hydrodynamic separator uses swirl concentration and patented
continuous deflective separation to screen, separate and trap trash, debris, sediment, and
hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. CDS captures and retains 100% of floatables and neutrally
buoyant debris 2.4 millimeters (mm) or larger, and effectively removes sediment. The treated dry
weather flows will be conveyed through a proposed 8-inch PVC downstream into a proposed
filtration system. The system was sized in consultation with the manufacturer and has a capacity
above the proposed dry weather flows.
Flo-tank Filtration System: This is the underground filtration system that receives the debris free
dry season flows, conveyed using the 8-inch PVC from the CDS unit. The system will serve as an
underground storage that allows water to infiltrate into the ground. The system is designed to
infiltrate dry season flows within 24 hours. The flow tank infiltration system provides a void space
of over 90% and achieves the same storage capacity as other underground tank systems with a
smaller footprint. The system is made of Polypropylene (PP), and the lightweight design will make
installation comparatively quicker, safer and cheaper. The system will be installed with inspection
ports to allow for flashing out of any sediment, if needed. The proposed module for use is the
double flo-tank modular system that measures 16 inches by 26.77 inches. Installation will be
located on the south side of the existing life guard tower, and will provide storage of approximately
8,432 cubic feet. The total beach area used by the system is approximately 3,182 square feet.
Based on the geotechnical investigation, the existing soils have an infiltration rate of 2.48
inches/hour at the installation depth, which is high enough to allow infiltration of the entire tank
capacity at design flow rate within less than 14 hours.
Currently, the existing access road off of Poppy Court provides public pedestrian access to Little Corona
Beach; however, it does not provide public vehicular access. Staging of equipment and materials would
occur within the construction easement, which would be located within the vicinity of the project site; refer to
Exhibit 5, Construction Staging Plan. Construction and permanent access would be taken from the existing
access road off of Poppy Court. During construction, pedestrian access to the public beach would be
maintained at all times. Vehicular access would also be maintained during construction. Upon completion
of construction, the access road would be unaffected. The construction period is anticipated to take place
within a 3 month period and endure approximately 45 working days. Construction will occur Monday
through Friday from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. Additional details regarding the project are provided in Section 2.5,
Project Characteristics.
4-34
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 3-3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Surrounding uses along the project site include:
• Buck Gully (undeveloped land) to the north;
• Little Corona Beach and the Pacific Ocean to the south; and
• Little Corona Beach and single family residential to the east and west.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation
agreement).
Refer to Section 2.6, Permits and Approvals, for a description of the range of local, regional, and State
approvals anticipated to be required for the project. Additional approvals may be required as the project
entitlement process moves forward.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Land Use and Planning
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Geology and Soils Recreation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities & Service Systems
Hydrology & Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The
issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:
- Aesthetics - Land Use and Planning
- Agriculture and Forestry Resources - Mineral Resources
- Air Quality - Noise
- Biological Resources - Population and Housing
- Cultural Resources - Public Services
- Geology and Soils - Recreation
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Transportation/Traffic
- Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Utilities and Service Systems
- Hydrology and Water Quality
4-35
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 3-4 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by
the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Newport Beach in its environmental review process. For
the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a
determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the
development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an
answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis
considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question,
there are four possible responses:
No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the
environment.
Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the
environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered
to be significant.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have
the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the
environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical or
operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered
significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could
reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that
impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
4-36
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.1-1 AESTHETICS
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist.
Explanations are provided for each item.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ü
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
ü
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? ü
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ü
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) identifies the
conservation of sensitive lands and natural resources, and enhancement of the City’s visual resources
as important goals. The General Plan designates visual resources, scenic corridors, public view points,
ocean views, cliffs, and hillsides as important scenic resources with the City of Newport Beach. The
project is located near the community of Corona del Mar on Little Corona Beach. According to the
Natural Resources Element of the General Plan, Ocean Boulevard is designated as a Coastal View
Road. As such, construction activities associated with the project would be visible from a scenic vista.
In addition, project construction activities would alter views and potentially obstruct views of the canyon
for the surrounding residents; however, construction is temporary and would cease upon project
completion.
The infiltration system would not result in long-term visual impacts due to the fact that the CDS unit and
infiltration system will be located underground. The only above ground facilities would consist of a very
small portion of the diversion vault (less than 10 square feet) that would tie in to the existing concrete
weir structure. The proposed project would be compatible with surrounding uses. As such, project
implementation would not substantially alter the appearance of the landscape in the project area, and
would not obstruct or visually impact any scenic vistas or resources . Therefore, a less than significant
impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. State Route 1 (SR-1) is an eligible scenic highway, located approximately 0.5-mile to the
north of the project site.1 Views to the project area from SR-1 are not afforded due to topographic
1 California Department of Transportation website, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm,
accessed March 16, 2015.
4-37
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.1-2 AESTHETICS
conditions and intervening structures. As such, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources
along SR-1. Additionally, there will be no impacts to rock outcroppings or historic buildings . Thus, no
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
Short-Term Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would take place at Little Corona Beach within an approximate 3-
month period. Improvements associated with the proposed project would expose sensitive viewers to
construction activities (approximately 3 months) at the project site and Ocean Boulevard, a popular
viewpoint in Corona del Mar State Park. This location is surrounded by residential uses.
Construction of the project would result in construction debris, equipment, and truck traffic to nearby
sensitive viewers (in the vicinity of Little Corona Beach and Ocean Boulevard). Construction activities
would be visible from motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents located in the project vicinity. The
construction staging area temporarily located on Little Corona Beach and near the public restrooms
would be visible. To minimize impacts during construction, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-
1 would require temporary construction fencing to minimize public views of the construction site, and
would also require that any equipment/materials storage and vehicle parking is sited such that visibility
from adjacent receptors is reduced to the greatest extent feasible. Trucks hauling materials to the
construction site would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to minimize impacts to
sensitive uses, and therefore, would not result in significant visual impacts. As these impacts would be
temporary, and would cease upon completion, the potential impacts to the visual character and quality
in the surrounding area are considered to be less than significant.
Long-Term Impacts
The proposed project would result in minor above ground improvements that consist of a diversion vault
which is an addition to the existing concrete weir. All other improvements w ould be located below the
ground surface and would not affect the long term visual character and quality of the project site or
surrounding area. Thus, long-term operational visual character/quality impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
AES-1 Prior to final plan approval, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
ensure that project specifications require that all construction and construction staging
areas are sited and/or screened with temporary fencing in order to minimize impacts to
public views of the construction site to the maximum extent feasible. The fencing shall be
comprised of opaque material to shield views from surrounding sensitive viewers. In
addition, equipment/materials storage and any vehicle parking shall be sited such that
their visibility from adjacent receptors is reduced to the greatest extent feasible.
4-38
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.1-3 AESTHETICS
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Impact. No construction or operational lighting would be necessary for the proposed project. Thus,
there will be no impacts.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-39
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.1-4 AESTHETICS
This page intentionally left blank.
4-40
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.2-1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
ü
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? ü
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
ü
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? ü
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
ü
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non -agricultural use?
No Impact. The proposed project site is located on Little Corona Beach and is surrounded by
developed, urbanized uses. No farmland exists within the site vicinity. In addition, based on the
Orange County Important Farmland 2010 Map prepared by the California Department of Conservation,
the proposed project site does not occur upon any area designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Orange County Important Farmland
2010 Map, published August 2011.
4-41
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.2-2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The project site is located within a Parks and Recreation zone (P-R), surrounded by
urbanized development. No existing agricultural uses and no Williamson Act contracts are within the
site vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(b), above. No zoning for forest land or timberland exists within the
project area, and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(b), above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
No Impact. As stated above in Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(c), the project site consists of parks and
recreation uses surrounded by urbanized development. The project site is void of agricultural or forest
resources. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-42
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.3-1 AIR QUALITY
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? ü
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ü
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
ü
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ü
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? ü
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which
is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Consistency with the
SCAQMD 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP) means that a project is consistent with the
goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the Federal and State air quality
standards. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, in order to determine consistency
with the 2012 AQMP, two main criteria must be addressed:
Criterion 1:
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a
project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay
of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations?
Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant
concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project’s pollutant
emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating
project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(d), below, localized concentrations of
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOX), and fugitive dust (PM10, and PM2.5) would be
less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Because reactive organic gases (ROGs)
are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized threshold for ROGs. Due
to the role ROG plays in ozone formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a
regional emissions threshold has been established.
4-43
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.3-2 AIR QUALITY
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations?
As discussed in Checklist Item 4.3(b) below, the proposed project would result in emissions
that would be below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not
have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions
reductions specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized
concentrations during project construction and operations. As such, the proposed project
would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions.
Criterion 2:
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality
planning within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) focuses on attainment of ambient air quality
standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on
assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion
for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the
assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2012 AQMP. Determining whether or
not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2012 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three
criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria.
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth
projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
In the case of the 2012 AQMP, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air
pollutant emissions: the City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan), SCAG’s Growth
Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), and SCAG’s 2012-2035
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS
also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. According to
the General Plan, the project site is designated as Parks and Recreation (PR). The project
proposes the installation of a subsurface infiltration system on Little Corona Beach at the outlet
of Buck Gully, as part of the City’s Watershed Management Plan. Thus, the proposed project
would not induce any population growth, and would be consistent with the types, intensity, and
patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity in the RCP and SCS. The population,
housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council are
based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City; these are used by SCAG in all
phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these
same projections into the 2012 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be
consistent with the projections.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures?
The proposed project would not generate a significant amount of air quality emissions nor
exceed SCAQMD thresholds. During construction activities, the project would also be
required to comply with standard SCAQMD regulations, such as Rule 403 (Dust Control). As
such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.
4-44
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.3-3 AIR QUALITY
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with
emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in
Checklist Items 4.3(b) and 4.3(c) below. In addition, the proposed project would not result in a
change in land use, nor does it propose structures that would change the overall character of
the project site. As such, the proposed project meets this 2012 AQMP consistency criterion.
In conclusion, the determination of 2012 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term
influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term
impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Also, the proposed
project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2012 AQMP for control of fugitive dust.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
SHORT-TERM (CONSTRUCTION) EMISSIONS
Construction Emissions
As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project would take approximately 3
months to complete. Construction of the project would include the installation of an infiltration system
consisting of a diversion vault, a continuous deflection system (CDS) unit, and a flo-tank filtration
system. The project’s construction air emissions have been modeled using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to
commence in early 2016 and be completed by mid-2016. Construction activities would require the
export of approximately 214 cubic yards of soil, and hauling of approximately 0.2 cubic yards of
demolished material from saw cutting an opening on an existing concrete wall.
Table 4.3-1, Construction Air Emissions, depicts the construction emissions associated with the project.
Emitted pollutants would include ROG, CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The largest amount of ROG, CO
and NOX emissions would occur during construction of the infiltration system. PM10 (particulate matter
smaller than 10 microns) and PM2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns) emissions would occur
from fugitive dust (due to earthwork and excavation) and from construction equipment exhaust.
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of
machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is
used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the site.
As depicted in Table 4.3-1, construction-related emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD
thresholds for criteria pollutants; therefore, short-term construction impacts would be less than
significant. During construction activities, the project would also be required to comply with standard
SCAQMD regulations, such as Rule 403 (Dust Control); refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
4-45
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.3-4 AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-1
Construction Air Emissions
Construction Emissions
Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions 2.95 32.63 19.72 0.03 6.45 4.08
Mitigated Emissions 2.95 32.63 19.72 0.03 2.63 2.02
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter
up to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter up to 2.5 microns
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
2. Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human
health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as
tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human
carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant
by the California Air Resources Board in 1986.
Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed.
At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health
hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects,
and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due
to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry
operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the
air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for
asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of
Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in
California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000),
serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area. Thus, there would be
no impact in this regard.
LONG-TERM (OPERATIONAL) EMISSIONS
Long-term air quality impacts would not occur as a result of the proposed project as no energy would be
required post construction. The proposed project is self-operating and utilizes gravity-fed flows to
operate the CDS unit. Other than occasional minor maintenance activities, the project would not result
in any trip generating activities that would produce a substantial amount of mobile source emissions.
Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall confirm that the
proposed project stipulates that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust
emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as
specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402
4-46
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.3-5 AIR QUALITY
requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from
creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the following measures (among others
required by Rules 402 and 403) would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby
sensitive receptors:
· All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours
during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the
project site to prevent excessive amounts of dust;
· Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply
non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the
site during site disturbance;
· Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed,
covered, or watered twice daily, or non-toxic soil binders shall be applied;
· All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour;
· Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after
construction is completed in the affected area;
· Visible dust beyond the property line which emanates from the project shall be
prevented to the maximum extent feasible;
· All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and
· Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor
areas to the extent feasible.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
With respect to the proposed project’s construction related air quality emissions and cumulative Basin-
wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined
in the 2012 AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As stated above in Checklist Item
4.3(b), the project would result in construction emissions that would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds
and would not contribute to a cumulative net increase in air quality levels. Other cumulative projects in
the Basin would be required to undergo environmental review, and comply with SCAQMD Rule 403
requirements, adopted 2012 AQMP emissions control measures, and implement all feasible mitigation
measures, which would reduce cumulative project contribution of emissions. Therefore, as the project
would not result in project-level air quality impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, the
project would not contribute to cumulative air quality levels in the Basin. Thus, a less than significant
impact would occur in this regard.
4-47
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.3-6 AIR QUALITY
CUMULATIVE LONG-TERM IMPACTS
As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in long-term air quality impacts.
Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to
cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Emission reduction technology, strategies, and
plans are constantly being developed. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, cumulative
operational impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are defined as
facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects
of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive
receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air
pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic
respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
Sensitive uses surrounding the project site include residential uses to the east and west. In order to
identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance
thresholds for construction and operations impacts (area sources only). A carbon monoxide hot-spot
analysis is recommended for the analysis of localized mobile source impacts. However, a carbon
monoxide hot-spot analysis was not prepared as the project would not increase the volume of traffic in
the project area.
Localized Significance Thresholds (LST)
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Board’s
Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST
methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific level
proposed projects. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one, two, and five acre projects
emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed
to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The SCAQMD
recommends that any project over five acres should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The project is located within Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 18,
North Coastal Orange County.
The project would disturb no more than one acre of land per day; therefore, the LST thresholds for the
smallest acreage (one acre) was utilized for the construction LST analysis. It is noted that an
operational LST analysis was not prepared, as the project would not result in operational emissions.
The closest sensitive receptors are residential uses that adjoin the project site to the east and west.
These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-
site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50,
100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive uses surround the project site, the LST value for 25
meters was used.
4-48
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.3-7 AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-2, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the construction-related
emissions for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for SRA 18. As shown in Table 4.3-2,
construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 18. Therefore, localized significance
impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-2
Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Mitigated On-Site Emissions3 32.06 18.54 2.47 1.97
Localized Significance Threshold4 92 647 4 3
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Note:
1. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
2. Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.
3. Construction emissions include the worst-case on-site emissions.
4. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold
Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the
anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction, the total acreage for operational, the distance to sensitive receptor s, and the
source receptor area (SRA 18).
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses
associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food
processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding.
The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with
odors.
Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty
equipment exhaust. Construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project
completion. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and are less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-49
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.3-8 AIR QUALITY
This page intentionally left blank.
4-50
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.4-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
ü
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
ü
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
ü
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
ü
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
ü
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
ü
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Special status plant and wildlife
species have been given recognition by federal and/or State agencies and private conservation
organizations because of a perceived or documented decline in the population size or geographic range
of the species. Several special status plant and wildlife species are known to occur in the project area.
Based on the Little Corona Infiltration Project Habitat Assessment (Habitat Assessment) prepared for
the proposed project by Michael Baker International, 76 sensitive animal species, 43 sensitive plant
species, and seven sensitive habitats have potential to occur in the project area; refer to Appendix B,
Habitat Assessment, of this document for a list of these species and habitats.
As part of the Habitat Assessment, an analysis was conducted to determine which sensitive biological
species have the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The Habitat Assessment included a literature
review, and a field survey of the project area. The literature review included a records search for
sensitive biological resources with potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the project site. The
resources used for the literature reviewed included, but were not limited to, the Natural Resources
4-51
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.4-2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW)
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5, and the California Native Plant Society
(CNPSs) Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Literature detailing biological resources
previously observed on or near the project site and historical land uses of the project site were reviewed
to understand the extent of disturbances to the habitats on-site. This information provided background
information needed for inventorying the biological resources potentially occurring on the project site.
The field survey provided information of the existing conditions within the project vicinity and potential
for sensitive biological resources to occur.
A field survey of the project site and surrounding area was conducted on April 16, 2015 . It was
determined that one sensitive plant species, woolly seablite was observed in the northwest section of
the survey area. It was determined that the project site has a moderate potential to support certain
sensitive wildlife species, including great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Costa’s
hummingbird (Calypte costae), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), long-billed curlew
(Numenius americanus), and mimic tryonia (Tryonia imitator). Three sensitive wildlife species were
detected during the habitat assessment including snowy egret, brown pelican (off-shore) and Allen’s
hummingbird off-site. All other sensitive wildlife species have a low potential to occur or are presumed
absent. All three of the NCCP/HCP’s “Target Species” (coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus
wren, and orange-throated whiptail) are presumed absent within the boundaries of the survey area
based on a lack of suitable habitat.
Based on the results of the Habitat Assessment, the survey area is continuously disturbed by human
recreation activities and supports sparse patches of native habitat. Even though the majority of the
project site consists of sandy beach, which limits the site’s viability to provide suitable habitat for
sensitive biological resources, the site has the potential to support a small number of sensitive avian
species, most of which are not listed, fully protected, or covered by the NCCP/HCP. American
peregrine falcon, a fully protected and NCCP/HCP “Identified” species that is somewhat common in
coastal areas, has the potential to forage within the survey area but would not nest on-site. Under the
Implementing Agreement and the 10(a) permits distributed to participating landowners by the USFWS,
peregrine falcon is authorized for take if present.
Vegetation removal will be limited to an approximate 0.003 acre area of freshwater marsh habitat
consisting primarily of yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica). Construction activities are not anticipated
to impact the areas of coastal sage scrub or the woolly seablite that were documented within the survey
area. Thus, adverse impacts to sensitive plants or wildlife are not expected as a result of the proposed
project.
Essential Fish Habitat and Fish Management Plans
Based on the Essential Fish Habitat Study (EFH Study) prepared for the proposed project by Tierra
Data, Inc., the project site is not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat for any federally
listed species; refer to Appendix C, Essential Fish Habitat Study. In addition, the project area near the
Pacific Ocean will not extend into any area that will affect bottom substrate essential to fish habitat.
The sandy bottom and kelp forests existing near shore adjacent to the project area are outside of any
construction activities and will not be disturbed. Further, the sandy bottom in adjacent waters does not
provide substrate to support eelgrass (Zostera marina), therefore construction activities are not
expected to affect eelgrass beds.
There are two Fish Management Plans (FMPs) that include waters adjacent to the proposed project
site; the Coastal Pelagic FMP covering six species and the Pacific Groundfish FMP covering 89
species. In addition the Crystal Cove Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) is located adjacent to the
project site and includes a limited recreational and limited take area.
4-52
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.4-3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The potential impacts resulting from construction of the infiltration system and associated structures are
expected to be minimal and temporary to the managed fish species occurring in this near shore coastal
habitat. During construction activities, should any individuals of these managed pelagic or groundfish
species occur within the adjacent vicinity of the project area, they would most likely relocate to another
area of open water or other shallow water habitat, to avoid any disturbances caused by construction
activities. No adverse effects are expected from construction activities that will impact recruitment or
populations of the protected species within Crystal Cove SMCA. A review of the current habitat data
shows no sign of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) adjacent to the proposed construction site, and kelp forest
outside the direct influences of the project area, which further reduces the potential for managed
species at the site. Long-term, the infiltration system will reduce dry weather flows from the mouth of
Buck Gully channel while retaining transported sediments and reducing sedimentation . The net effect
of the infiltration system construction on biological resources will be positive, as the project will improve
water quality that is currently impacting localized water quality conditions within the Crystal Cove
SMCA. As such, no impacts to EFH or FMPs are anticipated.
Nesting Birds
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code
(Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or
destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be implemented. This measure requi res nesting bird clearance surveys prior to
any vegetation removal or development that may disrupt migratory birds during the nesting season.
Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of
reproductive effort, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.
No active bird nests were observed within the survey area during the April 16, 2015 field survey. On -
site vegetation within the survey area provides few, if any, nesting opportunities. However, the adjacent
area, including coastal sage scrub, riparian forest in Buck Gully, and ornamental vegetation in
surrounding neighborhoods, provides suitable nesting opportunities for avian species. Therefore, in
compliance with the MBTA, the proposed project shall comply with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-
2 to ensure impacts to migratory bird species would not occur.
Upon implementation of recommended mitigation measures, impacts to sensitive biological resources
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 A pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three (3)
days prior to any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be
disturbed during construction. As long as development does not cause direct take of a
bird or egg(s) or disrupt nesting behaviors, immediate protections would not be required.
The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey report
indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur.
BIO-2 If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey,
construction activities may have to be rerouted, a no-work buffer might have to be
established around the nest, or construction may be delayed until the nest is inactive. A
biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area if an
active nest is observed, and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is
not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the qualified biologist has
determined that young birds have successfully fledged or the nest has otherwise become
4-53
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.4-4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
inactive, a monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Newport
Beach for review and approval prior to initiating construction activities can proceed within
the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds. Construction within
the designated buffer area shall not proceed until written authorization is received by the
applicant from the CDFW.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Habitat Assessment and EFH
Study prepared for the project examined potential impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural
communities; refer to Response 4.4(a), above. As noted above, the proposed project would be
required to implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 to ensure impacts to migratory bird
species would not occur
The Little Corona Infiltration Project Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters (JD) by
Michael Baker International, was conducted to determine potential project-related impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or State; refer to Appendix D, Jurisdictional Delineation. Based on the
JD, portions of the project site are considered “Waters of the U.S.” and “Waters of the State” and would
be subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the California Coastal
Commission (CCC). Impacts to jurisdictional areas would occur as a result of the proposed project and
are listed in Table 4.4-1, Jurisdictional Impact Summary.
Table 4.4-1
Jurisdictional Impact Summary
Feature
Corps/Regional Board CDFW Coastal Commission
Non-Wetland
(acres / linear feet)
Wetland
(acres)
Vegetated Streambed
(acres / linear feet)
Wetland
(acres)
Stream
(acres)
Buck Gully Perm: 0.01 / 32 Perm: 0.0003 Perm: 0.002 / 7 Perm: 0.002 --
Pacific Ocean -- -- -- -- Perm: 0.01
As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be implemented. This measure would require that the City of
Newport Beach coordinate with the Corps, RWQCB, CDFW, and CCC to obtain the necessary
approvals prior to any construction activities in jurisdictional areas. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-3, Corps wetland impacts (0.003 acre) would be mitigated at a 27:1 ratio. CDFW
vegetated streambed and CCC wetland impacts (both 0.002 acre) would be mitigated at a 4:1 ratio.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the proposed project is consistent with Coastal Land
Use Policy 4.1.1-14, which states “Require mitigation in the form of habitat creation or substantial
restoration for allowable impacts to ESHA and other sensitive resources that cannot be avoided through
the implementation of siting and design alternatives. Priority shall be given to on-site mitigation. Off-
site mitigation measures shall only be approved when it is not feasible to fully mitigate impacts on-site.
Mitigation shall not substitute for implementation of the project alternative that would avoid impacts to
ESHA.” The mitigation will more than compensate for impacts associated with the proposed project
with its 27:1 ratio. Further, the existing wetland area near the weir structure is degraded due to the
presence of non-native species and the proposed mitigation will promote the functional capacity of the
wetland and help preserve the larger wetland system.
4-54
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.4-5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, impacts in this regard would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and the following Mitigation
Measure BIO-3.
BIO-3 Prior to any construction activity within the project site, the City of Newport Beach shall
consult with the appropriate responsible resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and California Coastal Commission) to verify delineation results, determine
permanent losses and temporary impact areas, and identify compensatory mitigation, as
applicable. Prior to undertaking ground-disturbing activities on or immediately adjacent to
any aquatic resource areas, the City of Newport Beach and/or their consultant shall obtain
all obligatory discretionary permits/authorizations. The City proposes to compensate for
permanent impacts to 0.0003 acres of Corps jurisdictional wetlands, as well as 0.002
acres of CDFW vegetated streambed/CCC jurisdictional wetlands, as a result of the Little
Corona Infiltration Project. The City proposes to conduct 0.008 acre of freshwater marsh
enhancement activities in the form of non-native species removal within the mitigation
site. Invasive species removal would be conducted via hand pulling.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the JD for the proposed
project, approximately 0.0003 acre of Corps wetlands will be permanently impacted by the proposed
project. Implementation of BIO-3 will ensure no permanent loss of wetlands will occur due to the
proposed project. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-3.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Habitat linkages provide links between larger undeveloped habitat
areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages, but provide specific
opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear
landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed
habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It
is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species but inadequate for others. Wildlife
corridors are significant features for dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging. Additionally,
open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.
The project site is located immediately adjacent to and south of Buck Gully, a perennial creek that
begins at Signal Peak in the San Joaquin Hills and drains after approximately 3.5 miles into the Pacific
Ocean at the southern end of the survey area. Buck Gully provides a movement corridor and a coastal
linkage for wildlife. In addition, a portion of Buck Gully is located within the NCCP/HCP Reserve
System beginning at Newport Coast Drive and terminating approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the
project site. However, Buck Gully does not flow at a level grade into the Pacific Ocean. Instead, it is
separated from the beach by a concrete weir, meaning that any organisms in the water must breach the
top of the weir to continue downstream, and that no aquatic-restricted organisms can move upstream
4-55
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.4-6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
past the beach side of the weir. The proposed project will not impact the function of the upstream
movement corridor. As such, the project would not have the capability to interfere with wildlife
movement, nor would it impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Thus, impacts in this regard would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources. The primary documents applicable to the proposed project
are the Natural Resources Element of the City’s General Plan and the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan
(CLUP). Both of these documents contain policies regarding the preservation of natural and biological
resources that apply to the proposed project. Table 4.4-2, General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan
Consistency Analysis, provides a consistency analysis of the applicable Natural Resources Element
and CLUP policies and the proposed project.
As seen below in Table 4.4-2, the proposed project would be consistent with all policies regarding
biological resources within the City’s Natural Resources Element, and the CLUP with implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.
Table 4.4-2
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Consistency of Proposed Project with Current Policy
GENERAL PLAN
NR 10.1 Terrestrial and Marine Resource
Protection: Cooperate with the state and
federal resource protection agencies and
private organizations to protect terrestrial and
marine resources.
Consistent. As discussed above, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would
require the project to consult with the appropriate responsible
resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and California Coastal Commission) to verify delineation
results, determine permanent losses and temporary impact areas,
and identify compensatory mitigation, as applicable. In addition,
the project would not impact essential fish habit.
NR 10.2 Orange County Natural
Communities Conservation Plan: Comply
with the policies contained within the Orange
County Natural Communities Conservation
Plan.
Consistent. As discussed below in Response 4.4(f), the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts to biological
resources, and would not conflict with the provisions of the NCCP
with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.
NR 10.3 Analysis of Environmental Study
Areas: Require a site-specific survey and
analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a
filing requirement for any development permit
applications where development would occur
within or contiguous to areas identified as
ESAs.
Consistent. As discussed above, the City has conducted a
detailed Habitat Assessment, EFH Assessment, and JD to
determine project impacts to sensitive environmental resources.
Pre-construction surveys will ensure there are no impacts to
migratory birds.
NR 10.4 New Development Siting and
Design: Require that the siting and design of
new development, including landscaping and
public access, protect sensitive or rare
resources against any significant disruption of
habitat values.
Consistent. Compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through
BIO-3 would ensure that sensitive and/or rare species and other
biological resources are not significantly affected as a result of
construction and operation of the proposed project.
4-56
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.4-7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.4-2 [continued]
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Consistency of Proposed Project with Current Policy
NR 10.7 Exterior Lighting: Shield and direct
exterior lighting away from significant or rare
biological resources to minimize impacts to
wildlife.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, operational
and long-term lighting are not required nor proposed for the
proposed project.
NR 11.3 Eelgrass Protection: Avoid impacts
to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the extent
feasible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in
accordance with the Southern California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the
restoration of eelgrass in Newport Harbor at
appropriate sites, where feasible.
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project is not
located within an area that has the potential for eelgrass and no
impacts will occur in this regard.
NR 11.4 Interagency Coordination on
Establishing Eelgrass Restoration Sites.
Cooperate with the County of Orange, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource
agencies to establish eelgrass restoration
sites.
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project is not
located within an area that has the potential for eelgrass and no
impacts will occur in this regard.
NR 11.5 Eelgrass Mitigation: Allow
successful eelgrass restoration sites to serve
as mitigation sites for City projects and as a
mitigation bank from which eelgrass
mitigation credits will be issued to private
property owners for eelgrass removal
resulting from dock and channel dredging
projects.
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project is not
located within an area that has the potential for eelgrass and no
impacts will occur in this regard.
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
4.1.1-2: Require a site-specific survey and
analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a
filing requirement for coastal development
permit applications where development would
occur within or adjacent to areas identified as
a potential ESHA. Identify ESHA as habitats
or natural communities listed in Section 4.1.1
that possess any of the attributes listed in
Policy 4.1.1-1. The ESA’s depicted on Map
4-1 shall represent a preliminary mapping of
areas containing potential ESHA.
Consistent. As noted above, the City has conducted a detailed
Habitat Assessment, JD, and EFH Assessment to determine
project impacts to sensitive environmental resources. The Habitat
Assessment identified potential ESHA areas. Implementation of
BIO-3 would ensure consistency with the CLUP.
4.1.4-1: Continue to protect eelgrass
meadows for their important ecological
function as a nursery and foraging habitat
within the Newport Bay ecosystem.
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project is not
located within an area that has the potential for eelgrass and no
impacts will occur in this regard.
4.1.4-3: Site and design boardwalks, docks,
piers, and other structures that extend over
the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass
meadows. Encourage the use of materials
that allow sunlight penetration and the growth
of eelgrass.
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project is not
located within an area that has the potential for eelgrass and no
impacts will occur in this regard.
4.1.4-5: Where applicable require eelgrass
and Caulerpa taxifolia surveys to be
conducted as a condition of City approval for
projects in Newport Bay in accordance with
operative protocols of the Southern California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa
taxifolia Survey protocols.
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project is not
located within an area that has the potential for eelgrass and no
impacts will occur in this regard.
4-57
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.4-8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.4-2 [continued]
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Consistency of Proposed Project with Current Policy
4.2.3-1: Permit the diking, filling, or dredging
of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries,
and lakes in accordance with other provisions
of the LCP, where there is no feasible less
environmental damaging alternative, and
where feasible mitigation measures have
been provided to minimize adverse
environmental effects.
Consistent. The proposed project is a grant-funded water quality
enhancement project for incidental public service purposes as it
will serve to significantly reduce, divert, and treat nuisance flows
that currently flow across the popular Little Corona Beach and
discharge near sensitive tide pools. In addition, sufficient
mitigation measures are proposed to minimize adverse
environmental effects. Implementation of BIO-3 would ensure
consistency with the CLUP.
4.2.5-1: Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera
marina) to the greatest extent possible.
Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1
mitigation ratio and in accordance with the
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass
throughout Newport Harbor where feasible.
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project is not
located within an area that has the potential for eelgrass and no
impacts will occur in this regard.
In addition, the only local tree ordinance that would apply to the project would be Local Council Policy
G‐1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees), and Chapter 7.26 (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory
and Other Waterfowl) of the Municipal Code also provides guidance for tree maintenance and
preservation. Nominal vegetation removal would be required for the proposed project and would not
require the permanent removal of any trees. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with
the City’s Local Council Policy G‐1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees), and Chapter 7.26 (Protection
of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl) of the Municipal Code.
As described above, the project would not result in conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant upon implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approv ed local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California
Regional Conservation Plans map, the proposed project is located within the Orange County
Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).1 However, as discussed above within
Responses 4.4(a) through 4.4(e), the proposed project would not result in sig nificant impacts to
biological resources, and would not result in conflicts with provisions of the NCCP. As such, impacts in
this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, HCP/NCCP California Regional Conservation Plans, October 2013.
4-58
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.5-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? ü
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
ü
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? ü
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ü
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
No Impact. According to Figure HR1, Historical/Archeological Landmarks, in the City of Newport
Beach General Plan, the project site is not identified as a historically significant site or landform site, nor
was there a formerly existing historical/archaeological land mark site identified within the project area or
vicinity.
As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix E,
Cultural Resources Assessment, of this document), a cultural resources records search was performed
at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) in order to obtain information regarding any
potential historical resources within a one-mile radius surrounding the project site. According to the
Cultural Resources Assessment, there are no known historical resources located within the boundaries
of the project site. The records search indicated that one historic resource has been documented
previously within a half-mile radius of the project site; however, the resource would not be affected by
construction activities. As these resources would not be affected by the proposed project, no impacts
would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an arch aeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Over 50 archeological sites have been
documented within the City. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, at least two distinct
cultural groups inhabited the City of Newport Beach, and later period sites indicate that the City was
heavily populated at the time of European contact. Thus, the potential exists for buried archeological
resources to be disturbed or destroyed during project activities and grading.
The Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the project also included a detailed analysis of
potential impact to archaeological resources. Based on the archaeological records search performed at
the SCCIC, a total of two archaeological sites have been formally recorded within a one -mile radius of
the site. However, no archaeological resources have been recorded within or immediately adjacent to
the project site.
4-59
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.5-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
In addition, the Cultural Resources Assessment included an intense-level cultural resources survey of
the project site and immediately surrounding areas that was conducted on April 3, 2015. Based on the
field survey, no archeological resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project
site.
A review of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands database did not find
any Native American sacred sites or resources within a half-mile radius of the project site. Although no
resources were observed on the survey of the project site, intended construction may encounter
sensitive cultural or paleontological resources due to the planned excavation depth of four feet.
Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.
In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City of Newport Beach consulted with the Gabrieleño
Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. On November 16, 2015, Mr. Andy Salas expressed his concern
regarding the cultural sensitivity of the area surrounding the project. Through consultation, the City and
Mr. Salas came to an agreement regarding proposed project mitigation measures which satisfied his
concerns. As a result, the City has determined that AB 52 consultations are now complete.
Mitigation Measure:
CUL-1 All construction personnel (in addition to the City of Newport Beach project manager(s)
and construction inspectors) shall receive archaeological resources sensitivity training
prior to construction. If evidence of archeological resources is found during construction,
excavation or other activity, the project shall halt work in the vicinity of the find (minimum
50-foot radius) and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development
Director, an archaeologist certified by the County of Orange shall be retained to evaluate
the discovery prior to resuming grading in the vicinity of the find. If warranted, the
archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the
results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including
discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final
mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. If Native American resources are found,
a notice will be sent to affected tribes as determined appropriate by the Community
Development Director.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Project implementation has the
potential to directly and/or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. Based on the
Paleontological Resources Assessment prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix F,
Paleontological Resources Assessment, of this document), the Monterey Formation, which underlies
the project site, has a moderate sensitivity for fossil resources, and the beach deposits have a low
potential for fossil resources; however, no paleontological resources are known from within the Project
Area. Additionally, during the intensive cultural and paleontological resources survey on April 3, 2015,
no paleontological resources were observed within or immediately adjacent to the Project Area.
Although no resources were observed on the survey of the Project Area, intended construction may
encounter sensitive paleontological resources due to their planned excavation depth of four feet.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 has been included in order to minimize impacts in the event an unexpected
discovery occurs. Upon implementation of recommended mitigation, impacts would be less than
significant in this regard.
4-60
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.5-3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-2 If, during ground disturbance, potentially significant paleontological evidence becomes
apparent, work in that location shall be stopped; if not present, a qualified paleontologist
(approved by the City) shall be notified immediately to evaluate the find. Should
evaluation conclude that important cultural resources exist and would be negatively
impacted by project construction, recommendations shall present further mitigation
measures necessary to lessen those impacts to less than significant.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. No on-site conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to
be found on the project site. It is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. If human
remains are found, they would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of
California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 -7055 describe the general
provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the
requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required
by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public
Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the
Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Nativ e
American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during
excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to
overlay adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been
investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of
the remains. Following compliance with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions
necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-61
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.5-4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This page intentionally left blank.
4-62
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.6-1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ü
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ü
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ü
4) Landslides? ü
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ü
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
ü
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
ü
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
ü
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity
due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced
surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-
designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
According to the California Department of Conservation Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones Earthquake Map, no
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the project area.1 Thus, no impacts would occur in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Conservation, Regional Geologic Hazards and Mapping Program, accessed May 5, 2015 at
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm.
4-63
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.6-2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting
residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of
potential hazards for residents and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards.
Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subside nce, and uplift
from earth movement. Primary hazards can also induce secondary hazards such as ground failure
(lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on
nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires.
Although no active faults are known to be present within the project vicinity, there are four major fault
zones in the surrounding area that have the highest potential to impact the project.2 These faults are
listed in Table 4.6-1, Principal Faults Affecting the Project Area.
Table 4.6-1
Principal Faults Affecting the Project Area
Fault Name
Approximate
Distance From Site
(Miles)1
Maximum Credible
Earthquake Magnitude2
Newport-Inglewood
Fault Zone 0.6 7.4
San Joaquin Hills Blind
Thrust 5.5 N/A
Whittier Fault Zone 25 6.0-7.2
Elysian Park Fault
Zone 36 N/A
Notes:
1. Distances were measured using Google Earth, May 5, 2015.
2. Per the Southern California Earthquakes Center, accessed on May 5, 2015 at
http://scedc.caltech.edu/significant.
Given the proximity of these earthquake faults to the project area, the proposed project could be
subjected to seismic shaking; however, no habitable structures are proposed within the project site.
Even with strong seismic ground shaking, the project would not have the potential to adversely affect
people or structures, given the nature of proposed improvements. Therefore, impacts in this regard
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory
motion due to earthquakes. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil
layers, thereby causing the soils to behave as a viscous liquid. Susceptibility to liquefaction is based on
geologic and geotechnical data. River channels and floodplains are considered most susceptible to
liquefaction, while alluvial fans have a lower susceptibility. Depth to groundwater is another important
element in the susceptibility to liquefaction. Groundwater shallower than 30 feet results in high to very
high susceptibility to liquefaction, while deeper water results in low and very low susceptibility.
2 City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Safety Element, July 2006.
4-64
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.6-3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Based upon Figure S2, Seismic Hazards, of the General Plan, the project area is subject to the
potential for liquefaction. Although the potential for liquefaction exists within the project area, the risk
for loss, injury, or death due to project implementation is low as the project would not include any
housing or habitable structures. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides are a serious geologic hazard, with some moving slowly
and causing damage gradually, and others moving rapidly and causing unexpected damage. Gravity is
the force driving landslide movement. Factors that commonly allow the force of gravity to overcome the
resistance of earth material to landslide movement include saturation by water, steepening of slopes by
erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing, and seismic shaking. Landslides are typically
associated with periods of heavy rainfall or rapid snow melt and tend to worsen the effects of flooding
that often accompanies these events.
According to Figure S2 of the General Plan, the project site is not located within an area with landslide
potential; however, the adjoining Buck Gully Canyon slopes have landslide potential. Although the
potential exists for landslides within the project area, the risk of loss, injury, or death is considered
minimal as the project would not include housing or any other habitable structures. Thus, impacts in
this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.9(a) for a detailed response regarding the
potential for water quality impacts (including soil erosion and the loss of topsoil) during the short-term
construction process and long-term operations. The proposed project would alter the drainage pattern
along Buck Gully. The project would capture and divert water from the existing drainage during the dry
weather flows, convey them to an infiltration basin, after which flows would ultimately be discharged to
the Pacific Ocean. While the proposed project would result in an alteration to the course of dry weather
flows within Buck Gully, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Further, during-construction BMPs will be utilized to minimize impacts to water quality resulting from soil
erosion. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.6(a)(3) and 4.6(a)(4), above. Given that the
project would not introduce housing or other habitable structures, impacts related to unstable soils
(including landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse) would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
4-65
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.6-4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.6(c), above. The project area is underlain by
sandy alluvial soils and these soils could be subject to settlement and/or instability. Although expansive
soils may exist within the project area, the proposed project would not include the development of any
structures that would jeopardize property or human health. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would be constructed as part of the
project, and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-66
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.7-1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
ü
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ü
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 400 million
tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.1 Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an
increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) over the next century. Methane is also an important
GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to
increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in
the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is
mostly independent of the point of emission.
The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air
trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the
global atmospheric variation of CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of
industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that
CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. For the period from
approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization
period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end
of the pre-industrial period range.
REGULATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed several emission trajectories of
GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a
stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2eq)2 concentration is required
to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (ºC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary
to avoid dangerous climate change.
Executive Order S-3-05 was issued in June 2005, which established the following GHG emission
reduction targets:
1 California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2012, May 13, 2014.
2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases
based upon their global warming potential.
4-67
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.7-2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
· 2010: Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
· 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
· 2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) determine what the
statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is
equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. CARB has approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427
million metric tons (MMT) of CO2eq.
Due to the nature of global climate change, it is not anticipated that any single development project
would have a substantial effect on global climate change. In actuality, GHG emissions from the
proposed project would combine with emissions emitted across California, the United States, and the
world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change.
In June 2008, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical
Advisory, which provides informal guidance for public agencies as they address the issue of climate
change in CEQA documents.3 This is assessed by determining whether a proposed project is
consistent with or obstructs the 39 Recommended Actions identified by CARB in its Climate Change
Scoping Plan which includes nine Early Action Measures (qualitative approach). The Attorney
General’s Mitigation Measures identify areas were GHG emissions reductions can be achieved in order
to achieve the goals of AB 32. As set forth in the OPR Technical Advisory and in the proposed
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, this analysis examines whether the project's
GHG emissions are significant based on a qualitative and performance based standard (Proposed
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(1) and (2)).
SCAQMD THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) to
provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA
documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, the
SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development
projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.4
With the tiered approach, the project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and
would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are
specifically exempt from Senate Bill (SB) 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes
projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and
complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a
screening threshold. The SCAQMD is proposing a screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq per year
and for all non-industrial projects, the SCAQMD is proposing a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq
per year. SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not
result in a significant cumulative impact.
Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, the project would be
excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than
business as usual emissions. Under the Tier 4 second option the project would be excluded if it had
early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of CARB’s Scoping Plan measures. Under
the Tier 4 third option, the project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8
3 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, 2008.
4 The most recent SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group meeting was held on September 2010.
4-68
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.7-3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
MTCO2eq per service population (SP) per year.5 Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement offsite
mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than
the proposed screening level.
GHG efficiency metrics are utilized as thresholds to assess the GHG efficiency of a project on a per
capita basis or on a “service population” basis (the sum of the number of jobs and the number of
residents provided by a project) such that the project would allow for consistency with the goals of AB
32 (i.e., 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 2035). GHG efficiency thresholds can be determined
by dividing the GHG emissions inventory goal of the State, by the estimated 2035 population and
employment. This method allows highly efficient projects with higher mass emissions to meet the
overall reduction goals of AB 32, and is appropriate, because the threshold can be applied evenly to all
project types (residential or commercial/retail only and mixed use).
For the proposed project, the 3,000 MTCO2eq per year non-industrial screening threshold is used as
the significance threshold, in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance set forth below from
Section VII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENERGY ACTION PLAN
In July 2013, the City adopted its Energy Action Plan (EAP). The primary goal of the EAP is to provide
a roadmap for the City to reduce GHG emission through reductions in energy used in facility buildings
and operations. The EAP identifies past energy measures that have been implemented and present
measures that currently are in that process, all of which will contribute to the energy reduction goal. In
addition, the EAP identifies other potential energy reductions measures that the City will consider for
future implementation. The City’s long term vision for energy efficiency focuses around three primary
objectives:
1. Reduce the City’s carbon footprint and its adverse effect on the environment;
2. Conserve energy at the local government facilities; and
3. Raise energy conservation awareness in local communities and improve the quality of life.
PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
Project-related GHG emissions would include direct emissions from construction activities only. Other
direct source emissions (area source and mobile source) would not occur, as the project does not
propose any new land uses and would not generate any new vehicle trips. No indirect GHG emissions
would occur, as the project would not r equire electricity or water. Consequently, project-related GHG
emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 would only be from construction activities.
As shown in Table 4.7-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, construction of the proposed project
would result in a total of 88.69 MTCO2eq (2.96 MTCO2eq amortized over 30 years) which is well below
the 3,000 MTCO2eq/year screening threshold. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
was used to calculate off-road construction emissions. The CalEEMod outputs are contained within the
Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data. As GHG emissions from construction of the proposed
project would be minimal and less than the non-industrial GHG emissions threshold proposed by the
SCAQMD, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
5 The project-level efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2eq per SP per year is relative to the 2020 target date. The
SCAQMD has also proposed efficiency-based thresholds relative to the 2035 target date to be consistent with the GHG reduction
target date of SB 375. GHG reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be approximately 40 percent. Applying this 40
percent reduction to the 2020 targets results in an efficiency threshold for plans of 4.1 MTCO2eq per SP per year and an
efficiency threshold at the project level of 3.0 MTCO2eq/year.
4-69
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.7-4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4.7-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2eq
Metric
Tons/yr
Metric
Tons/yr
Metric Tons
of CO2eq1
Metric
Tons/yr
Metric Tons
of CO2eq1
Construction Emissions
Total emissions (one time) 88.27 0.02 0.50 0.00 0.00 88.69
Total emissions (amortized over 30 years) 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.96
Notes:
1. CO2 Equivalent values calculated using the U.S. EPA Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator,
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html, accessed May 2015.
2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Data, for detailed model input/output data.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. However, the City prepared an
Energy Action Plan, created in partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern
California Gas Company (SCG). The Plan provides the City guidance in reducing GHG emissions by
lowering municipal and community wide energy use. The Plan assists in identifying a clear path to
successfully implementing goals, policies, and actions that will achieve the City’s reduction targets.
Additionally, the City entered into the Orange County Cities Energy Leadership Partnership Program
(OCCELP), a joint partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas
Company and neighboring cities Fountain Valley, Westminster , and Costa Mesa to improve long term
energy and sustainability throughout the local area.
The proposed project would result in minimal construction-related GHG emissions, and would not
generate any operational GHG emissions. Thus, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts are less than
significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-70
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.8-1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
ü
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
ü
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
ü
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
ü
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
ü
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
ü
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
ü
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
ü
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use ,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The short-term construction process for the proposed project would
not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. With the exception of utilizing
gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubricants for construction equipment, no other hazardous materials would be
transported to or from the project site, or used in the construction process. Fuels and solvents for
construction would be stored and utilized pursuant to existing regulatory requirements. Therefore,
short-term construction impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Long-term operation of the proposed infiltration facility would not itself require the transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be no long-term operational impacts in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-71
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.8-2 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
Short-Term Impacts
One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substance could occur is through
accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the
environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic
fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous
substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil
and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil or water can have potential health effects on a
variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
During the short-term period of project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of
hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction
equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not
considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized
during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction
controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of
such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that
any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and
Federal law.
The project site consists of Little Corona Beach, where Buck Gully is discharged into the Pacific Ocean.
It is not anticipated that recognized environmental conditions (REC) or hazardous materials exist on the
beach or within the canyon. During construction, storage and use of hazardous materials would be
located outside of Little Corona Beach and the Buck Gully drainage. Given the condition of the site and
the low potential for RECs from surrounding properties, hazardous materials are not anticipated to be
encountered. In the unlikely event that hazardous materials are present on-site, Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant level.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Refer to Response 4.8(a), above, for a description of impacts related to existing and proposed
operations at the site. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ-1 During construction, if the contractor discovers unknown wastes or suspect materials that
he/she believes may be hazardous, the contractor shall:
· Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing
workers and the public from the area;
· Notify the Project Engineer of the implementing agency;
· Secure the areas as directed by the Project Engineer; and
· Notify the implementing agency’s hazardous and waste/materials coordinator.
4-72
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.8-3 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. No schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site. The closest school is
located 0.75 miles north of the project site. Additionally, the proposed project does not have the
capacity to emit hazardous emissions and does not involve handing hazardous materials. Thus, no
impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
No Impact. RBF Baker conducted a records search of the Cal EPA’s Cortese list, pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 on May 4, 2015. The database search results indicate that no
regulatory property is located within the boundaries of the projects site. No known corrective action,
restoration, or remediation has been planned, is currently taking place, or has been completed on the
site. The project site has not been under investigation for violation of any environmental laws,
regulations, or standards. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately
5.25 miles to the northeast. In addition, the project site is located outside of the boundaries of the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. No private airstrips exist in the project vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur .
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction equipment would be
located in an area that would not obstruct roadways available to the surrounding residential uses.
During construction activities, access to and from Little Corona Beach would remain open at all times.
During long-term operations, the proposed project would not affect access to and from Little Corona
Beach. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
4-73
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.8-4 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
No Impact. The proposed project site is located within an urbanized area, and no wildland areas exist
in the project vicinity. Moreover, the proposed project would not include any habitable structures that
would expose people to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts
would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-74
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.9-1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? ü
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
ü
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
ü
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
ü
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
ü
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ü
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
ü
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? ü
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
ü
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ü
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Short-Term Impacts
The primary water quality concern related to the proposed project would be potential erosion impacts
during construction activities. Grading and excavation activities associated with construction of the
project would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. Generally, construction
activities within the City would be regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program, as administered by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The RWQCB administers an NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) for any construction project
disturbing more than one acre of land. The project site is less than 1 acre, and therefore would not be
subject to the requirements of the NPDES CGP.
4-75
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.9-2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
However, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with water quality control
measures included in Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, of the City’s Municipal Code. The
Excavation and Grading Code includes measures to minimize water quality impacts related to erosion
during the short-term construction process. Upon adherence to these requirements, impacts in this
regard would be less than significant.
Long-Term Impacts
The proposed project will provide an overall net benefit in water quality by capturing and inf iltrating the
nuisance surface flows diverted from Buck Gully at the existing weir structure, conveying flows to a pre-
treatment facility near the beach access path, and infiltrating the water through a subsurface gallery
under the beach. The proposed improvements would not substantially alter drainage or water quality in
comparison to existing conditions. Specific during- and post-construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) will be utilized to ensure that water quality impacts are reduced to a less than significant level
during long-term operations.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in an increase in impervious area in
comparison to existing conditions. Groundwater percolation at the project site would not be affected by
the proposed project. As the proposed project consists of re-routing existing dry season flows to an
adjacent infiltration basin, the proposed project would not result in a noticeable deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the groundwater table. The project would not involve or require the extraction of
groundwater. As such, the project would not have the ability to substantially affect groundwater levels
in the site vicinity, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would alter existing drainage patterns of the
area by capturing dry weather flows and re-routing them to an adjacent infiltration basin, which will
result in a decrease in dry weather flow volumes. Storm flows would remain the same upon post-
construction and therefore, existing erosion and siltation would not be affected. It is possible that
drainage patterns would be altered during short-term construction activities. However, as noted above,
construction of the project would be required to comply with water quality control measures included in
Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, of the City’s Municipal Code. The Excavation and
Grading Code includes measures to minimize water quality impacts during the short-term construction
process. Upon adherence to these requirements, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-76
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.9-3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Response 4.9(c), the proposed project would not
substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the project site or in the surrounding area. Dry
season flows would decrease and wet weather flows would be unaffected by the proposed project. As
such, the project would not have the capacity to alter drainage patterns or increase the potential for
flooding in the project area. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, nor would the project
provide substantial additional sources of water.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. The proposed project will have a beneficial impact in regard to water quality, as it would
reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants flowing through the site and into the ocean and
associated sensitive marine life areas.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the development of housing; therefore, no impacts
would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the installation of a subsurface
infiltration device, to eliminate nuisance surface flows during the dry season. As the infiltration devices
will be underground, there will be no structures within the 100 -year hazard area that would impede or
redirect flood flows.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a dam inundation area; therefore,
no impacts would occur.
4-77
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.9-4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-
enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave,
commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic
displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. Mudflows result from the
downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity.
Although the project site is located near Newport Bay, according to the City’s General Plan EIR, the
probability that damaging seiches would develop in Newport Bay is considered low. In addition,
mudflow potential in the project area is considered low, as there are no topographical features capable
of producing mudflow adjacent to the project site.
The beach area can be impacted by a tsunami. The proposed project does not include new habitable
structures, nor would it alter any existing structures in the project vicinity. The project does not include
new habitable structures, nor would it alter the existing habitable structures in the project vicinity. The
project would therefore not increase the likelihood of damage by a tsunami; therefore, there is no
impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-78
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.10-1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? ü
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
ü
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? ü
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site is located at the base of Buck Gully within Littl e Corona Beach, and is
comprised of improvements that will primarily be located underground and/or are similar to the existing
drainage infrastructure that currently exists. As such, the proposed project would be similar to existing
conditions, and would not divide an established community. Rather, the project would result in a
beneficial impact in this regard since it would provide a benefit to water quality in an area (Little Corona
Beach) that is heavily used by the general public.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will consist of drainage infrastructure
improvements at the base of Buck Gully to improve water quality and eliminate unpleasant nuisance
flows that travel across Little Corona Beach. The aboveground improvements would be concrete and
would generally maintain the same architectural/visual characteristics as the existing concrete weir in
the project location. The new improvements would improve the beach experience for all users of the
site and surrounding area, and would not conflict with any City plan or policy.
In addition, the project will be required to comply with California Coastal Act (CCA) and the City’s
Coastal Land Use Plan. The City would be responsible for acquisition of a Coastal Development Permit
(CDP) through the California Coastal Commission (CCC). As part of the CDP application process, the
CCC would perform a detailed review of the proposed project in relatio n to the CCA, and identify any
measures required to achieve consistency. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-79
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.10-2 LAND USE AND PLANNING
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natura l community conservation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project is located within the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).1 However, as discussed within Responses 4.4(a) through
4.4(e), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, and would
not result in conflicts with provisions of the NCCP. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, HCP/NCCP California Regional Conservation Plans, October 2013.
4-80
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.11-1 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
ü
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
ü
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The proposed project would involve installing an underground infiltration system near the
existing beach access path. The system would capture and infiltrate nuisance surface water flows. No
mineral recovery activities currently occur in the project area, and the project site is not underlain by
any known mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the state. Thus, no impacts would
occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a), above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-81
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.11-2 MINERAL RESOURCES
This page intentionally left blank.
4-82
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.12-1 NOISE
4.12 NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
ü
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ü
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ü
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
ü
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
ü
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
ü
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air , and is
characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally.
In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human
hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing
extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times
within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify
sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles,
trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise
generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of
distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and
the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of
distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling
of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA
per doubling of distance.
There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time.
One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has
the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated
based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA
penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased
human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there
are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range
from 55 dBA to 65 dBA.
4-83
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.12-2 NOISE
Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound
source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the
sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving
the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various
meteorological conditions.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior
noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise.
The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land
uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, of the City’s Municipal Code contains all noise regulations implemented in
the City; refer to Table 4.12-1, City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards, and Table 4.12-2, City of Newport
Beach Interior Noise Standards.
Table 4.12-1
City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards
Zone Allowable Exterior Noise Level (Leq)1
7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
1- Single-, two- or multiple-family residential properties 55 dBA 50 dBA
2- Commercial properties 65 dBA 60 dBA
3- Residential portions of mixed-use properties 60 dBA 50 dBA
4- Industrial or manufacturing 70 dBA 70 dBA
1. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standards, the ambient shall be the standard.
Source: Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) Section 10.26.025(A) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2015.
Table 4.12-2
City of Newport Beach Interior Noise Standards
Zone
Allowable Interior Noise Level1
7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
1- Residential 45 dBA 40 dBA
2- Residential portions of mixed-use properties 45 dBA 40 dBA
1. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standards, the ambient shall be the standard.
Source: Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) Section 10.26.030(A) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code,
2015.
The project would also be subject to the limitations imposed by the City regarding construction noise. The following
outlines the City’s construction noise ordinance:
A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging,
grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool,
equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person
4-84
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.12-3 NOISE
of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of
seven a.m. and six-thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m.
B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading,
demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or
machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal
sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday.
C. No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or
allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or
machine in violation of the provisions of this section.
EXISTING NOISE SOURCES
The project area consists of a mix of coastal riparian habitat, beaches, and residential communities. The primary
sources of stationary ambient noise in the project vicinity are typical of coastal riparian habitats (i.e., ocean waves
and wildlife) and residential communities (i.e., mechanical equipment, parking areas, and pedestrians). The noise
associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term or long-term/continuous
noise. The majority of the existing mobile noise in the project area is generated from local traffic along residential
streets and East Coast Highway located approximately 0.25 miles to the north of the project site .
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of stan dards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. It is difficult to specify noise levels that
are generally acceptable to everyone; what is annoying to one person may be unnoticed by another.
Standards may be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels, or based
on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. However, all
such studies recognize that individual responses vary considerably. Standards usually address the
needs of the majority of the general population.
Chapter 10.28, Loud and Unreasonable Noise, of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth all noise
regulations controlling unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise within the City. As outlined in the
Municipal Code, maximum noise levels are based on land use.
SHORT-TERM NOISE IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately four months. Construction
activities would include minor demolition, grading, and construction of the infiltration system. Ground-
borne noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts typically occur during the initial site
preparation. This phase of construction has the potential to create the highest levels of noise; however,
it is generally the shortest of all construction phases. Typical noise levels generated by construction
equipment are shown in Table 4.12-3, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment.
Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full
power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of
acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such
as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).
4-85
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.12-4 NOISE
Table 4.12-3
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA)
Concrete Saw 20 90
Crane 16 81
Backhoe 40 78
Dozer 40 82
Excavator 40 81
Forklift 40 78
Tractor 40 84
General Industrial Equipment 50 85
Note:
1 – Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction
equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-
054), January 2006.
Sensitive uses surrounding the project site include residential uses surrounding the project site to the
east and west. These sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated noise levels during project
construction. The City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards.
Instead, Chapter 10.28 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes allowable hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30
p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or Federal
holidays. Thus, construction activities would be conducted during allowable daytime hours, per the
City’s Municipal Code. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would ensure that noise
generated during construction of the project would be lessened to the maximum extent possible.
Mitigation Measure N-1 includes the designation of a “Noise Disturbance Coordinator,” and orientation
of stationary construction equipment away from nearby sensitive receivers, among other requirements.
Impacts in this regard would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N -1.
Refer to Response 4.12 (c) for a discussion of the proposed project’s long -term operational noise
impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
N-1 Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
confirm that the proposed project stipulates that:
· All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating
and maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation devices.
· The City shall provide a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The Disturbance
Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall
notify the City within 24-hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable
measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Community
Development Department. The contact name and the telephone number for the
Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on -site.
· During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
4-86
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.12-5 NOISE
· Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable
hours specified by the City’s Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30
p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited
on Sundays and/or federal holidays).
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-borne
vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of
construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude
with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site
often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver
building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration
levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the
highest levels. Ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage
structures.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction
equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e.,
0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impact include
human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises
significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage
can be cosmetic or structural. Typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in
Table 4.12-4, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.
Table 4.12-4
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 25 feet
(inches/second)1
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 50 feet
(inches/second)2
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.031
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Notes:
1. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.
Table 12-2.
2. Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance
PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The proposed project would not require pile
driving. As indicated in Table 4.12-4, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy
construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to
0.076 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The nearest
sensitive receptors (residential surrounding the project site) are located approximately 50 feet from the
project site. As noted in Table 4.12-4, vibration at 50 feet would range from 0.001 to 0.031 PPV.
4-87
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.12-6 NOISE
Therefore, vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors would be
well below the 0.20 inch-per-second PPV significance threshold. Thus, a less than significant impact
would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes the installation of a subsurface infiltration system
on Little Corona Beach at the outlet of Buck Gully, as part of the City’s Watershed Management Plan.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels since noise increases would only be generated during construction. Other than occasional
minor maintenance activities, the project would not result in long-term mobile noise impacts as the
project does not propose any trip-generating land use. Additionally, long-term stationary noise impacts
would not occur as all operation equipment, with the exception of the diversion vault, would be located
underground. Thus, the proposed project’s long-term noise impact would be negligible. Impacts would
be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above the levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Responses 4.12(a) and 4.12(c),
above. While the project may include a minor increase in noise levels during construction, any such
increase would be short-term in nature and all impacts would cease upon project completion. Impacts
in this regard would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure N-1.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project site is not located within an area subject to the requirements on an airport land
use plan, as it is located approximately 5 miles from John Wayne Airport (SNA). The project consists
solely of construction-related activities; thus, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. There are no private airstrips located in close proximity to the project area. Therefore, no
impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-88
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.13-1 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
ü
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
ü
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ü
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or
other uses that would result in direct population growth. The project consists of the installation of a
subsurface infiltration system on the Little Corona Beach to capture and infiltrate nuisance surface
water flows diverted from Buck Gully. As such, impacts in regards to growth inducement would not
occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. No housing would be affected by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact. No people would be displaced by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-89
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.13-2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This page intentionally left blank.
4-90
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.14-1 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection? ü
2) Police protection? ü
3) Schools? ü
4) Parks? ü
5) Other public facilities? ü
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire protection
within the City. The nearest station to the project site is Station #5, located at 410 Marigold Avenue,
approximately 0.40 miles to the north of the project site. As a water quality improvement project, the
proposed facility would not substantially increase the need for fire protection services. No habitable
structures are proposed. Currently, the Little Corona Beach access path is not open to the public for
vehicular travel but provides emergency vehicle access to Little Corona Beach. During construction of
the proposed project, vehicular access for emergency vehicles would be maintained at all times. As
such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department provides police protection
within the City. The Newport Beach Police Department is based at 870 Santa Barbara Drive,
approximately 2.33 miles north of the project site. As a water quality improvement project, the
proposed facility would not substantially increase the need for police protection services. No habitable
structures are proposed. Currently, the Little Corona Beach access road provides emergency vehicle
access to Little Corona Beach. During construction of the proposed project, vehicular access for
emergency vehicles would be maintained at all times. As such, police response capability would be
maintained at all times, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-91
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.14-2 PUBLIC SERVICES
3) Schools?
No Impact. The proposed project would not directly result in any student generation, as no homes are
proposed. Moreover, as discussed in Response 4.13(a), the project would not directly or indirectly
induce substantial population growth in the project area. Thus, no impacts are anticipated in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4) Parks?
No Impact. As a water quality improvement project, the facility would not generate the need for new or
physically altered park facilities. No habitable structures are proposed as part of the project. Moreover,
as discussed in Response 4.13(a), the project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial
population growth in the project area. In addition, public access to the beach would be maintained at all
times. Thus, no impacts are anticipated in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
5) Other public facilities?
No Impact. As shown above in Responses 4.14(a)(1) through 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would
not result in significant impacts on public services or facilities. No other public facilities are anticipated
to be affected by the project. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-92
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.15-1 RECREATION
4.15 RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
ü
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
ü
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
No Impact. As stated in Response 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project does not have the capacity to
increase the demand on existing neighborhood or regional recreational facilities, and would not result in
physical deterioration of these facilities. In addition, recreational access to Little Corona Beach will be
maintained at all times during construction. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re quire the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. As stated in Response 4.14(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in an increase in
demand on parks or other recreational facilities. During construction activities, pedestrian access to
Little Corona Beach would remain open at all times. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-93
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.15-2 RECREATION
This page intentionally left blank.
4-94
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.16-1 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
ü
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
ü
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
ü
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
ü
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ü
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
ü
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
No Impact. Currently, the existing public access road provides pedestrian access to Little Corona
Beach but is not open to the public for vehicular travel. During construction of the proposed project,
private and emergency vehicular access would be unaffected as construction vehicles will not need to
park within the access path. As such, short-term construction impacts in this regard would not occur.
Upon completion of construction, the access road would be una ffected. Therefore, long-term
operational traffic impacts would not occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact. Based on the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Congestion Management
Program (CMP), there are no designated CMP roadways that would be affected by the proposed
4-95
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.16-2 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
project. The nearest CMP roadway is East Coast Highway (State Route 1), which is located
approximately 0.5-mile to the north. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 5
miles to the north. The proposed project would not have the capacity to result in a change in air traffic
patterns. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include transportation design features or incompatible
equipment. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. Refer to Impact Statement 4.16(a) above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
No Impact. The project would have no conflicts with transit, bike, or pedestrian facilities as public
access to the Little Corona Beach will not be impacted due to construction or long-term operation.
Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-96
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.17-1 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? ü
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
ü
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
ü
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
ü
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
ü
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ü
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? ü
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No Impact. The proposed project would result in the installation of a subsurface infiltration system on
Little Corona Beach at the outlet of Buck Gully. The project would not include the use of any habitable
structures, and would not have the capability to produce wastewater. As such, no impacts would occur
in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
No Impact. The proposed project is a water treatment facility, to help eliminate nuisance water flows
during the dry season at Little Corona Beach. This will result in improved water quality of discharge at
Buck Gully before entering the Pacific Ocean. The project would not include the use of any habitable
structures, and would not have the capability to consume water or produce wastewater. As such, no
impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-97
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.17-2 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The project includes installation of a subsurface infiltration system for the purposes of
significantly reducing nuisance water flows during the dry season at Little Corona Beach , and would be
similar to existing conditions. As the proposed project is not a development project, the project does
not require new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities in the area. As such,
impacts would not occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.17(b), above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.17(a) and 4.17(b), above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
No Impact. The project would not include the construction of any habitable structures, and would not
have the capability to produce solid waste. Although the project may require the disposal of minimal
construction debris (concrete, soil, etc.), the generation of these materials would be short-term in nature
and would not have the capability to substantially affect the capacity of regional landfills. Thus, no
impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. Refer to response 4.17(f), above. In addition, t he proposed project would comply with all
Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which provides
the federal government with “cradle to grave” authority over the disposal of solid waste and hazardous
materials. The project would also be required to comply with Assembly Bills 939 and 1327, which
require measures to enhance recycling and source reduction. Thus, impacts in this regard would not
occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4-98
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.18-1 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
ü
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
ü
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
ü
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As noted in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, the only sensitive biological resources associated with the project site is the adjacent
coastal sage scrub, woolly seablite, and riparian forest in Buck Gully, as well as the ornamental
vegetation that provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian species, coastal environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), and jurisdictional waters. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3
would be implemented to minimize impacts in this regard to a level below significance. In addition,
while no sensitive cultural resources are known to exist within site boundaries, Mit igation Measure CUL-
1 would be implemented in the event archeological resources are found during construction activities.
In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be implemented in the event sensitive paleontological
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, the project does not have the
potential to significantly degrade the overall quality of the region’s environment, or substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population or drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
4-99
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.18-2 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not result
in the construction of any new housing or other uses that would directly result in population growth.
There would be no impact that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable for the
environmental issues analyzed within this Initial Study. As indicated throughout Section 4.0,
Environmental Analysis, impacts as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant with
implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
less than significant impacts in this regard.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Previous sections of this Initial Study
reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils,
greenhouse gases, hydrology/water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, and other
issues. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than
significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings.
4-100
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.19-1 REFERENCES
4.19 REFERENCES
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist.
These documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development
Department located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
1. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, October 2008.
2. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location
Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring
Asbestos Report, August 2000.
3. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Orange
County Important Farmland 2010 Map , published August 2011.
4. California Department of Conservation, Regional Geologic Hazards and Mapping Program,
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm, accessed May 5, 2015.
5. California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazards Zone Map, http://www.
conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/Index.aspx, accessed May 5, 2015.
6. California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed May 5, 2015.
7. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
8. California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2013.2.2 .
9. California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000 -2012, May
2014.
10. California Fish and Wildlife Service, HCP/NCCP California Regional Conservation Plans,
October 2013.
11. California State Office of Planning and Research, Noise Element Guidelines, October 2003.
12. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach General Plan, July 2006.
13. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
April 2006.
14. City of Newport Beach , City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, current through Ordinance
2014-11, passed on June 24, 2014.
15. City of Newport Beach, Emergency Operations Plan, Approved on September 27, 2011.
16. City of Newport Beach, Local Coastal Program, Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Adopted
October 13, 2005, amended on February 5, 2009.
17. Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., Archeological and Paleontological Assessment of the
Little Corona Infiltration Project, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California, April 2015.
4-101
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.19-2 REFERENCES
18. County of Orange, Drainage Area Management Plan, 2003.
19. Cyril M. Harris, Noise Control in Buildings, 1994.
20. Earth Mechanics, Inc., Geotechnical Data Report for the City of Newport Beach L ittle Corona
Infiltration Project, Orange County, CA, May 14, 2015.
21. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0382J, revised
December 3, 2009.
22. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054),
January 2006.
23. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines,
May 2006.
24. Google Earth, 2014.
25. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate
Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, 2008.
26. Michael Baker International, Habitat Assessment for the Little Corona Infiltration Project, City
of Newport Beach, July 28, 2015.
27. Michael Baker International, Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Water s, August
2015.
28. Southern California Association of Governments, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 4, 2012.
29. Southern California Earthquake Center website, http://www.scec.org/, accessed June 9, 2014.
30. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, 2012.
31. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993.
32. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology, Appendix C, June 2003 (revised 2009).
33. State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region,
ORDER NO. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030.
34. United State Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil
Survey, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm, accessed April 2015.
35. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference
to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, October 1979, revised July 1981.
4-102
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.20-1 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency)
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.644.3200
John Kappeler, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works
Bob Stein, Assistant City Engineer, Public Works
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, Community Development
Benjamin Zdeba, Assistant Planner, Community Development
Michael Baker International
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
949.472.3505
John McCarthy, Senior Vice President, Hydrology
Alan Ashimine, Environmental Task Manager
Eddie Torres, Air Quality and Noise Manager
Richard Beck, Regulatory Services Manager
Tim Muli, Hydrology
Travis McGill, Biology
Wesley Salter, Regulatory Specialist/Hazardous Materials
Achilles Malisos, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
Adam Furman, Environmental Analyst
Noelle Steele, Environmental Analyst
Linda Bo, Graphic Artist
Cogstone Resource Management (Cultural Resources)
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
714.974.8300
Sherri Gust, Registered Professional Archaeologist
Tierra Data, Inc. (Marine Biology)
10110 W. Lilac Road
Escondido, CA 92026
760.749.2247
Chris Clark, Marine Scientist
Earth Mechanics, Inc. (Geotechnical)
17800 Newhope Street, Suite B
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
714.751.3826
Dane Nicklaus, Staff Engineer
4-103
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 4.20-2 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
This page intentionally left blank.
4-104
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 5-1 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
AESTHETICS
AES-1 Prior to final plan approval, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
ensure that project specifications require that all construction and construction staging
areas are sited and/or screened with temporary fencing in order to minimize impacts to
public views of the construction site to the maximum extent feasible. The fencing shall be
comprised of opaque material to shield views from surrounding sensitive viewers. In
addition, equipment/materials storage and any vehicle parking shall be sited such that
their visibility from adjacent receptors is reduced to the greatest extent feasible.
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall confirm that the
proposed project stipulates that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust
emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as
specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402
requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from
creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the following measures (among others
required by Rules 402 and 403) would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby
sensitive receptors:
· All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours
during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the
project site to prevent excessive amounts of dust;
· Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply
non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the
site during site disturbance;
· Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed,
covered, or watered twice daily, or non-toxic soil binders shall be applied;
· All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour;
· Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after
construction is completed in the affected area;
· Visible dust beyond the property line which emanates from the project shall be
prevented to the maximum extent feasible;
· All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and
· Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor
areas to the extent feasible.
4-105
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 5-2 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 A pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three (3)
days prior to any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be
disturbed during construction. As long as development does not cause direct take of a
bird or egg(s) or disrupt nesting behaviors, immediate protections would not be required.
The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey report
indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur.
BIO-2 If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey,
construction activities may have to be rerouted, a no-work buffer might have to be
established around the nest, or construction may be delayed until the nest is inactive. A
biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area if an
active nest is observed, and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is
not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the qualified biologist has
determined that young birds have successfully fledged or the nest has otherwise become
inactive, a monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Newport
Beach for review and approval prior to initiating construction activities can proceed within
the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds. Construction within
the designated buffer area shall not proceed until written authorization is received by the
applicant from the CDFW.
BIO-3 Prior to any construction activity within the project site, the City of Newport Beach shall
consult with the appropriate responsible resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and California Coastal Commission) to verify delineation results, determine
permanent losses and temporary impact areas, and identify compensatory mitigation, as
applicable. Prior to undertaking ground-disturbing activities on or immediately adjacent to
any aquatic resource areas, the City of Newport Beach and/or their consultant shall obtain
all obligatory discretionary permits/authorizations. The City proposes to compensate for
permanent impacts to 0.0003 acres of Corps jurisdictional wetlands, as well as 0.002
acres of CDFW vegetated streambed/CCC jurisdictional wetlands, as a result of the Little
Corona Infiltration Project. The City proposes to conduct 0.008 acre of freshwater marsh
enhancement activities in the form of non-native species removal within the mitigation
site. Invasive species removal would be conducted via hand pulling.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 All construction personnel (in addition to the City of Newport Beach project manager(s)
and construction inspectors) shall receive archaeological resources sensitivity training
prior to construction. If evidence of archeological resources is found during construction,
excavation or other activity, the project shall halt work in the vicinity of the find (minimum
50-foot radius) and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development
Director, an archaeologist certified by the County of Orange shall be retained to evaluate
the discovery prior to resuming grading in the vicinity of the find. If warranted, the
archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the
results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including
discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final
mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. If Native American resources are found,
a notice will be sent to affected tribes as determined appropriate by the Community
Development Director.
4-106
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 5-3 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-2 If, during ground disturbance, potentially significant paleontological evidence becomes
apparent, work in that location shall be stopped; if not present, a qualified paleontologist
(approved by the City) shall be notified immediately to evaluate the find. Should
evaluation conclude that important cultural resources exist and would be negatively
impacted by project construction, recommendations shall present further mitigation
measures necessary to lessen those impacts to less than significant.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 During construction, if the contractor discovers unknown wastes or suspect materials that
he/she believes may be hazardous, the contractor shall:
· Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing
workers and the public from the area;
· Notify the Project Engineer of the implementing agency;
· Secure the areas as directed by the Project Engineer; and
· Notify the implementing agency’s hazardous and wa ste/materials coordinator.
NOISE
N-1 Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department
shall confirm that the proposed project stipulates that:
· All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation
devices.
· The City shall provide a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator”. The
Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the
Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 -hours of the complaint and
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler,
etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as
deemed acceptable by the Community Development Department. The contact
name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly
posted on-site.
· During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
· Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the
allowable hours specified by the City’s Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00
a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays;
construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays).
4-107
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 5-4 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
This page intentionally left blank.
4-108
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 6-1 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
6.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study/Environmental
Checklist, we recommend that the City prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the Park Avenue
Bridge Replacement Project. We find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on a
number of environmental issues, but that mitigation measures have been identified that reduce such
impacts to a less than significant level. We recommend that the second category be selected for the
City’s determination (refer to Section 7.0, Lead Agency Determination).
January 2016
Date Alan Ashimine, Project Manager
Michael Baker International
4-109
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 6-2 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
This page intentionally left blank.
4-110
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 7-1 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
7.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation, the City of Newport Beach (lead agency for the proposed project)
has made the following determination:
The City finds that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
f
The City finds that although the proposal could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described in Section 5.0 have been added. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
ü
The City finds that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
f
The City finds that the proposal 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.
f
4-111
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JANUARY 2016 7-2 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
This page intentionally left blank.
4-112
Exhibit “B”
Little Corona Beach Infiltration Project Final MND including
Responses to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2015-001
State Clearinghouse Number 2016011037
4-113
FINAL
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Little Corona Infiltration Project
SCH #: 2016011037
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Contact: Mr. John Kappeler
949.644.3318
PREPARED BY:
Michael Baker International, Inc.
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
Contacts: Mr. Alan Ashimine
949.472.3505
March 2016
JN 145143
4-114
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE #
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .............................................................................. 2-1
3. MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM ...................................... 3-1
4-115
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 1-1 INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
The Little Corona Infiltration Project (herein referenced as the "project") proposes water quality
improvements at Little Corona Beach within the City of Newport Beach. As a key anchor to the
City’s overall water quality program, the City has proposed the Little Corona Infiltration Project in
order to eliminate nuisance flows. The proposed project would consist of the installation of a
diversion structure at the upstream side of the existing concrete weir located within Buck Gully
Creek. The diverted water flow will be conveyed through a proposed 8-inch PVC pipe into a 48-
inch continuous deflection system (CDS) that will serve to remove sediment. Subsequently, the
flow will be directed into a proposed 3,182 square-foot underground infiltration system. Nearly
all improvements would be located below ground surface. During construction, pedestrian
access to the public beach would be maintained at all times along Glen Drive. Vehicular access
would also be maintained during construction along Poppy Avenue. Upon completion of
construction, the access road would be unaffected. The construction period is anticipated to
take place within a 3-month period and last approximately 45 working days. Construction will
occur Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. Following a preliminary review of the
proposed project, the City of Newport Beach has determined that it is subject to the guidelines
and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study
addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) has been prepared for the proposed project.
The IS/MND was made available for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15105. The public review commenced on January 15, 2016 and expired on February
16, 2016. The IS/MND and supporting attachments were available for review by the general
public at:
Newport Beach Public Library (Corona del Mar Branch), 420 Marigold Avenue, Corona
Del Mar, CA 92625;
Newport Beach Public Library (Mariners Branch), 1300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach,
CA 92660;
Newport Beach Public Library (Balboa Branch), 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport
Beach, CA 92660;
Newport Beach Public Library (Central Library), 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach,
CA 92660; and
City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport
Beach, CA, 92660; and
the City's website at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347.
4-116
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 2-2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
During the public review period, comments were received on the IS/MND from numerous public
agencies and interested parties. The following is a list of the agencies and parties that
submitted comments on the IS/MND during the public review period:
Comment
Letter
No.
Person, Firm, or Agency Letter Dated
1
Scott Morgan
Director
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
February 17, 2016
2
Cy R. Oggins
Chief, Division of Environmental Planning and
Management
California State Lands Commission
February 12, 2016
3
Laree Alonso
Manager, Planning Division
OC Public Works Service Area/OC Development Services
February 16, 2016
4
Patricia Martz, Ph.D.
President
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc.
January 30, 2016
Although the CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to
comments received (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088), the City has elected to prepare the
following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful
evaluation of the proposed project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to
the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter.
4-117
4-118
4-119
4-120
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 2-6 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 1
Scott Morgan
Director
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
February 17, 2016
1.1 This procedural letter received from the State Clearinghouse acknowledges the close of
the public review period for the IS/MND and verifies that the City of Newport Beach has
complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements under CEQA. It also provides a
summary of information contained within the State Clearinghouse’s database for the
proposed project. No further response is required.
4-121
4-122
4-123
4-124
4-125
4-126
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 2-12 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 2
Cy R. Oggins
Chief, Division of Environmental Planning and Management
California State Lands Commission
February 12, 2016
2.1 This introductory paragraph provides a summary of the role of the City of Newport Beach
(City) as the lead agency under CEQA and the role of the California State Lands
Commission (CSLC) as a responsible and trustee agency. This comment is noted and
no response is required.
2.2 This overview provides a description of CSLC jurisdiction and public trust lands. This
comment is noted and no response is required.
2.3 This comment relates to the location of the mean high tide line (MHTL) and CSLC
jurisdiction in relationship to the temporary construction footprint of the proposed project.
The comment notes that a lease with CSLC may be required for any activity occurring
waterward of the MHTL, and that the project is subject to the “CSLC Coastal Project
Review Plan.”
It should be noted that the CSLC provided a letter (dated June 22, 2015) to Michael
Baker International in response to request for a determination by the CSLC as to
whether it asserts a sovereign title interest in the property that the subject project will
occupy (refer to Attachment 2A following this response). The letter included a
discussion of CSLC jurisdiction, a brief description of the proposed project, and CSLC’s
determination that “based on the circumstances as set forth above, the property location,
the character, and history of adjacent development, Commission staff does not presently
claim that the proposed project intrudes onto sovereign lands. Therefore, no lease,
permit, or authorization is required from the Commission at this time for the subject
project.”
As such, it is the City’s understanding based on previous correspondence with CSLC
that a lease would not be required, and that the project would not be subject to the
CSLC Coastal Project Review Plan. However, in the event it is determined that further
consultation with CSLC staff is required to resolve this issue, the City would provide data
and information as necessary to receive a formal determination as to a lease
requirement. Regardless, the environmental impacts related to the project have been
fully disclosed under CEQA, and a requirement for a lease (or lack thereof) would not
result in the potential for any physical impacts beyond what has been disclosed in the
Initial Study.
2.4 This section provides a description of the project and the possible long-term water
quality benefits at the Little Corona Beach. This comment is noted and no response is
required.
2.5 This comment relates to the potential effects of sea level rise and the recent policies put
in place by the State of California (“Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, an
Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy”) and Governor Brown
(Executive Order B-30-15) as part of the continuing efforts to prepare for climate risks.
The CSLC suggests that the MND include an assessment of potential sea level rise
effects, and if required, include a plan to address such impacts.
4-127
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 2-13 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The proposed project includes improvements to eliminate nuisance flow associated with
Little Corona Beach. The project does not include any habitable structures where sea
level rise may present a hazard to human health. In addition, the infiltration project does
not represent a critical infrastructure improvement (water, sewer, electricity, roadway,
etc.) that could result in impacts to the local community should a rise in sea levels occur.
However, to address sea level rise, the City plans to implement an annual maintenance
program for the proposed project that would include beach nourishment, by adding sand
to maintain and restore eroding portions of the beach at project location, including
building sand dunes as necessary to protect the structures. The City has successfully
implemented a similar program for the beach area downstream of the existing weir wall
where Buck Gully channel outlets in the ocean. In addition, the proposed infiltration
system can be easily removed and relocated within a matter of hours. As an alternative
remedial measure for sea level rise, the City can remove and relocate the infiltration
system to higher ground depending on sea level conditions in the future.
2.6 This paragraph provides a conclusion to the comment letter and contact information for
the Commenter. This comment is noted and no response is required.
2.7 This CSLC’s Coastal Project Review Plan has been included as an attachment to their
comment letter. This document does not raise concerns specific to the environmental
impacts of the proposed project, and no response is required.
4-128
ATTACHMENT 2A
4-129
4-130
4-131
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 2-17 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 3
Laree Alonso
Manager, Planning Division
OC Public Works Service Area/OC Development Services
February 16, 2016
3.1 This letter received from the County of Orange acknowledges their review of the Notice
of Availability and Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Little Corona
Infiltration Project, and the County requests to be advised of further developments on the
project. This comment is noted and no response is required.
4-132
4-133
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 2-19 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 4
Patricia Martz, Ph.D.
President
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc.
January 30, 2016
4.1 This letter received from CCRPA acknowledges their review and concurrence with the
findings and recommendations to the Cultural Resources Appendix for the Little Corona
Infiltration Project. This comment is noted and no further response is required.
4-134
LITTLE CORONA INFILTRATION PROJECT
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MARCH 2016 4-1 MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
3. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which
includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must
adopt a reporting or monitoring plan. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts
found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to
ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the attached Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program has been prepared for the proposed Little Corona Infiltration Project.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is intended to provide verification that all
mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study prepared for the project are monitored and
reported. Monitoring will include 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been
implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention
of records in the project file.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the
project, but also allows the City of Newport Beach flexibility and discretion in determining how
best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of
mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures
took place and that mitigation measures were implemented.
Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and
generally involves the following steps:
x The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of
compliance.
x Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study, which
provides general background information on the reasons for including specified
mitigation measures.
x Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate.
x Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of
mitigation measures.
x Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been
conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented.
Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval
programs such as field inspection reports and plan review.
x The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an
annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts.
x Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or
conditions of permits/approvals.
Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made
in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City.
Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, plan
redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of
mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No
change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to
satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
4-135
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
O
R
O
N
A
I
N
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
6
4-
2
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
&
R
E
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
R
E
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
C
H
E
C
K
L
I
S
T
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
Pa
r
t
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
In
i
t
i
a
l
s
D
a
t
e
Remarks
AE
S
T
H
E
T
I
C
S
AE
S
-
1
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
f
i
n
a
l
p
l
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
a
r
e
s
i
t
e
d
a
n
d
/
o
r
sc
r
e
e
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
v
i
e
w
s
o
f
t
h
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
e
x
t
e
n
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
Th
e
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
r
i
s
e
d
o
f
o
p
a
q
u
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
to
s
h
i
e
l
d
v
i
e
w
s
f
r
o
m
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
s
.
In
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
/
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
a
n
y
ve
h
i
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
i
t
e
d
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
r
vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
r
o
m
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
i
s
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
gr
e
a
t
e
s
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
a
n
s
a
n
d
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
In
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
F
i
n
a
l
Pl
a
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
;
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
AQ
-
1
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
,
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
SC
A
Q
M
D
R
u
l
e
4
0
3
,
f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
u
s
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
b
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
d
u
s
t
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
a
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
SC
A
Q
M
D
’
s
R
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
SC
A
Q
M
D
R
u
l
e
4
0
2
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
du
s
t
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
du
s
t
f
r
o
m
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
a
m
o
n
g
ot
h
e
r
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
R
u
l
e
s
4
0
2
a
n
d
4
0
3
)
w
o
u
l
d
re
d
u
c
e
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
u
s
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
n
e
a
r
b
y
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
:
x
Al
l
a
c
t
i
v
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
sh
a
l
l
b
e
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
e
v
e
r
y
t
h
r
e
e
h
o
u
r
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
a
n
s
a
n
d
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
In
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
F
i
n
a
l
Pl
a
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
;
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
4-136
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
O
R
O
N
A
I
N
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
6
4-
3
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
&
R
E
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
Pa
r
t
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
In
i
t
i
a
l
s
D
a
t
e
Remarks
da
i
l
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
w
h
e
n
d
u
s
t
i
s
ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
o
f
d
u
s
t
;
x
Pa
v
e
o
r
a
p
p
l
y
w
a
t
e
r
e
v
e
r
y
t
h
r
e
e
h
o
u
r
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
da
i
l
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
r
a
p
p
l
y
n
o
n
-
t
o
x
i
c
so
i
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
,
pa
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
,
a
n
d
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
.
M
o
r
e
fr
e
q
u
e
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
i
f
d
u
s
t
i
s
ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
;
x
An
y
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
s
t
o
c
k
p
i
l
e
s
o
f
d
e
b
r
i
s
,
d
i
r
t
,
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
du
s
t
y
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d
,
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
,
o
r
wa
t
e
r
e
d
t
w
i
c
e
d
a
i
l
y
,
o
r
n
o
n
-
t
o
x
i
c
s
o
i
l
b
i
n
d
e
r
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
;
x
Al
l
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
s
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d
w
h
e
n
w
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
2
5
mi
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
;
x
Di
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
g
r
o
u
n
d
co
v
e
r
o
r
p
a
v
e
d
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
is
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
;
x
Vi
s
i
b
l
e
d
u
s
t
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
w
h
i
c
h
em
a
n
a
t
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
e
d
to
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
e
x
t
e
n
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
;
x
Al
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
i
t
h
e
r
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
y
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
o
r
s
e
c
u
r
e
l
y
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
o
f
d
u
s
t
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
de
p
a
r
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
j
o
b
s
i
t
e
;
a
n
d
x
Re
r
o
u
t
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
r
u
c
k
s
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
co
n
g
e
s
t
e
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
o
r
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
to
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
BI
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
BI
O
-
1
A
p
r
e
-
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
f
o
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
bi
r
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
(
3
)
d
a
y
s
p
r
i
o
r
to
a
n
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
n
o
ne
s
t
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
Pr
e
-
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Cl
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
fo
r
N
e
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
r
d
s
Wi
t
h
i
n
3
D
a
y
s
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
G
r
o
u
n
d
Di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
;
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
4-137
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
O
R
O
N
A
I
N
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
6
4-
4
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
&
R
E
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
Pa
r
t
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
In
i
t
i
a
l
s
D
a
t
e
Remarks
As
l
o
n
g
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
a
u
s
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
a
k
e
of
a
b
i
r
d
o
r
e
g
g
(
s
)
o
r
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
,
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
T
h
e
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
no
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
v
i
a
n
n
e
s
t
s
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
.
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
BI
O
-
2
I
f
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
v
i
a
n
n
e
s
t
i
s
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
e
-
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
m
a
y
h
a
v
e
t
o
b
e
r
e
r
o
u
t
e
d
,
a
n
o
-
w
o
r
k
b
u
f
f
e
r
mi
g
h
t
h
a
v
e
t
o
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
,
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
b
e
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
i
s
in
a
c
t
i
v
e
.
A
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
o
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
t
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
a
r
e
a
i
f
a
n
ac
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
t
i
s
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
,
a
n
d
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
ne
s
t
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
i
s
n
o
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
On
c
e
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
h
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
a
t
yo
u
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
h
a
v
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
y
f
l
e
d
g
e
d
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
ha
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
b
e
c
o
m
e
i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
a
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
r
e
p
o
r
t
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
in
i
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
c
a
n
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
j
e
o
p
a
r
d
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l
o
f
th
e
y
o
u
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
b
u
f
f
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
wr
i
t
t
e
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
fr
o
m
t
h
e
C
D
F
W
.
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
D
u
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
;
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
;
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
BI
O
-
3
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
a
n
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
w
i
t
h
th
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
a
g
e
n
c
y
(
i
.
e
.
,
U.
S
.
A
r
m
y
C
o
r
p
s
o
f
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
Fi
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
,
a
n
d
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
)
t
o
v
e
r
i
f
y
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
,
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
o
s
s
e
s
a
n
d
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
;
O
b
t
a
i
n
Al
l
O
b
l
i
g
a
t
o
r
y
Di
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
/
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
;
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
Un
d
e
r
t
a
k
i
n
g
Gr
o
u
n
d
-
Di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
o
r
Im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
4-138
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
O
R
O
N
A
I
N
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
6
4-
5
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
&
R
E
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
Pa
r
t
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
In
i
t
i
a
l
s
D
a
t
e
Remarks
ar
e
a
s
,
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
-
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
o
r
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
a
n
y
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
a
r
e
a
s
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
/
o
r
th
e
i
r
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
o
b
t
a
i
n
a
l
l
o
b
l
i
g
a
t
o
r
y
di
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
/
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
pr
o
p
o
s
e
s
t
o
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
e
f
o
r
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
0.
0
0
0
3
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
C
o
r
p
s
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,
a
s
we
l
l
a
s
0
.
0
0
2
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
C
D
F
W
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
e
d
st
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
/
C
C
C
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,
a
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
of
t
h
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
C
o
r
o
n
a
I
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
pr
o
p
o
s
e
s
t
o
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
0
.
0
0
8
a
c
r
e
o
f
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
ma
r
s
h
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
n
o
n
-
na
t
i
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
In
v
a
s
i
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
v
i
a
ha
n
d
p
u
l
l
i
n
g
.
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
A
n
y
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
A
r
e
a
s
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
CU
L
-
1
A
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
(
i
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
(
s
)
a
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
I
f
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
a
r
c
h
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
s
f
o
u
n
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
or
o
t
h
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
l
t
w
o
r
k
i
n
t
h
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
d
(
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
r
a
d
i
u
s
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
.
Wi
t
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
,
a
n
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
Or
a
n
g
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
t
o
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
pr
i
o
r
t
o
r
e
s
u
m
i
n
g
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
d
.
If
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
,
t
h
e
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
a
n
d
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
th
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
t
e
s
t
-
l
e
v
e
l
re
p
o
r
t
s
h
a
l
l
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
;
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
;
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
;
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
4-139
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
O
R
O
N
A
I
N
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
6
4-
6
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
&
R
E
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
Pa
r
t
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
In
i
t
i
a
l
s
D
a
t
e
Remarks
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
(
d
e
p
t
h
,
n
a
t
u
r
e
,
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
)
,
f
i
n
a
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
c
o
s
t
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
.
I
f
N
a
t
i
v
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
ar
e
f
o
u
n
d
,
a
n
o
t
i
c
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
e
n
t
t
o
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
t
r
i
b
e
s
a
s
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
.
CU
L
-
2
I
f
,
d
u
r
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
,
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
,
w
o
r
k
in
t
h
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
t
o
p
p
e
d
;
i
f
n
o
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
,
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
p
a
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
(
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
)
s
h
a
l
l
be
n
o
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
t
o
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
f
i
n
d
.
Sh
o
u
l
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
a
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
e
x
i
s
t
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
by
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
pr
e
s
e
n
t
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
le
s
s
e
n
t
h
o
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
;
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
(
i
f
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
)
;
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
HA
Z
A
R
D
S
A
N
D
H
A
Z
A
R
D
O
U
S
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
HA
Z
-
1
D
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
i
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
s
un
k
n
o
w
n
w
a
s
t
e
s
o
r
s
u
s
p
e
c
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
h
a
t
h
e
/
s
h
e
be
l
i
e
v
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
,
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
:
x
Im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
s
t
o
p
w
o
r
k
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
su
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
,
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
an
d
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
;
x
No
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
y
;
x
Se
c
u
r
e
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
s
a
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
;
a
n
d
x
No
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
y
’
s
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
an
d
w
a
s
t
e
/
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
.
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
;
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
NO
I
S
E
N-
1
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
co
n
f
i
r
m
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
:
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
a
n
s
a
n
d
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
;
Du
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
;
C
i
t
y
o
f
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
4-140
L
I
T
T
L
E
C
O
R
O
N
A
I
N
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
6
4-
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
&
R
E
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Mi
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
Pa
r
t
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
fo
r
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
In
i
t
i
a
l
s
D
a
t
e
Remarks
x
Al
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
f
i
x
e
d
o
r
m
o
b
i
l
e
,
sh
a
l
l
b
e
e
q
u
i
p
p
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
m
u
f
f
l
e
r
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
S
t
a
t
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
no
i
s
e
a
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
.
x
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
“
N
o
i
s
e
Di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
”
.
T
h
e
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
re
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
y
l
o
c
a
l
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
s
e
.
W
h
e
n
a
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
i
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
,
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
no
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
4
-
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
no
i
s
e
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
(
e
.
g
.
,
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
t
o
o
e
a
r
l
y
,
b
a
d
mu
f
f
l
e
r
,
e
t
c
.
)
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
,
a
s
de
e
m
e
d
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
n
a
m
e
an
d
t
h
e
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
Di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
po
s
t
e
d
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
.
x
Du
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
e
m
i
t
t
e
d
no
i
s
e
i
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
n
o
i
s
e
re
c
e
i
v
e
r
s
.
x
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
n
o
i
s
e
sh
a
l
l
n
o
t
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
c
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
ho
u
r
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
Se
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
.
2
8
.
0
4
0
(7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
a
n
d
6
:
3
0
p
.
m
.
on
w
e
e
k
d
a
y
s
,
8
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
a
n
d
6
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
o
n
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
s
;
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
o
n
Su
n
d
a
y
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
h
o
l
i
d
a
y
s
)
.
In
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
4-141
Attachment B
Little Corona Infiltration System Design Plans
4-142
MESA COSTA CITY OFCITYOFBEACHNEWPORTIRVINEOFCITYU.C.I.
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
C
-
X
X
X
X
C
I
T
Y
O
F
N
E
W
P
O
R
T
B
E
A
C
H
P
U
B
L
I
C
W
O
R
K
S
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
T
I
T
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
8
N
o
.
C
7
2
9
9
2
1
1
4
7
2
5
A
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
I
r
v
i
n
e
,
C
A
9
2
6
1
8
P
h
o
n
e
:
(
9
4
9
)
4
7
2
-
3
5
0
5
M
B
A
K
E
R
I
N
T
L
.
C
O
M
4
-
1
4
3
8
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
C
-
X
X
X
X
N
o
.
C
7
2
9
9
2
1
4
7
2
5
A
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
I
r
v
i
n
e
,
C
A
9
2
6
1
8
P
h
o
n
e
:
(
9
4
9
)
4
7
2
-
3
5
0
5
M
B
A
K
E
R
I
N
T
L
.
C
O
M
2
”
4
-
1
4
4
8
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
C
-
X
X
X
X
N
o
.
C
7
2
9
9
2
1
4
7
2
5
A
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
I
r
v
i
n
e
,
C
A
9
2
6
1
8
P
h
o
n
e
:
(
9
4
9
)
4
7
2
-
3
5
0
5
M
B
A
K
E
R
I
N
T
L
.
C
O
M
3
”
4
-
1
4
5
4
8
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
C
-
X
X
X
X
N
o
.
C
7
2
9
9
2
1
4
7
2
5
A
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
I
r
v
i
n
e
,
C
A
9
2
6
1
8
P
h
o
n
e
:
(
9
4
9
)
4
7
2
-
3
5
0
5
M
B
A
K
E
R
I
N
T
L
.
C
O
M
4
-
1
4
6
8
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
C
-
X
X
X
X
N
o
.
C
7
2
9
9
2
1
4
7
2
5
A
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
I
r
v
i
n
e
,
C
A
9
2
6
1
8
P
h
o
n
e
:
(
9
4
9
)
4
7
2
-
3
5
0
5
M
B
A
K
E
R
I
N
T
L
.
C
O
M
5
4
-
1
4
7
8
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
C
-
X
X
X
X
N
o
.
C
7
2
9
9
2
1
4
7
2
5
A
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
I
r
v
i
n
e
,
C
A
9
2
6
1
8
P
h
o
n
e
:
(
9
4
9
)
4
7
2
-
3
5
0
5
M
B
A
K
E
R
I
N
T
L
.
C
O
M
6
4
-
1
4
8
8
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
C
-
X
X
X
X
N
o
.
C
7
2
9
9
2
1
4
7
2
5
A
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
I
r
v
i
n
e
,
C
A
9
2
6
1
8
P
h
o
n
e
:
(
9
4
9
)
4
7
2
-
3
5
0
5
M
B
A
K
E
R
I
N
T
L
.
C
O
M
7
4
-
1
4
9
8
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
C
-
X
X
X
X
N
o
.
C
7
2
9
9
2
1
4
7
2
5
A
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
I
r
v
i
n
e
,
C
A
9
2
6
1
8
P
h
o
n
e
:
(
9
4
9
)
4
7
2
-
3
5
0
5
M
B
A
K
E
R
I
N
T
L
.
C
O
M
8
4
-
1
5
0
Attachment C
Vicinity Map
4-151
Feet
Imagery:2009-2013 photos provided by Eagle
Imaging www.eagleaerial.com
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the
accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of
Newport Beach and its employees and agents
disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to
any results obtained in its use.
Disclaimer:
3/3/2016
0 400200
Newport
Beach
GIS
4-152