HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Dover Drive Sidewalk - North of Cliff DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 20
June 27, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Stephen Luy
949 - 644 -3330 or sluy @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: DOVER DRIVE, NORTH OF CLIFF DRIVE SIDEWALK— MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF CONTRACT NO. 3652
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Dover Drive
Sidewalk Project.
DISCUSSION:
The City is proposing the construction of sidewalk along the easterly side of Dover Drive
from Cliff Drive to 970 feet North of Cliff Drive. The project involves construction of the
following:
A variable width sidewalk (4.5 feet to 7.5 feet wide) and new curb and gutter
within the existing Dover Drive from Cliff Drive to 425 feet North of Cliff Drive.
An eight -foot wide boardwalk with post and cable rail will be constructed behind
the existing curb from 425 feet North of Cliff Drive to 920 feet North of Cliff drive.
A six to eight -foot wide boardwalk will be constructed behind the existing curb to
join existing sidewalk from 920 feet North of Cliff Drive to 970 feet North of Cliff
Drive (see attached project location map).
The City's Consultant, Van Dell Consulting, has contacted the California Department of
Fish and Game, United States Army Corp of Engineers and Regional Water Quality
Control. All three agencies have indicated that permits are not required for this project.
A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application is being processed with the
California Coastal Commission.
Van Dell Consulting subconsultant, Chambers Group Inc., prepared the MND and
notified residents within a 300 -foot radius that it was available for review from May 4 to
June 4, 2006 (see attached). The MND states that the City will mitigate the pruning of
large limbs from two existing red willow trees and will plant four new one - gallon size red
willow trees adjacent to the site for each of the two trees disturbed by the construction,
Dover Drive North of Cliff Drive Sidewalk — Mitigated Negative Declaration for Contract No. 3652
June 27, 2006
Page 2
for a total of eight new trees. The City will establish a Mitigation Monitoring Program
that will consist of hand watering and monitoring the eight newly planted red willow
trees for a period of one year. In addition all red willow trees trimmed as a result of the
construction of the project will also be monitored for a period of one year. The Army
Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water
Quality Control Board have imposed no mitigation requirements on this project.
Mitigation measures imposed by the CDP will incorporate into the construction
documents.
The Notice of Intent for the MND was filed with the County Clerk of Orange County.
The City received one e-mail correspondence noting that Page 4, Item 10 of the MND
incorrectly states that other agency approvals are not required. Staff responded by
email to this individual stating that agency reviews are indeed required for this project
and that the aforementioned agencies have been contacted.
On May 2, 2006 staff sent the MND to the State Clearinghouse for review of the project
by affected agencies. On June 8, 2006 the City received a letter from the State
Clearinghouse indicating that the review period had closed June 1, 2006 and no state
agency had submitted comments regarding the project. Receipt of this letter indicates
that the City has complied with the State Clearinghouse requirements for draft
environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Prepared by: Submitted by'
Stephe u to n . Badum
Associate Civil Engineer Pic Works Director
Attachments: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Notice of Intent
E -mail Comment of Concern
Response to Comment of Concern
State Clearinghouse Letter
Resolution Approving MND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: From:
E:A Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 3300 Newport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95814 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
FCounty Clerk, County of Orange (Orange County)
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk
Santa Ana, CA 92702 POSTED
Public review period: May 4, 2006 through June 4, 2006
Name of Project: Dover Drive Street Improvement Project, C -3652 MAY 0 � 2006
Project Location: East Side of Dover Drive from Cliff Drive to 161h Streget. TO /Y, RK•RECORDERDEPU
Project Description: Removal of a portion of existing roadway improvements, construction
of new curb, gutter and sidewalk; modification of stormwater inlets;
construction of boardwalk with steel post and cable fence.
Public Meetings: No public meetings have been scheduled.
Hazardous Waste List: The site is not on a list of hazardous waste sites as defined in
Government Code section 65962.5 (f).
Document Availability: Copies of the initial study and supporting materials are available for
public review at the following locations:
Newport Beach City Hall
Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting the adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is attached. Additional plans, studies and /or exhibits relating to the proposed project may
be available for public review.
If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period.
Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from
the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be
adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts.
Written comments should be submitted to:
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
Attn: Bob Stein, P.E.
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92,05,
Bob Stein, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Questions on the Initials Study should be directed to:
Stephen Luy, Project Engineer
949 - 644 -3330
3
Page 1 of 2
From: Stein, Robert
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:51 AM
To: 'JonV3 @aol.com'
Cc: Patapoff, Bill
Subject: RE: Public Comments: Dover Drive Sidewalk Project, C -3652
Jan
you are correct. this project does require agency approval. we are working with CDFG and will be getting a
C DP.
Bob Stein
949 -644 -3322
From: JonV3 @aol.com [mailto:JonV3 @aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 11:49 PM
To: Stein, Robert
Cc: Ridgeway, Tod; Webb, Don; don2webb @earthlink.net; Nichols,
Edward; Curry, Keith; ablemker @coastal.ca.gov
Subject: Public Comments: Dover Drive Sidewalk Project, C -3652
June 4, 2006
Dear Mr. Stein and Newport Beach City Councilmembers,
Dick; City Council; Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Selich,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Ini:ial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dover Drive Sidewalk
Project dated May 2006, with the public comment period extending from May 4, 2006 to June 4, 2006, which happens to end on a
Sunday.
I am generally in favor of this project which will build a sidewalk and boardwalk on the east side of Dover Drive bordering
Castaways Park.
However, the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Dec for the project indicates that it will have temporary and permanent impacts to
Department of Fish and Game and California Coastal Commission jurisdictional wetlands (see pages 28 to 34, Biological
Resources). The report identifies total impacts of .060 acres, or 2,575 square feet. Therefore a Coastal Development Permit
should be required, as well as a DFG Streambed Alteration Agreement.
06/07/2006
Page 2 of 2
I believe the report erroneously states on page 4, paragraph 10, that no other public agencies approvals are required. The Coastal
Commission and DFG should issue permits for this project.
While these are seemingly small impacts, it is the size of some vernal pools, and there is nothing in the state regulations that
absolves the need to comply with regulations of the Coastal Commission or Department of Fish and Game for small impacts to
wetlands.
In the case of the Coastal Commission, a project impacting coastal wetlands has to meet the test of one of eight water - dependent
uses, and mitigation for impacts has to be identified and implemented, with monitoring and requirements for success.
In the case of this project, I don't believe a sidewalk is one of the eight permitted uses. Moreover, no mitigation is proposed for the
2,575 square feet of wetlands impacted by the project.
However, one of the Coastal Act permitted uses could apply in this case if restoration of the adjacent wetland (called a "unnamed
drainage" in the report) is the purpose of the project. This wetland is currently almost entirely choked with cattails. If a restoration
project were designed to restore this wetland with open areas of water and a varied assemblage of bulrushes, sedges, and
cattails, then the fill associated with the sidewalk and boardwalk might be viewed as a public access amenity to this restored
wetland, and the 2,575 square feet could be added as part of the restoration on the eastern and southern border of the wetland.
In any case, the Coastal Commission and Department of Fish and Game should be brought into the picture to issue permits.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Please notify me of any public hearings or other discretionary actions. I would be
happy to work with the City in developing a restoration plan and gaining further approvals for this worthy project.
Sincerely,
]an rD. `vandersloot, %0
Jan D. Vandersloot, MD
2221 E 16th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 548 -6326
06/07/2006 5
June 2, 2006
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Robert Stein
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
SCH #: 2006051016
Dear Robert Stein:
gg of PIAYe. o
t5 �^
Sean Walsh
Director
1lZ —ECE 4 Y1-1'
JUN n S 2000
City, of Newpo, I Bcar�I
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state
agencies for review. The review period closed on June 1, 2006, and no state agencies submitted comments
by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review
requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the
ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
���iK/✓�J �^ tiW
Terry Roberts
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 8044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812.8044
TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 w .cpr.oa.gov
Z,
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2006051016
Project Title Dover Drive Sidewalk Project'
Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of
Type MN Mitigated Negative Dedaration
Description D
The sidewalk construction concept would enhance pedestrian access and safety while also minimizing
potential impacts to adjacent steep slopes (in Reach 1) and potential wetland vegetation (in Reaches 2
and 3). None of the project reach designs require retaining wall construction.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Robert Stein
Agency City of Newport Beach
Phone (949) 644 -3311 Fax
emall
Address 3300 Newport Boulevard
City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663
Project Location
County Orange
City Newport Beach
Region
Cross Streets Dover Drive and Coast Highway
Parcel No.
Township 6S Range 10W Section 54 Base SS
Proximity to:
Highways 1
Airports
Railways
Waterways Upper Newport Bay
Schools Ensign Intermediate, Newport Harbor High
Land Use The project is located east of residential development along Dover Drive, immediately west and
downslope of Castaways Park, and southwest of Newport Harbor Lutheran Church and School. An
unnamed drainage located parallel to Dover Drive appears to contain perennial flowing waters. This
drainage flows from north to south for 500 linear feet and contains riparian and wetland species.
GP: REOS - Recreational & Environmental Open Space
Z: PC43 - Upper Castaways Planned Community. The proposed project generally would be
constructed in road right -of -way. According to the City's Municipal Code, rights -of -way are unzoned
and the proposed project is an allowable use within various zoning classifications.
Project issues Wetland /Riparian
Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Parks and
Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5;
Department of Water Resources; California Coastal Commission; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans,
District 12; State Lands Commission
Date Received 0510312006 Start of Review 0510312006 End of Review 0610112006
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency:
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DOVER DRIVE -
NORTH OF CLIFF DRIVE- SIDEWALK.
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department of the City of Newport Beach has
prepared a design for construction of a sidewalk along the easterly side of Dover Drive
from Cliff Drive to 970 feet North of Cliff Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department of the City of Newport Beach has
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dover Drive Sidewalk and submitted it
for public review; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Fish and Game, United States Army
Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board have reviewed the project
and require no mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt said Mitigated Negative Declaration,
and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the construction of the Dover Drive Sidewalk;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
(attached as Exhibit A) for Dover Drive Sidewalk within the City of Newport Beach.
ADOPTED this 27th day of June 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
f1users \pbvAshared \resolutions \greenbook- 2003.doc
F:\ Users \PBW \Shared \Resolutions \Dover Drive Sidewalk - 2006.doc
i
DOVER DRIVE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
EXHIBIT A
The City is proposing the construction of a variable width sidewalk along the
easterly side of Dover Drive from Cliff Drive to 970 feet North of Cliff Drive.
The proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project has been initiated by the City due to
the lack of pedestrian facilities along the project segment of Dover Drive. The
sidewalk would provide continuity among the existing facilities north and south of
the project reaches, along the west side of Dover Drive at the Cliff Drive
intersection, and within the adjacent Castaways Park to the west.
The MND states that the City will mitigate the pruning of large limbs from two
existing red willow trees and will plant four new one - gallon size red willow trees
adjacent to the site for each of the two trees disturbed by the construction, for a
total of eight new trees. The City's Mitigation Monitoring Program will consist of:
• The eight one gallon red willow trees will be planted after construction of
the sidewalk but prior to the completion /finalization of the project.
• City forces shall hand water and monitor the eight newly planted red
willow trees for a period of one year.
• All red willow trees trimmed as a result of the construction of the project
will be monitored by City forces for a period of one year.
Q
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
State Clearinghouse Number:
DOVER DRIVE SIDEWALK PROJECT
City of Newport Beach
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
17671 Cowan Avenue, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
May 2006
Es
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ProposedFinding ........................................ ...............................
Project Proponent ....................................... ...............................
ProjectLocation ......................................... ...............................
ProjectPurpose ........................................... ...............................
Project Description ..................................... ...............................
Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form ...........................
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................
Checklist of Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Environmental Impact
Sources.............. ...............................
List of Figures
Page
...... ..............................5
...... ..............................6
..... .............................13
Page
FigureI — Project Location ................................................................................. ..............................7
Figure2 — USGS Basemap .................................................................................. ..............................8
Figure 3 — Proposed Sidewalk Project Limits ..................................................... ..............................9
Figure 4 — Proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project, Reach I Design Concept . .............................10
Figure 5 — Proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project, Reach 2 Design Concept ..............................I I
Figure 6 — Proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project, Reach 3 Design Concept . .............................12
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 — Estimated Construction Emissions Without Mitigation
Table 2 — Jurisdictional Impact Summary ...... ...............................
8387 Initial Study7Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
J\
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
City of Newport Beach Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
PROPOSED FINDING
Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City of Newport Beach (City) finds that
there could be one or more potentially significant effects to the environment resulting from construction
of the proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project. As the CEQA lead agency, the City has agreed to
implement the mitigation measures presented herein. The mitigation measures and assurance of their
implementation will be formalized in a mitigation monitoring program (MMP) that will be enforced by
the City during construction of the proposed project. The facts supporting this finding are presented in the
attached Initial Study and in the MMP adopted by the Newport Beach City Council.
PROJECT PROPONENT
City of Newport Beach Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Califomia 92663
PROJECT LOCATION
As shown in Figures 1 through 6 of the attached Initial Study, the City is proposing to construct the Dover
Drive sidewalk project along the east side of Dover Drive from Cliff Drive to 970 feet north of Cliff
Drive (south of 16th Street), adjacent to Castaways Park, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County,
California. The starting point of the sidewalk project is approximately 950 feet north of the intersection of
Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway.
PROJECT PURPOSE
The proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project has been initiated by the City due to the lack of pedestrian
facilities along the project segment of Dover Drive. The project is intended to provide a safe pedestrian
circulation link along the east side of Dover Drive, while also responding to the design requirements
resulting from the site location adjacent to riparian and wetland resources. The sidewalk project would
provide continuity among the existing facilities north and south of the project reaches, along the west side
of Dover Drive, at the Cliff Drive intersection, and within the adjacent Castaways Park to the west. As
discussed in later sections, the sidewalk construction concept resulted from the study of various
engineering alternatives, each of which was imended to enhance pedestrian access and safety while also
minimizing potential impacts to adjacent steep slopes (in Reach 1) and potential wetland vegetation (in
Reaches 2 and 3).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Facilities and Construction Methods
Van Dell and Associates, Inc. (Van Dell) was retained by the City of Newport Beach to provide
engineering services for the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Dover Drive from Cliff
Drive to 970 feet north of Cliff Drive. Van Dell initiated the Dover Drive Sidewalk Project Alternatives
8387 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
,2
Study in September 2004 and completed it in August 2005. The work included geotechnical analysis;
resource agency habitat and resource agency jurisdictional delineation mapping; and alternative location
and design analyses for the sidewalk project. If approved, the project would culminate in Resource
Agency permitting and preparation of plans and technical specifications for the selected design.
The Alternatives Study evaluates sidewalk alternatives over three separate reaches within the project
limits. Reach 1 evaluates the adjacent embankment conditions above the existing roadway from Cliff
Drive to 425 feet north of Cliff Drive. Reach 2 evaluates the adjacent embankment condition below the
existing roadway from 425 feet north Cliff Drive to 920 feet north of Cliff Drive. Reach 3 evaluates the
adjacent embankment condition below the existing roadway, with mature willow trees . within five feet of
the curb, from 920 feet north of Cliff Drive to 970 feet north of Cliff Drive. The Alternatives Study
presents the analysis, comparison, and estimated cost of 14 various sidewalk location and design
alternatives along the three reaches of the Dover Drive Sidewalk Project. The study considered varying
sidewalk widths in each reach, ranging from 4 to 8 feet wide in Reach 1 to 5 to 8 feet wide in Reaches 2
and 3. Due to varying slope conditions in each project reach, the sidewalk concepts were evaluated along
with a combination of retaining wall with slope restoration, retaining wall with shoring, and no retaining
wall.
Based on factors such as pedestrian needs (including ADA requirements), impacts to adjacent wetlands
and riparian habitat, geotechnical and slope stability constraints, roadway configuration and project costs,
the City selected the following sidewalk design concepts for the three separate reaches:
Reach 1 —Variable width sidewalk (4.5 feet to 7.5 feet wide) within existing roadway
ClijfDrive to 425 feet north of Cliff Drive (adjacent embankment above existing road)
Reach 1 would require construction of new curb and gutter from 4.5 feet to 7.5 feet into the existing
Dover Drive. The work will include removal of approximately 50 lineal feet of existing curb and gutter;
removal and replacement of asphalt concrete pavement necessary to construct 425 lineal feet of new curb
and gutter; construction of 4.5 -foot to 7.5- foot -wide concrete sidewalk; and modifications of the existing
curb stormwater inlets. The project would not affect the adjacent embankment and no retaining wall
would be necessary. The existing signal standards and traffic and bicycle lane striping on Dover Drive
would remain unchanged. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed improvements in Reach 1.
Reach 2 — Eight -foot wide boardwalk behind the existing curb
425 feet north of Cliff Drive to 920 feet north of Cliff Drive (adjacent embankment below existing road)
Reach 2 would require construction of 495 lineal feet of boardwalk consisting of 18 -inch diameter
concrete posts at 8 feet on center with 9 -foot header beams supported on the posts and a concrete footing
at the back of the curb. The concrete posts will be at least 10 feet deep. The 8- foot -wide boardwalk would
be constructed of wooden deck planking and would include a post and cable rail at the back of the
boardwalk. The project would not affect the adjacent embankment and no retaining wall would be
necessary. The existing curb and gutter and the traffic and bicycle lane striping on Dover Drive would
remain unchanged. Figure 5 illustrates the proposed improvements in Reach 2.
Reach 3 — Six to eight -foot wide boardwalk behind the existing curb
920 feet north of Cliff Drive to 970 feet north of Cliff Drive (adjacent embankment below existing road)
Reach 3 would require construction of 50 lineal feet of boardwalk consisting of 18 -inch diameter concrete
posts at 8 feet on center with 9 -foot header beams supported on the posts and a concrete footing at the
back of the curb. The concrete posts will be at least 10 feet deep. The 6 to 8- foot -wide boardwalk would
be constructed of wooden deck planking and would include a post and cable rail at the back of the
boardwalk. The project would not affect the adjacent embankment and no retaining wall would be
8387 2 Initial Study7Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
0
necessary. The existing curb and gutter and the traffic and bicycle lane striping on Dover Drive would
remain unchanged. Figure 6 illustrates the proposed improvements in Reach 3.
In Reach 1, an 8 to 10 -foot wide strip of existing paved roadway (approximately 150 cubic yards of
asphalt within the emergency parking lane) will be excavated and removed to construct the new sidewalk
and curb and gutter. In Reaches 2 and 3, minor excavation (two feet deep by one foot wide,
approximately 72 cubic yards) will be required along the back of curb in those reaches in order to
construct the base for the boardwalk. Minor excavation of about one to two feet deep (approximately 150
cubic yards total) is also required to provide clearance for the wooden boardwalk support beams along the
top of slope in the five to six -foot wide area behind the curb. As indicated previously, the selected project
reach designs do not require any retaining walls.
Construction Phasing and Scheduling
The proposed project would be constructed in a single phase requiring approximately 90 working days. If
all project approvals can be obtained as planned, the project would go to bid in early 2006 and
construction would begin after the rainy season (i.e., after April I 51 2006).
All construction work will be accomplished within the time limits permitted by City's noise ordinance,
which allows construction on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Work will be conducted on
Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only if approved by the Public Works Director for special
needs during the construction period. No work. will be permitted on holidays or Sundays.
The construction contractor will prepare a Traffic Control Plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
The City will allow northbound Dover Drive to be reduced to one lane between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
during construction. Flagging and appropriate signage will direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
FILING DATE: May 2006
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: May_ to.June_, 2006
8387
May 2006
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Dnve Sidewalk Project
A
INITIAL STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title: Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
3. Contact person and phone number:
Robert Stein, Principal Civil Engineer -- (949) 644 -3311
4. Project location: Along the east side of Dover Drive from Cliff Drive to 970 feet north of Cliff
Drive (south of 16'" Street), adjacent to Castaways Park in the City of Newport Beach, Orange
County, California. Figures I and 2 illustrate the regional location and project vicinity.
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Newport Beach Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
6. General plan designation: REOS — Recreational & Environmental Open Space
7. Zoning: PC43 — Upper Castaways Planned Community
The proposed project generally would be constructed in road right -of -way. According to the
City's Municipal Code, rights -of -way are unzoned and the proposed project is an allowable use
within various zoning classifications.
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Please see the detailed Project Description on pages I through 3.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project is located east of residential development along
Dover Drive, immediately west and downslope of Castaways Park, and southwest of Newport
Harbor Lutheran Church and School. Figure 3 depicts existing conditions in the project limits and
on surrounding properties. An unnamed drainage located parallel to Dover Drive appears to
contain perennial flowing waters. This drainage flows from north to south for 500 linear feet and
contains riparian and wetland species.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement)
None
11. Previous Environmental and /or Engineering Studies:
As indicated previously, Van Dell and Associates, Inc. (Van Dell) was retained by the City of
Newport Beach to provide engineering services for the construction of the proposed sidewalk
8387
May 2006
Initial StudyWitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
15
project. Van Dell initiated the Dover Drive Sidewalk Project Alternatives Study in September
2004 and completed it in August 2005. The work included geotechnical analysis; resource agency
habitat and resource agency jurisdictional delineation mapping; and alternative location and
design analyses for the sidewalk project.. That study is referenced as applicable throughout this
Initial Study evaluation.
The following analysis also references relevant portions of the Initial Study /Negative for the
Castaways Park Revegetation project (L SA 2001), which evaluated much of the land comprising
the proposed project limits.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
ri
Aesthetics
E]
Agriculture Resources
E]
Air Quality
X
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
Ei
Hazards & Hazardous
F]
Hydrology/ Water Quality
E]
Land Use / Planning
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
Fi
Public Services
Ei
Recreation
E]
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
E]
Mandatory Findings of Significance
8387
May 2006
5 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
lia
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
F1 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier E1R or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Printed Name and Title
8387
May 2006
Date
Initial SludyJMitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
1'1
iq
q
P t
♦I 'ry
�
yI Q
�
n
'�-
' °�•�
t
a y'°'r+ae,
-
v Guryw Npyplq
rn
Protect
Location
mod, Q
Lo f�i..�`LQ
•fig.
�,�
/
-`ml ^l -�_ i
Figure 1
s
_ PROJECTLOCATION
3 Nerva+ea
e M NAV
Source: Google Maps, 2005
6387
7
Initial SludylUdgaled Negative Declaration
May 2006
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
iq
$unarm <�
4
:.
Ligh F:. �Harboi
Light
w....
- Light
Q Bay L
,y g at R ? 3L
Source: USGS 7.5' Series, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Photorev. 1981
5 e S 464
� f �s..
Figure 2
USGS BASEMAP
8387 B Initial Study/Mitgated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
i9
i
2
S.
HR__...
Ai
Location
:.
Ligh F:. �Harboi
Light
w....
- Light
Q Bay L
,y g at R ? 3L
Source: USGS 7.5' Series, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Photorev. 1981
5 e S 464
� f �s..
Figure 2
USGS BASEMAP
8387 B Initial Study/Mitgated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
i9
1
.•t � a x JJJ
x r
r �
Reach 3
0 'y
If
1p
+ f
r
kr ✓ �. sr '.'I;. .r 33
.i ..
a N
Figure 3
Cliff,Dr'
i
i
+
p t
I I
' -N-
+
0
M{ ! r
i ^t lvi�
II t i,
'y f� 1 I, •�1 1iN
LU
!nz
I
1
1 � \
aQCL
d
om
W
w
�a
7
'3
U
z
x
o�
_D0
LL
d
U
>a
W
3
Z
`mN
m
1 J
J
w3
0
Li
J(
U)
/JW
UJ
'
�
v
y
N
N
OJ
Q
c
V
d
j
U
5
W
a
\
N
Z
W
? Q1
J(
1 J
J
w3
J(
/JW
a
(L3
a vi
'
�
v
N
N
zW,
17�
U
a
O
CL
Z
Z
'l
i
o W
aN
w a�
x0
W
�
0
N
W
U
O
N
It
w
0
0
D
w
V3
0
a
O
It
a
0
O
N
n �
WSc
y
d
U
Yn
0
z
/ n /
w / j
11 e/ y
i r rm J i -
/ r f Wat / !i
.l it OO
OQ
a °m
t � w
tG r. SJ /i
y
U
LU W
U
z O
om
.e
m
LU
U
!!
w
U
_rn
O
Z
QQ
Y
x
d
g
O
3
U L
a m° ice]
LL
v
;a
I
I
Z
y
U
a
om
.e
m
w
w
U
_rn
O
Z
� a
y
LL
S
O
3
a m° ice]
LL
v
;a
I
I
Z
m
� I
C9
y >
U
x
W
w
1
0
I
z '
0
Q_
0
(q
�
d
LU (
U
S
U)
O
r
y
t�
z
y
U
a
om
.e
m
w
w
U
_rn
O
Z
� a
y
LL
S
O
3
LL
v
;a
J
Z
m
C9
y >
w
0
0
0
0
(q
N
W
S
o
�
�
U
y
�W
o�
w
W
0
0
w
w
to
O
IL
w
LL
N
N
O
u
N
b
O
m �
f � /
rI
Q 1 N3 -a
a°
AD
a
U
dl
U
O
Z
II
U 1
Z
� W
a� U) i Jl
�1
o>
am°
f V
U 1
W�
a '
W
v .....
U)
O
0
Z
to
W W
OI O z
LLav
J Z
Q u)
3 LU
W W
00
(n M
Q
W
o�
W
O
W
N
O
a
O
w
a
0
0
N
0
0
U
0
N ,
d
� 3
>a
`my
m m
00
m �
rn'
zp
g
ei
y
li
0
0
N
h T
�J
CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or El
nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or X
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as El 11
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X
use, or a Williamson Act contract? El
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 ❑ X
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non - agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may Se relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X
applicable air quality plan?
8387 13 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
X
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or El
nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or X
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as El 11
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X
use, or a Williamson Act contract? El
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 ❑ X
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non - agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may Se relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X
applicable air quality plan?
8387 13 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute El
to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net El
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
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 US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally El
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
8387
May 2006
No
Impact
❑
X
❑
❑
X
❑
❑
X
❑
❑
X
❑
M
L
❑1
X
X
X
X
J
I-
14 Initial Study7Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Protect
2- I
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
8387
May 2006
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Signifcanl
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
❑
❑
X
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
D
❑
a
a
01
11
EN
I•
15
0
No
Impact
L
❑
X
❑
X
❑
X
[]
X
❑
X
❑
❑
X
❑
a X ❑
0 X ❑
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
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?
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?
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?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
No
Impact
X
❑
Less Than
X
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
❑
11
X
topsoil?
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?
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?
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?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
No
Impact
X
❑
❑
X
X
❑
X
❑
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ❑ ❑ X ❑
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ❑ ❑ ❑ X
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?
e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ X
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
8387 16 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY" -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 11 discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or El
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 )and uses or
planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern El
the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern. ❑
of the site or area, including through the
alteration 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?
8387
May 2006
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
❑
X
X
❑
❑ X
❑
X
❑
❑
❑
X
M
R
X
❑
17 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
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?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
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?
El
El
I) Inundation by setche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑
No
Impact
❑
Less Than
❑
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
❑
❑
X
El
El
I) Inundation by setche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑
No
Impact
❑
X
❑
❑
❑
X
El
El
❑
X
❑
X
❑
X
❑
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ El X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat El ❑ El X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
8387
May 2006
18 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
2`'
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
El
11
El
X
mineral resource that would be of value to the
existing without the project?
region and the residents of the state?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
El
EJ
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
El
F1
X
important mineral resource recovery site
e) For a project located within an airport land use
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
E!
El X
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
or other land use plan?
within two miles of a public airport or public use
XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
airport, would the project expose people residing
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
X
El
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
El
F1
X
El
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
El
El
El X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
El
EJ
X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
El
E!
El X
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip, would the project expose people residing;
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
8387
May 2006
19 Initial Sludy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
ZI
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES --
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:
Fire protection?
X
Police protection?
Q
X
Schools?
X
Parks?
❑
❑
X
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
X
8387
20
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006
Dover Drive
Sidewalk Project
ZI
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIV. RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
X
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
X
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial
X
in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
X
❑
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
X
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
X
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
E
X
❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? El X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ El X
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
8387 21
May 2006
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 11 and regulations related to solid waste?
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade El
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?
8387
May 2006
F11
El
El
No
Impact
X
X
❑
X
❑
X
❑s
[]
X
❑
X
❑ X
KI
22 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Prolect
23
Less Than
Yotentially Significant with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects El
will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
6387 23
May 2006
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
❑ X ❑
❑ X ❑
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact The site is within a predominantly urban setting and is surrounded by development. The
proposed project is not located within a scenic highway nor would it affect scenic vistas. Short -term
aesthetic impacts would occur due to views of the construction activity and temporary obstruction of views
by construction equipment. However, construction impacts to scenic resources or visual character would
be temporary in nature and considered negligible. After construction, the project would not alter the
current aesthetics of the existing urban or natural landscapes.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact The project limits are not within or adjacent to a State - designated scenic
highway. The site contains no significant scenic resources or unique visual resources related to geologic
formations or historic buildings.
Although some red willow trees are present in Reach 3, the project would not require compliance with City
Council Policy G -1, "Retention or Removal of City Trees" (as amended April 27, 2004). That policy
establishes standards for the removal and reforestation of City trees. The City classifies public trees in one
of three categories: Special Trees, Problem Trees, and All Other Trees. Red willow (Salix laevigata) are
not among the "Special Trees" called out in Attachment 1 (as amended May 10, 2005) of the City policy;
therefore, they are designated as an All Other Tree. It is the City's policy to retain All Other Trees unless
removal is necessary for various reasons, including poor tree health, a history of public or private property
damage, and liability and public safety. The project would not require removal of willow trees for
construction, nor would it jeopardize the health of the existing trees and require their future removal.
As described in section IV (Biological Resources), the boardwalk design avoids removal of the red willows
in Reach 3. Construction impacts are limited to trimming several overhanging branches and removal of a
large (six -inch diameter) limb from two red willow trees. The City's proposed mitigation plan, as described
in section IV, is to plant four (4) new one - gallon size red willow trees at the project site for each of the two
existing trees that require pruning of large limbs. Since tree removal would not occur, the scenic resource
quality of the existing red willow trees would not be substantially damaged by project construction and
impacts would be less than significant.
C) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
No Impact. The site is within an urban setting and consists of road right -of -way and an adjacent drainage
in a predominantly residential and commercial area. Construction and usage of the proposed sidewalk
project would not substantially change the character of the site or its surroundings. There would be no
impact.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. No new sources of light or glare are associated with construction or operation of the project.
Due to the daytime construction schedule, no impacts resulting from light and glare would result.
8387
May 2006
24 Initial Study/Miligated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project .
77
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a) Would the project 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 site is not currently in agricultural use, nor do the project limits or adjacent properties
contain any farmland or soils suitable for agricultural use.. The project site is within and adjacent to road
right -of -way in the City of Newport Beach. No parcels adjacent to the project limits are located on Prime
or Unique Farmland (Department of Conservation 1998a), nor are they under a Williamson Act contract.
There are no local policies for agricultural resources that apply to the project site. As such, the project
would not convert Farmland to non - agricultural uses, conflict with existing agricultural zoning or
Williamson Act contracts, or indirectly result in the conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural uses.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No Impact. The project does not involve any conversion of land use; therefore, the project would not result
in a conflict with an agricultural or a Williamson Act contract zoning designation.
C) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
No Impact. The project does not involve any conversion of land use, nor do the project limits contain any
farmland or soils suitable for agricultural use. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of
farmland to non - agricultural use.
III. AIR QUALITY
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which
includes Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties except for Antelope Valley in Los
Angeles County and the desert portion of nor:hem San Bernardino County and the Palo Verde Valley of
Riverside County. Both the State and federal governments have established health based Ambient Air
Quality Standards (AAQS) for six air pollutants, which include: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter (PMio). The South Coast Air Basin and Orange County do not attain California and
federal AAQS for ozone and PMIe. The State AAQS for PMIe and 03 are exceeded much more frequently
and by a greater amount than the federal standards for these pollutants. The Air Basin in compliance with
federal SOz, NOz, and Pb standards.
a) Would due project conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project consists of the construction and usage of a public sidewalk approximately 900 feet
in length. The new facility would be maintained by existing Public Works personnel who currently travel
to various sites to maintain other City facilities. The project will not directly or indirectly contribute to any
operational emissions in excess of the threshold values established by the SCAQMD, nor would it exceed
ambient air quality standards. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or of the Final 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone
AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin and the Settlement Agreement on the 1994 Ozone State
8387 25 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
Implementation Litigation. Construction emissions are also expected to be minor, as described in Ill.b
below.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. Constructing the proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project would cause
temporary air emissions related to minor ground disturbance, application of asphalt pavement, and vehicle
and equipment exhaust. Due to the nature of the project, long -term air quality impacts would be less than
significant and only construction emissions are evaluated in this section.
As indicated previously, construction will occur during a 90 -day work period, or about 18 work weeks. In
Reach 1, an 8 to 10- foot -wide strip of existing paved roadway (approximately 150 cubic yards of asphalt
within the emergency parking lane) will be excavated and removed to construct the new sidewalk and curb
and gutter. In Reaches 2 and 3, minor excavation (two feet deep by one foot wide, approximately 72 cubic
yards) will be required along the back of curb in those reaches in order to construct the base for the
boardwalk. Minor excavation of about one to two feet deep (approximately 150 cubic yards total) is also
required to provide clearance for the wooden boardwalk support beams along the top of slope in the five to
six - foot -wide area behind the curb. Based on those construction estimates, the project design engineer
provided expected construction equipment types and usage durations, as follows:
Equipment/Vehicle Type
Usage Frequency
Usage During Construction
Two pickups for Foremen
Each day
90 days (project duration)
One backhoe for excavation and removals
Each day
First 4 weeks
Two 10 -wheel dump trucks
Each day
First 4 weeks
One backhoe with bucket auger for post
holes
Each day
Weeks 5 and 6
One ready mix concrete truck and pump
4 hours per day
Two days in week 7
One ready mix truck for sidewalk and
curb /gutter
4 hours per day
Two days in week 9
Paving equipment and pavement roller for
2- foot -wide pavement join strip
4 hours per day
One day per week in weeks 9
and 10
One 10 -wheel truck and one roller for
asphalt concrete delivery and application
4 hours per day
One day per week in weeks 9
and 10
Miscellaneous delivery trucks (10 -wheel
size)
4 hours per day
One day per week in weeks 6,
7, 8, 14, 15, 16, and 17
Source: Van Dell 2005; URBEMIS 2002
Using the preceding soil disturbance and construction equipment parameters as input to the URBEMIS
2002 air quality model, the model estimates that the following daily construction emissions would result:
8387 26 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
7•
Table 1
Estimated Construction Erissions Without Mitigation (lbs /day)
Source
ROG
NOx
CO
sox
PMIO
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Daily Threshold
9.28
75
70.68
100
68.41
550
0.00
150
3.18
150
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
Source: URBEMIS 2002
These construction- related air quality impacts would be temporary and, as shown above, would not exceed
SCAQMD daily threshold values. Nevertheless, as is City standard practice, construction equipment would
be maintained in good condition to minimize excessive emissions. During construction, watering of
exposed earth surfaces would be provided as necessary. All loose material would be compacted to prevent
the dispersion of airborne dust. The standards ibr fugitive dust for this project would be as stated in South
Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule No. 403, which the City requires of all its construction
contractors.
C) Would theproject 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 In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not
exceed the threshold values, or can be mitigated to less than these values, would not add to a cumulative
impact. Based on the construction emission calculations presented previously, the project - related emissions
would be below thresholds and cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would theproject expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact Castaways Park, Bob Henry Park, Newport Harbor Lutheran Church
school, and some residences are all within '/< mile of the project limits. During the construction phase,
there will be emissions of all criteria pollutants. Because these emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD's
threshold criteria, ambient pollutant impacts would not be expected to exceed significance levels. These
emissions will be temporary and will not expose individual receptors for extended periods. During normal
usage of the sidewalk project, no air quality pollutant emissions will result.
e) Would theproject create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople?
Less Than Significant Impact. There may be some odors associated with the use of diesel equipment and
the asphalt paving during the construction phase. There are residences and schools in the project vicinity;
however, the temporary nature of project construction will ensure that these receptors are minimally
affected by odors during the construction phase: at this site.
8387 27 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Jurisdictional Delineation
In August 2004, Chambers Group, Inc. biologists performed a habitat assessment and examined the project
site to determine the limits of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction pursuant to the
California Fish and Game Code, and California Coastal Commission (CCC) jurisdiction pursuant to the
California Coastal Act. Suspected ACOE, CDFG, and CCC jurisdictional areas were mapped on aerial
photographs and field checked for the presence of definable channels and /or wetland vegetation, riparian
habitat, soils, and hydrology. A letter report prepared in September 2004 summarizes the methodologies
and findings of the ACOE, CDFG, and CCC jurisdictional delineations. The report is available for review
at the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department.
ACOE Jurisdiction
An unnamed drainage located parallel to Dover Drive appears to contain perennial flowing waters. This
drainage flows from north to south for 500 linear feet and contains riparian and wetland species. As
indicated on the wetland data sheets (Chambers 2004), ACOE- defined wetlands are present in the study
area within the drainage located below the slope bordering Dover Drive. The northern portion of the
drainage contains a wetland vegetated by a red willow (Salix laevigata) woodland with an understory of St.
Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum). Due to the lack of hydric soils, the wetland does not extend
up the bank located adjacent to Dover Drive. South of the red willow woodland, ACOE- defined wetlands
are found to correspond with the presence of broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), which dominates much of
the drainage. The slope between Dover Drive and the unnamed drainage is dominated by hydrophytic
vegetation including wild heliotrope (Heliotropum curassavicum), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and coast
goldenbush (Isocoma menziesil), but does not contain the hydric soils necessary to be considered ACOE-
defined wetland. Non - dominant upland species such as sweet fennel (Foeniculum .vulgare), artichoke
thistle (Cynara cardunculus), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) are also
present on the slope between Dover Drive and the unnamed drainage. The southern portion of the
unnamed drainage and associated wetlands are vegetated with broadleaf cattail, red willow, mule fat
(Baccharis salicifolia), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and celery (Apium graveolens).
CDFG and CCC Jurisdiction
Because the extent of CDFG jurisdiction and CCC - defined wetlands are identical, the results of the
jurisdictional findings are discussed concurrently below. The Cowardin et al. 1976 wetland classification
system defines CCC wetlands, while the California Fish and Game Code defines CDFG jurisdiction.
CDFG - defined riparian habitat and CCC - defined wetlands are present onsite within the bed of the
unnamed drainage and extend to the western bank that is located adjacent to Dover Drive. As indicated
previously, this drainage flows from north to south for approximately 500 linear feet and parallels Dover
Drive. The northern portion of the drainage contains a red willow woodland with an understory of St.
Augustine grass. The canopy of the red willow woodland extends beyond the curb and overhangs Dover
Drive. South of the red willow woodland, CDFG riparian habitat and CCC - defined wetlands correspond
with a cattail marsh located within the bed of the channel, while saltgrass, coast goldenbush and wild
heliotrope dominate the western bank of the drainage. South of the red willow woodland, the CDFG and
CCC jurisdiction (i.e., riparian and wetland plant species) extend to within approximately three feet of the
curb of Dover Drive. Also located along the western bank are non - dominant upland species such as sweet
fennel, artichoke thistle, wild radish, and iceplant. The southernmost portion of the unnamed drainage is
vegetated with broadleaf cattail, red willow, mule fat, arroyo willow, and celery.
6367 zg Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
Nt
Other Vegetation Communities
The west- facing slope located adjacent to the unnamed drainage supports planted coastal sage scrub
vegetation. The container plantings on this slope are part of a larger restoration effort associated with
Castaways Park and the local community. In addition, it appears that exotic species abatement activities
have been performed in the project area on the slope between Dover Drive and the unnamed drainage and
may have included the removal of non - native species such as castor bean (Ricinus communis), sweet fennel
(Foeniculum vulgare), and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus).
Jurisdictional Summary
Following the delineation fieldwork, a portion of the overall survey area was used to calculate existing
jurisdictional acreages. The project impact area was defined based on a worst -case disturbance limit
extending 11 feet from the existing face of curb along the Dover Drive project limits. The 2004
Jurisdictional Delineation found that the project impact area contains approximately 0.03 acre of ACOE
jurisdiction, all of which consists of ACOE- defined wetlands. The project area also includes approximately
0.21 acre of CDFG jurisdiction (all riparian habitat) and 0.21 acre of CCC- defined wetlands. The
southernmost 500 linear feet of the project limits contain no ACOE, CCC, or CDFG jurisdiction.
Other Biological Resource Surveys
As indicated in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Castaways Park Revegetation (LSA 2001), a
biological survey of the project site was conducted by LSA in March of 2001. The survey covered a study
area that included the proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project limits. The assessment also included a
literature review and records search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and the
California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. The CNDDB search (LSA 2001) for sensitive plant species potentially
occurring within or near the project site turned up records for various species for which habitat
requirements do not exist on site, as confirmed by Chambers Group biologists during the jurisdictional
delineation in 2004. No sensitive plant species were observed in the study area during the, biological
survey. The southern spike weed, which is a :sensitive species, potentially occurs on the Castaways Park
site but was not observed during the 2001 site survey. The proposed sidewalk project is not expected to
result in significant adverse impacts to any sensitive plant species.
The CNDDB search (LSA 2001) for sensitive wildlife species potentially occurring within or near the
proposed project limits turned up records for various species, including the coastal California gnatcatcher
(CAGN). Although CAGN was not observes. during the 2001 biological survey by LSA or the 2004
jurisdictional delineation by Chambers Group, it is known to occur along the bluff adjacent to Reach 1 of
the project. However, the sidewalk in Reach 1 will be constructed entirely in the existing roadway and
would not affect adjacent bluff vegetation. For the other species identified in the records search, the
general project area could support suitable habitat; however, such habitat is considered to be absent from
the footprint of the proposed sidewalk project, as confirmed by Chambers Group biologists during the
2004 jurisdictional delineation. No other habitat for any endangered, threatened, or other sensitive species
8387 29 Initial Study/Mitigaled Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
,a
exists on or adjacent to the project site; therefore, implementation of the project will have no impacts on
sensitive species or sensitive species habitats.
b) Would the project 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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The Jurisdictional Delineation (Chambers 2004)
evaluated impacts for construction of a 5- foot -wide sidewalk with an 8- foot -wide impact area, as well as an
8- foot -wide sidewalk with an 11- foot -wide impact area, both along the entire length of the proposed
project limits. The 11- foot -wide impact area most closely represented the impacts of the project at that
time. Given those parameters alone, the Jurisdictional Delineation found that ACOE "waters of the United
States ", CDFG jurisdictional riparian habitat, and California Coastal Commission jurisdiction would all be
potentially impacted by the proposed sidewalk in Reaches 2 and 3. For an 8- foot -wide walkway with an
11- foot -wide overall impact area, the jurisdictional impacts were summarized as follows;
• ACOE Jurisdictional Impacts: less than 0.01 acre
- Temporary (< 0.01 acre)
- Permanent (no impact)
• CDFG and CCC Jurisdictional Impacts— 0.09 acre
- Temporary (0.03 acre)
- Permanent (0.06 acre)
The acreages above were indicative of the project design assumptions when the Jurisdictional Delineation
was prepared in September 2004. However, several substantial design modifications have been made in the
year since the Jurisdictional Delineation was completed. The modifications were made with biological
resource impact avoidance as their primary goal. Table 2 on the following page shows the effects of
constructing the currently proposed sidewalkfboardwalk project while also incorporating habitat avoidance
measures during construction. Table 2 also provides a comparative analysis of the original (i.e., 2004)
construction disturbance and sidewalk footprint areas, as well as the net reductions in jurisdictional
impacts that would be achieved under the current project design. It is important to note that all impact
calculations reflect the area values from the geographic information system (GIS) vegetation mapping files.
In contrast to the Jurisdictional Delineation, the following acreages are rounded to three decimal points and
converted to square feet (sq. ft.) due to the small impact values and the effects of rounding. For example, a
0.085 -acre impact (3,703 sq. ft.) and a 0.094 -acre impact (4,095 sq. ft.) can both be represented as 0.09
acres when rounded, but the difference measured in square feet is 392 sq. ft. (an area approximately 20 feet
by 20 feet). Since the vegetation community impacts are individually very small, it was necessary to use
the square footage measurements to determine the relative impact reductions achieved by the proposed
project. The high level of precision used, however, does not imply a high level of accuracy since field
measurements, aerial photograph resolution, and mapping techniques all result in a loss of accuracy.
Therefore, the use of square footage areas is intended primarily as a means of conveying the relative
impact reductions that would be achieved by the proposed project.
8387 30 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
lS •.
Table 2
Jurisdictional Impact Summary
Vegetation
Community/Description
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Impacts
Totallmpacts
Acres Sq. Ft.
Acres
Sq. Ft.
Acres I
Sq. Ft.
�v 2� 5. ar-,h 3,-�' t;Y'
11 -MOT WIDE IMPACTAREA (� FOO7"PERMANEN��
,+•, .xCt ,K lts�k r[s�'.
3 F00�`TEMPORABYIMPACTZONESJi
rs.,xa
:s *€w.,4 :tn ONE jr
n�F
ACOE Jurisdiction
Cattail Marsh
0.001
1 40
none
none
0.001
40
18 -inch drainage culvert (in 6' x 3'
0.0004'
18
none
none
0.0004'
18
box in Cattail Marsh area)
Totals
0.0014
58
CDFG/CCC Jurisdiction
Red Willow Woodland
0.008
340
0.027
1,186
0.035
1,526
Saltgrass & Heliotrope
0.022
947
0.036
1,564
0.058
2,512
Cattail Marsh
0.001
40
none
none
0.001
40
Totals
0.094
4,078
�ROPOSE 'Od.. ( BOARDWALK /SIDEWALR,pESIGN & ;VgRPABLE
}VtD,TH, sTOt1H�IXLY77ZSHAB77'ATAVOID
1NCEJ %
ACOE Jurisdiction
Cattail Marsh'
avoided
avoided
none
none
none
none
18 -inch drainage culvert (in 6' x 3'
avoided
avoided
none
none
none
none
box in Cattail Marsh area) l
Totals
none
none
CDFG/CCC Jurisdiction
Red Willow Woodland
0.002
85
0.007
297
0.009
382
Saltgrass & Heliotrope'
0.019
808
0.032
1,385
0.051
2,193
Cattail Marsh'
avoided
avoided
none
none
none
none
Totals
0.060
2,575
Net Reduction in ACOE Jurisdictional Impacts/ (%)
-0.00141
-581
(100 %)
(100 %)
Net Reduction inCDFG /CCC Jurisdictional Impacts /( %)
- 0.0304/
- 1,5031
(36 /o)
(37/0)
Notes
Represents project disturbance footprint used in 2004 jurisdictional delineation.
' 2004 jurisdictional delineation indicated impact of less than 0.01 acre since it is considered the smallest "measurable impact"
area for ACOE delineation purposes. Actual area measurements in acres and square feet are shown above.
Cattail Marsh fully avoided and Saltgrass/Hcliotrope partially avoided by restricting the temporary constriction area in one
9- foot -long section and in a 15- foot -long section of the boardwalk construction site (southerly portion of Reach 2). Actual
avoidance area will measure 60 feet long by 6 feet wide. Support post design avoids boardwalk impacts in culvert area.
° Red Willow tree removal and canopy loss impacts are avoided by boardwalk rather than sidewalk design in Reach 3. Red
Willow tree canopy impacts are reduced by approximately 75 percent over original design since project construction would
only raise the canopy and remove overhanging limbs for short-term equipment clearance and long -term pedestrian safety.
The extent of the tree trimming would only affect about 350 to 400 square feet of the Red Willow tree canopy.
8387
May 2006
31 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
ACOE Jurisdictional Impacts
As indicated, the Dover Drive Sidewalk Project would avoid impacting ACOE jurisdiction. Based on the
recommendations in the 2004 Jurisdictional Delineation, the City determined that the ACOE impacts could
be completely avoided by restricting the width of the temporary construction area to less than 9 feet wide
in two sections of the project limits — one for a length of 9 feet and the second for a length of 15 feet. The
actual avoidance area will measure 60 feet long by 6 feet wide in the southerly portion of Reach 2. The
proposed support post design for the boardwalk in Reach 2 would avoid impacts in the culvert area, which
supports cattail marsh. Also, in order to ensure that fill would not be deposited in the ACOE jurisdiction
during construction, silt fences would be installed to control construction- related debris and sediment.
CDFG and CCC Jurisdictional Impacts
The 2004 Jurisdictional Delineation found that there would not be any riparian or wetland impacts in
Reach 1. Although the delineation did not specifically evaluate the proposed Reach 1 design concept (i.e.,
4.5 to 7.5- foot -wide sidewalk in the existing road), which was added to the Alternatives Study after the
delineation report was completed, the proposed design has a similar footprint to an analyzed alternative
with a 5 -foot sidewalk in the existing road. Since that alternative would not have any impacts to habitat or
jurisdictional waters, the proposed design concept with a variable width sidewalk in the existing road
would also not have any impacts to habitat or jurisdictional waters.
As indicated in Table 1, the proposed project would affect a total of 0.06 acre of CDFG jurisdiction, all of
which consists of riparian vegetation, and 0.06 acre of CCC - defined wetlands. Of this 0.06 acre, 0.04 acre
would be permanently affected and 0.02 acre would be temporarily affected by the proposed project. Of
the total impacted area, 0.05 acre is dominated by saltgrass and wild heliotrope. Cattail marsh is fully
avoided and saltgrass/heliotrope is partially avoided by restricting the temporary construction area in one 9-
foot -long section and in a 15- foot -long section of the boardwalk construction site (i.e., southerly portion of
Reach 2). The actual avoidance area will measure 60 feet long by 6 feet wide.
As indicated previously, the 2004 Jurisdictional Delineation assumed the complete removal of red willow
canopy and trunks within a 0.03 -acre impact area, which included an eight- foot -wide permanent impact
zone and a three - foot -wide temporary impact zone in Reach 3. However, the current project design would
completely avoid red willow tree removal and would minimize canopy loss impacts by constructing a
boardwalk rather than a sidewalk and by varying the boardwalk width at the red willow locations in Reach
3. Construction impacts are limited to trimming several overhanging branches and removal of a large (six -
inch diameter) limb from two red willow trees for the purposes of allowing short-term equipment clearance
and long -term pedestrian safety. Since no willows would be removed, impact calculations were derived by
estimating canopy loss due to the minor trimming and limb removal. The extent of the proposed tree
trimming would only affect about 350 to 400 square feet of the existing willow tree canopy, as compared
to over 1,500 square feet of canopy and trunk loss under the 2004 impact scenario. The City's proposed
mitigation plan is to plant four (4) new one - gallon size red willow trees at the project site for each of the
two existing trees that require pruning of large limbs.
The 2004 Jurisdictional Delineation (pages 13 and 14) indicated the following regarding CDFG and CCC
jurisdictional impacts:
8387
May 2006
CDFG jurisdictional riparian habitat and CCC - defined wetlands are present throughout much of
the project site. Avoidance of CDFG and CCC jurisdiction to the maximum extent practicable is
recommended in order to expedite the permitting process and reduce the cost of mitigation. In the
vicinity of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church & School parking lot, the limits of construction
are likely to encroach on CDFG jurisdictional riparian habitat /CCC= defined wetlands because
32 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk PMJect
�3
several large red willow trees are rooted within 5 -10 feet from the curb of Dover Drive and
avoidance of this riparian habitat is unlikely.
It is not certain how many mature red willow trees would have to be removed, or would be
irreversibly harmed in order to install the 8-fool-wide or the 11-fool-wide sidewalk. Installation
of the 8-fool-wide sidewalk would at least result in the removal of some large [willow] trees. in
addition, the installation of the sidewalk would require the. construction of a two foot deep trench
that could harm or kill red [willow] trees by damaging the root system. The impact analysis
contained herein resulted from overlaying the project footprints over the canopy of the red willow
trees. However, please note that the removal or death or a red willow tree may result in an
impact greater than the footprint area depicted on Figures 3 and 4.
Since preparation of the Jurisdictional Delineation in 2004, however, the project design in Reach 3 has
been modified to avoid removal and root damage impacts to the existing red willow trees. As indicated
above, this has been accomplished by using the boardwalk design rather than a concrete sidewalk and by
varying the boardwalk width at the red willow locations in Reach 3. Construction - related ground
disturbance in Reach 3 would be limited to borings for the 18 -inch support posts, as well as minor
excavations. The excavations are necessary to 1) construct the base for the boardwalk, which would require
a two- foot -deep by one - foot -wide excavation immediately adjacent to the existing back of curb; and 2) to
provide ground clearance for the wooden support beams at each corresponding support post, which would
require excavating individual areas measuring about one - foot -deep by one - foot -wide by five- feet -long
(measured perpendicular from the back of curb) only at those support beam locations along the top of
slope. Given those construction parameters, tree roots would not be damaged and impacts to root systems
would not result.
Mitigation Measures
For construction- related impacts resulting from the proposed trimming of several overhanging branches
and removal of a large (six -inch diameter) limb from two red willow trees, the City is proposing the
following mitigation:
Mitigation Measure l: The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall plant jour (4)
new one - gallon size red willow trees at the project site for each of the two existing trees that
require pruning of large limbs, for a total of eight (8) new trees. The City shall determine
maintenance requirements and monitcring duration.
Approximately 0.06 acre (includes the red willow impacts discussed above) of CDFG and CCC impacts
cannot be avoided and the project may require a CDFG Section 1602 Streambed_Alteration Agreement and
a CCC Coastal Development Permit. If the permits are found to be necessary, as determined by the
resource agencies, permit conditions would address temporary and permanent project- related impacts to
jurisdictional areas. The resource agencies generally recommend avoidance of impacts and if that is not
possible, minimization of the impacts as mitigation. If determined necessary, any additional mitigation
would be finalized as conditions of the resource agency permits. Given the project review that will be
conducted by the resource agencies, combined with the relatively minor jurisdictional impacts and the
City's proposed mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with
mitigation.
8387 33 Initial Sludy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
c) Would the project 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 Please refer to the previous discussion about jurisdictional impacts. The
project area contains federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
however, all federally protected wetlands would be avoided during project construction. By avoiding
ACOE jurisdiction through restricting the temporary construction area, the ACOE Section 404 permitting
process would not be necessary.
d) Would the project 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 Although wildlife movement corridors may be present in the existing
riparian zone adjacent to the project limits, and the project area may support native resident or migratory
wildlife species, project- related impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project will not
physically encroach on those areas and the proposed project would not directly or indirectly interfere with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact Although some red willow trees are present in Reach 3, the project would
not require compliance with City Council Policy G -1, "Retention or Removal of City Trees" (as amended
April 27, 2004). That policy establishes standards for the removal and reforestation of City trees. The City
classifies public trees in one of three categories: Special Trees, Problem Trees, and All Other Trees. Red
willow (Salix laevigata) are not among the "Special Trees" called out in Attachment 1 (as amended May
10, 2005) of the City policy; therefore, they are designated as an All Other Tree. It is the City's policy to
retain All Other Trees unless removal is necessary for various reasons, including poor tree health, a history
of public or private property damage, and liability and public safety. The project would not require
removal of willow trees for construction, nor would it jeopardize the health of the existing trees and require
their future removal.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact As indicated in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Castaways
Park Vegetation (LSA 2001), the project site is within the coastal portion of the Orange County Central -
Coastal Subregional Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, which includes several
thousand acres of natural open space in the San Joaquin Hills that contain dense, relatively undisturbed
scrub habitat. The final NCCP /Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Central Coastal Subregion was
approved in July 1996. The approved NCCP /HCP and applicable Section 10(a) permits identify the project
area as outside the designated habitat reserve.
8387 34 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
i
✓7
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Previous Cultural Resources InvestiRations
An Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared in October 1994 for the Upper Castaways (TTM
15012) project. That document and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Castaways Park
Revegetation project (LSA 2001) both includ. --d evaluations of potential impacts on cultural resources.
Those documents are referenced as applicable in the following discussions. The following cultural resource
sites were noted in those documents:
• Ca -Ora48 — Severely disturbed and no further scientific investigation warranted.
• Ca -Ora49 — Not impacted by the residential or bluff trail development.
• Ca- Ora -186 — Not impacted by residential or bluff trail development.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
No Impact. Since no building(s) 45 years or older will be affected by the proposed project, it is not
necessary to assess or evaluate nearby structures for potential historical significance, Construction work
will be contained with the road right -of -way or other previously disturbed easements along Dover Drive.
Although previous environmental documentation for the area (LSA 2001) noted the presence of several
cultural resource sites, none of them contain historic resources eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). No impact will result.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. The majority of ground disturbance associated with the proposed project would occur in Dover
Drive or within six feet of the existing back of curb. Soil excavation two feet below existing ground
surface by one foot wide will be necessary along the back of curb in Reaches 2 and 3 in order to construct
the base for the boardwalk. Minor excavation, of about one to two feet deep is also required to provide
clearance for the wooden boardwalk support beams along the top of slope in the five to six - foot -wide area
behind the curb.
Because of the amount of ground disturbance that has occurred here in the past from the establishment of
the road, intact archaeological deposits are unlikely to exist and no impacts are expected. This is consistent
with the findings in the Negative Declarations for the Upper Castaways (City of Newport Beach 1994)
project and the Castaways Park Revegetation (LSA 2001). However, the City may decide to conduct on-
site monitoring on an as- needed basis during excavation activities, depending on the known conditions and
extents of past soil disturbance areas in the project limits. In the unlikely event that archaeological
materials are encountered during ground disturbance, all work in the vicinity of the find would be
temporarily halted or redirected until the resource(s) can be documented and evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist, as is standard practice on all City construction projects. No mitigation measures are
required.
C) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
No Impact. Because of the amount of ground disturbance that has occurred here in the past from the
establishment of Dover Drive, intact paleontological deposits are unlikely to exist and no impacts are
expected. This is consistent with the findings in the Negative Declarations for the Upper Castaways (City
8387 35 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
=•ir
of Newport Beach 1994) project and the Castaways Park Revegetation (LSA 2001). However, the City
may decide to conduct on -site monitoring on an as- needed basis during excavation activities, depending on
the known conditions and extents of past soil disturbance areas in the project limits. In the unlikely event
that any paleontological resources are encountered, the City would temporarily halt or redirect all work in
the vicinity of the find until the resource(s) can be documented and evaluated by a qualified paleontologist,
as is standard practice on all City construction projects. No mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
No Impact. The project area is not known to be the location of a prehistoric or historic- period human
burial or cemetery and no human remains have been identified within the project area. Due to the history
of disturbance along Dover Drive, no human remains are expected to occur within the project limits and no
impacts are anticipated. If human remains are found, all work would stop and the Orange County Coroner
would be notified. If the remains were determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner would
contact the California Native American Heritage Commission to identify the Most Likely Descendants to
contact regarding repatriation or reburial of the remains. Clearance from these authorities would be
obtained prior to resuming work in the vicinity of the find, as is standard practice on all City construction
projects. Consistent with the findings in the Negative Declarations for the Upper Castaways (City of
Newport Beach 1994) project and the Castaways Park Revegetation (LSA 2001), no impacts would result
and no mitigation measures are required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Geo- Environmental, Inc. (GEI) collected soil samples from borings, performed laboratory testing on the
soil samples, and prepared a geotechnical report (GEI 2004) that recommended design criteria for the
proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project. The pertinent findings of that report are summarized in the
following sections. The specific laboratory testing methodologies and results are provided in the GEI
geotechnical report, which is an appendix to the Alternatives Study by Van Deli (2005).
Based on field exploration and laboratory test results performed on soil samples obtained from the subject
site, it is GEI's opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed sidewalk improvements, provided that the
recommendations presented in the GEI geotechnical report are implemented in the design of the structures
and their construction, as applicable to the selected reach designs.
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving.
i) Rupture of a known earthquake faul4 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a sidewalk in an
area that is intensively developed with urban land uses. The Newport Beach USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle
contains a Special Studies Zone designated pursuant to the Alquist -Priolo Act. However, the City of
Newport Beach, and the project area in particular, is not listed on the California Geological Survey list of
Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999, nor is the
project site shown to be affected by an Earthquake Fault Zone on the official map effective July 1, 1986.
8367 36 Initial Sludy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
i. �
Nevertheless, the region is seismically active with displacement and deformation occurring along
Peninsular Ranges north- south - trending faults and Transverse Ranges east -west trending faults and folds.
Quatemary-age faults that express the eastern structural trend of the Peninsular Ranges province include
the Newport- Inglewood (L.A. Basin), Newport - Inglewood (Offshore), and Compton Thrust Fault zones.
The project site is closest to the Newport- Inglewood (L.A. Basin) fault zone (approximately 2.4 miles), the
Newport- Inglewood (Offshore) fault zone (approximately 2.8 miles), and the Compton Thrust Fault zone
(approximately I0.4 miles). The largest maximum earthquake site acceleration is 0.5968.
Based on field exploration and laboratory test results performed on soil samples obtained from the subject
site, GEI (2004) has indicated that the site is suitable for the proposed sidewalk improvements, provided
that the recommendations presented in their geotechnical report are implemented in the design of the
structures and their construction, as applicable to the selected reach designs. Adherence to standard
engineering practices and standard City design criteria relative to seismic and geological hazards would
maintain impacts at levels that are less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated above, the project area in general could be exposed to strong
ground shaking. However, engineering design criteria will account for the area's general susceptibility to
groundshaking and other seismic - related hazards, as is standard practice for such projects. Based on the
GEI (2004) geotechnical report, the project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects
resulting from fault rupture, ground shaking, or ground failure due to its location. Adherence to standard
engineering practices and standard City design criteria relative to seismic and geological hazards would
maintain impacts at levels that are less than significant.
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the State Department of Conservation (1998b), the project
site is partially within a known liquefaction area, as mapped on the official Newport Beach USGS 7.5-
minute seismic hazard map. It is an area where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological,
geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such
that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. However, as
indicated in the GEI (2004) geotechnical report, the current engineering design criteria reflect the area's
general susceptibility to groundshaking and other seismic- related hazards, as is standard practice for such
projects. Impacts will be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. According tc the State Department of Conservation (1998b), the project
site is adjacent to areas having the potential for landslides, as mapped on the official Newport Beach
USGS 7.5- minute seismic hazard map. These are areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement,
or local topographic, geological, and geotechnical conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground
displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be
required. However, as indicated in the GEI (2004) geotechnical report, the current engineering design
criteria reflect the area's general susceptibility to landsliding and other seismic - related hazards, as is
standard practice for such projects. Impacts will be less than significant.
8387 37 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
b) Would the project result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact Relatively minor excavations that are necessary to construct the base for
the boardwalk (two feet deep by one foot wide) and to provide clearance (approximately one - foot -deep) for
the wooden boardwalk support beams along the top of slope in Reaches 2 and 3 would expose soils to
short-term erosion by wind and water. As is standard practice for City construction projects, the project
would be subject to City requirements for erosion control, which will be implemented by the construction
contractor. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require relatively minor ground surface
alterations, including excavations to depths of approximately two feet. Projects of this character generally
do not have the potential to cause unstable earth conditions or changes in geological structure. The GEl
(2004) geotechnical report found that the project site contains poorly consolidated undocumented fill
materials. During the field investigation at the, site, unsuitable soils were encountered approximately 7 to
10 feet below the existing surface level of Dover Drive. However, due to the characteristics of the project,
recommendations for removal depths of unsuitable material will be on the order of approximately two feet
below the existing surface level. GEl found that the existing on -site materials encountered are suitable for
the support of the proposed sidewalk.
Additionally, the GEl report recommendations pertaining to slope stability and the reduction of total and
differential settlement are not applicable to the current project design. Slope stability analysis was not
recommended by GEl for the selected boardwalk design in Reaches 2 and 3, or for the variable width
sidewalk within the existing road in Reach 1. In Reach 1, the project would avoid impacting (i.e., back
cutting) the slope above the existing roadway, thereby precluding the need for a retaining wall in that
reach. In Reaches 2 and 3, the proposed sidewalk would be supported on 18 -inch diameter concrete posts.
The geotechnical report recommendations for additional slope stability analyses were only applicable to
those design alternatives with retaining walls.
Based on the GEl (2004) geotechnical report, the project would not expose people or structures to adverse
effects resulting from ground failure or landslides. The project would not result in landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse due to its location. Adherence to standard engineering
practices and City design criteria relative to seismic and geological hazards would maintain impacts at
levels that are less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table I8 -1 -B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact As indicated above, the project would not create substantial risks to life or
property from expansive soils due to its location. Based on the GEl (2004) geotechnical report, the project
would not expose people or structures to adverse effects resulting from expansive soils. Adherence to
standard engineering practices and standard City design criteria would maintain impacts at levels that are
less than significant.
8387 38 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
k�,
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal. No impacts will result.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous or flammable substances that may be used during the
construction phase of the project would include vehicle fuels and oils for the operation of heavy
equipment. Diesel and/or other construction equipment and vehicle fuels would be used; however, the
transport, storage, and usage of hazardous mat-.rials such as fuels are regulated by the State and would be
in compliance with all State regulations during construction.
Construction vehicles on -site may require routine or emergency maintenance that could result in the
accidental, albeit unlikely, release of oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, and/or other materials. However,
those types of hazardous materials would not be used in large enough quantities, used for a long enough
period, or stored in a manner that would pose a significant threat to the public. The risk of foreseeable
upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of
this project is minimal and would not be anticipated. Impacts are less than significant.
b) Would the project 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. See paragraph a) above. Impacts would be less than significant.
C) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste withitt one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project limits are within one - quarter mile of the existing Newport
Harbor Lutheran Church and School, which is just northeast of the project site. Although the school
facility is located within one - quarter mile of the site, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Construction is expected to proceed
at a relatively rapid rate and would not result in substantial dust or equipment emissions. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project 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. According to the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the site is not
located on a list of hazardous materials sites. No environmental impacts would result from the proposed
project.
8387
May 2006
39 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public or
private airport. By its nature, the proposed project does not have the potential to result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would result.
n For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. See paragraph e) above. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No
environmental impacts would result from the proposed project.
pj Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project activity would not alter emergency response or emergency
evacuation routes. Roadways would remain accessible during construction, and returned to their original
condition upon completion of the sidewalk project. The City routinely implements traffic control plans for
construction projects, and the plan that will be implemented with the project would ensure that any impacts
to emergency response plans or evacuation plans would be less than significant. Further, the City Public
Works Department would provide early coordination with City emergency personnel to ensure the
planning of alternative emergency routes where necessary.
h) Would the project 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 Although vegetation communities exist adjacent to and east of the project limits, the site is
located in a predominantly urban area and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death from wildland fires.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
An unnamed drainage located parallel to Dover Drive appears to contain perennial flowing waters. This
drainage flows from north to south for about 500 linear feet. Stormwater and urban runoff enter the project
limits through a 14 -inch culvert located south of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church & School parking
lot. The stormwater and urban runoff flow for approximately 500 linear feet on the surface and drain
offsite through an 18 -inch culvert. Water is also conveyed to the drainage via several landscape irrigation
pipes located on the east bank of the drainage.
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Titan Significant Impact. The construction contractor will be required to implement erosion control
measures to ensure that no soil or construction- related materials will enter the storm drain system or upper
Newport Bay. In addition, silt fences are called out on the construction plans and will be installed and
maintained by the contractor during work adjacent to Reaches 2 and 3 to insure that work activity does not
encroach beyond the 11 -foot and 8 -foot project impact areas. The silt fences will ensure that no soil or
construction materials fall down slope into sensitive vegetation in the drainage course. The proposed
8387 40 Initial Sludy/Miligated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
jt
project would be in compliance with all codes and regulations governing the prevention of erosion and
transport of pollutants during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project 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 localgroundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre- existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not suppo,•t existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include the consumptive use of water and would not result in
the depletion of groundwater resources or a lowering of the groundwater table. Due to the nature of this
project, it would not affect the rate of flow or quantity of ground waters. No environmental impacts would
result.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. The unnamed drainage downslope of the proposed sidewalk project will be
unaffected during project construction and for the life of the project. No grading or structural alterations
would occur within the drainage course. Since project construction is planned to commence after the rainy
season, and with the implementation of the Cily's standard Best Management Practices for runoff control
during construction, as described in section VIII(a) above, no significant erosion problems would be
expected. No change in drainage patterns would result.
d) Would the project 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 ofsurfaee runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. The amount of surface water runoff along the project limits would not
change relative to current conditions. No aspect of the proposed sidewalk project would result in on- or
off -site flooding. See section VIII(c) above.
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water that world exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and daily use of the proposed Dover Drive sidewalk does not
involve the discharge of water into any drainage courses. The three existing storm drain inlet structures at
the southern end of Reach 1 will be relocated approximately 4.5 to 7.5 feet west to accommodate sidewalk
construction in the Dover Drive right -of -way. The project would not result in a net change in the amount of
runoff discharge to those facilities since impervious surfaces after project construction would be the same
as current conditions. Therefore, the project would not affect existing stormwater drainage systems and no
significant impacts would occur.
J) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated above, construction of the sidewalk project would not
increase erosion or runoff from impervious surfaces. The only potential to degrade water quality would be
if any hazardous materials (such as diesel fuel) onsite during construction would migrate into the water
8387 41 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
r; I
system. However, the appropriate handling of these materials (see section V11(a) above) results in a less
than significant impact.
g) Would the project place housing within a 100year 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 is not located within a 100 -year floodplain, and the project does not
involve placement of housing. No environmental impacts would result.
h) Would the project place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The project would construct a public sidewalk facility. No structures would be built in the
project area that would impede or redirect flood flows in the nearby drainage. No impacts would result.
i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact. The project would not expose people or structure to risk or injury as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam. No impact would result
P Would the project inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. Seiche, tsunami, and mudflow are not hazards in the project area. The project would not
expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would result.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
As previously indicated, the proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project is located east of residential
development along Dover Drive, immediately west and downslope of Castaways Park, and southwest of
Newport Harbor Lutheran Church and School. Figure 3 depicts existing conditions in the project limits and
on surrounding properties. An unnamed drainage located parallel to Dover Drive appears to contain
perennial flowing waters. This drainage flows from north to south for 500 linear feet and contains riparian
and wetland species.
The proposed project site is within the right -of -way of Dover Drive but is designated as REDS
(Recreational & Environmental Open Space) in the City's General Plan. The site is located east of land
uses that are designated APF (Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial) and SFD (Single
Family Detached).
The project site is zoned as PC43 (Upper Castaways Planned Community). East of the site are properties
zoned APF (Administrative, Professional, Financial) and R -1 (Single- Family Residential). South of Cliff
Drive and northeast of the Dover Drive/PCH intersection is a commercial area designated PC -37- MM
(Castaways Marina, Mariner's Mile Overlay).
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project is the installation of public sidewalk within an existing arterial right -of -way.
Surrounding land uses are primarily residential, commercial, and recreational in nature. There would be no
8387 42 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
use of any other land for the project, and thee: would be no division of an established community. No
impact would result.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
No Impact. Current land use regulations allow for the proposed use of the road right -of -way for sidewalk
construction. The proposed project would not result in an alteration of land use in the area. No
environmental impact would result.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Impact. As indicated in the Initial Study,Negative Declaration for the Castaways Park Vegetation
(LSA 2001), the project site is within the coastal portion of the Orange County Central- Coastal
Subregional Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, which includes several
thousand acres of natural open space in the San Joaquin Hills that contain dense, relatively undisturbed
scrub habitat. The final NCCP /Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Central Coastal Subregion was
approved in July 1996. The approved NCCP /HCP and applicable Section 10(a) permits identify the project
area as outside the designated habitat reserve. No significant impacts would occur.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents cf the State?
No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and does not contain mineral deposits or resources
of regional or State value. No impact would result.
b) Would the project 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 rise plan?
No Impact. The project site consists of paved roadway and does not contain locally important mineral
resources delineated on City land use plans. No impact would result.
XI. NOISE
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise as
a pollutant can be defined as unwanted sound. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity.
Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the spectrum, noise measurements
are weighted more heavily within those frequencies of maximum human sensitivity in a process called "A-
weighting" written as dBA.
Noise can be generated from either point soc;rces (stationary equipment) or from a line source, such as a
roadway with moving vehicles, or aircraft flying overhead. Noise decreases with distance and over the
terrain over which it travels. Existing noise sources at the project site are primarily from traffic along major
arterials (Pacific Coast Highway, Dover Drive, Cliff Drive, etc.), as well as occasional construction noise
6367 43 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
i
�`l
from surrounding projects. Because of the site's location within these roadways and proximity to traffic -
generating uses, the existing ambient noise levels are relatively high. The Newport Harbor Lutheran
Church school and nearby residences west of Dover Drive are the primary noise - sensitive receptors within
one - quarter mile of the project limits.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element contains interior and exterior noise level
standards for both mobile and locally regulated sources. The noise level limits for residential and other
noise - sensitive areas are not to exceed 65 dBA Leq for exterior and 45 dBA Leq for interior areas. Non-
residential use areas are not to exceed 70 dBA Leq for exterior areas.
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project consists of the construction of a public sidewalk in an
urbanized area with relatively high traffic volumes. The generation of project- related noise would occur
over the short-term for site preparation and construction activities. However, this noise would not be
significant given the context of the existing noise from traffic and existing land uses in the project area.
The project construction noise would not conflict with the surrounding residential and school uses, which
are the most noise - sensitive. Although located within one - quarter mile of the proposed construction limits,
those land uses would not be adversely affected by short-term, temporary noise increases that may occur
during construction. The possible impacts would occur over a relatively short duration (i.e., 90 days) and
would only occur during the daytime hours. All construction work will be accomplished within the time
limits permitted by City's noise ordinance, which allows construction on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and
6:30 p.m. Work will be conducted on Saturdays between &00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only if approved by the
Public Works Director for special needs during the construction period. No work will be permitted on
holidays or Sundays. Compliance with those time limits is sufficient to maintain all construction- related
noise impacts at levels that are less than significant.
By its nature, the proposed sidewalk project would not result in any long -term increases in existing noise
levels in the project area. Therefore, both short-term and long -term noise impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive groundborne vibration is typically caused by activities such as
blasting used in mining operations, or the use of pile drivers during construction. The project will not
require any blasting activities but would involve boring and pile driving to construct the 18 -inch diameter
concrete posts that will support the boardwalk header beams in Reaches 2 and 3. Despite the noise and
vibration levels associated with such construction, however, it would occur at times of the day and for .
short enough durations that it would not be a nuisance to noise sensitive uses. Further, given their distance
from the project construction limits, occupied structures would not be exposed to excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would fire project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
No Impact. The project would not generate any vehicle trips that would add to roadway noise in the long-
term. Therefore, ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would be the same as levels existing without
the project and no impact would result.
8387 44 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in section XI.a above, short-term noise impacts are impacts
associated with the installation of the sidewalk reaches. These activities would result in short-term noise
levels that would be slightly higher than the existing ambient noise levels in the project area today (e.g.,
truck traffic and construction activity), but would cease once construction is complete. A less than
significant impact would result.
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 proposed project does not include any residential or commercial development. The
proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport. No environmental impacts would occur.
j) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact See paragraph e) above. The project is not located with the vicinity of a private airstrip and
would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact
would result.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the project 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 directly or indirectly induce population growth. The proposed
sidewalk project would serve existing pedestrian users and has no potential for growth inducement. No
environmental impacts would result.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed sidewalk project will be constrained to the Dover Drive right -of -way. No
housing would be displaced by the project.
C) Would die project displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact The project would not displace any housing or people. No environmental impact would result.
8387 45 Initial Study /Mifigafed Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new orphysically 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 public services, including Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools,
Parks, or other public facilities?
No Impact. The proposed project would not create a substantial new fire or public safety hazard. New
employment would not be generated that would affect the demand for schools, parks, or other public
facilities. The project would not result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities nor
would it affect emergency response times or other performance objectives for public facilities in Newport
Beach. Since the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered public facilities, no environmental impacts would result.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
No Impact. The proposed project does not involve residential uses and would not cause a direct increase in
the population of the project area. No increase in demand for or use of existing parks or recreational
facilities would result from the implementation of the proposed project.
Castaways Park is located immediately east of and adjacent to the proposed project area and is largely a
passive recreation park, but with some paved and unpaved trail facilities. The proposed sidewalk would be
constrained along the east side of Dover Drive and would not interfere with park usage. Rather, the
proposed project would provide an additional pedestrian linkage to and from the park and surrounding
areas. The proposed project would not cause physical deterioration of any recreational facilities and no
environmental impacts would result.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion or
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The proposed project would not include recreational facilities nor require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. No impact will
result.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The project segment of Dover Drive passes near a mix of commercial, residential, recreational, and other
uses. In this area Dover Drive and other surface streets receive moderate to heavy volumes of daily traffic.
The nearest major arterial with high traffic volumes is Pacific Coast Highway, which is less than '/< mile
south of the intersection of Cliff Drive and Dover Drive. Short-term traffic impacts would occur only on
Dover Drive where construction is scheduled. Since part of the project would be located in the street right -
of -way, on -street parking would be affected during construction. Construction vehicles would be required
8387 46 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
to park in close proximity to construction activities, thereby further encroaching upon on- street parking
spaces.
For the most part, the proposed sidewalk project would require grading and excavation only at shallow
depths along the project limits. As indicated previously, construction would require temporary closure of
one lane of northbound traffic on Dover Drive during construction. A mandatory traffic control plan will
minimize the effects of construction on local residents, businesses and schools. The construction contractor
will coordinate with City traffic engineering personnel regarding standard construction staging and traffic
control plan requirements. Construction vehicles and machinery would be staged in a location on the street
that would minimize construction interference with normal traffic patterns. Details of the traffic control
plan would include construction vehicle haul routes, use of sidewalks, use of curb parking lanes, lane
closures, etc. Additionally, the contractor may be required to build specific parts of the project during
restricted times when effects would be minimized. The lane closure on Dover Drive could be limited to
8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in order to avoid the evening rush hour, as determined necessary by the Public
Works Department. Flagging and appropriate signage would be installed to minimize potential safety
hazards for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The following evaluations indicate that all traffic impacts
would be less than significant.
a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Less Than Significant Impact During construction along Dover Drive, a temporary lane closure would be
required, resulting in the potential for congestion, potential safety concerns for pedestrians near work areas,
and the potential to restrict emergency access. However, the construction contractor will prepare a traffic
control plan that is consistent with the conditions of the encroachment permits normally issued by the City.
The traffic and pedestrian control measures in the traffic control plan will be coordinated with the City and
would reduce any traffic impacts resulting from the project to less than significant levels. Further, project
construction would not result in a permanent increase in traffic load or daily trips because installation of
the proposed sidewalk would be temporary.
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact The project would add a relatively minimal amount of construction- related
trips during the approximately 90 -day construction period. No individually or cumulatively significant
level of service impacts would occur.
c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The propose sidewalk project would not have any permanent effects on the
Dover Drive roadway design, nor would it cause any permanent traffic/transportation hazards.
8387 47 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
IrC
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic control plan to be implemented during construction will provide
vehicular and pedestrian traffic control measures along the project segment of Dover Drive. As such, the
potential to affect emergency access will be less than significant.
f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The project does not propose changes to on- street parking capacity. If applicable, any issues
related to on- street parking along the project segment of Dover Drive will be addressed in the City's traffic
control plan, which will be prepared by the construction contractor in cooperation with the City Public
Works Department. No environmental impact would result.
g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. Although project construction would require the temporary closure of one northbound traffic
lane on Dover Drive, the project does not conflict with adopted transportation policies. No environmental
impact would result.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
As indicated in the Alternatives Study (Van Dell 2005), the City and other local agencies responsible for
utilities in the project vicinity were contacted for information on the location of their utilities. The study
found that no storm drains, sewers, water lines or gas mains would be affected by project construction.
However, all utility agencies will be notified as part of the final design scope of work. As determined
necessary by the City Public Works Department, plans might be submitted for review by utility agencies to
verify that existing improvements are shown correctly and, when appropriate, avoided during project
construction.
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
No Impact. No treated wastewater would be discharged as a result of the proposed project. The project
would not discharge water or wastewater into any existing wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, no
environmental impacts would occur.
b) Would the project 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 the construction of a public sidewalk and no new construction of
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of such facilities would be required. No project- related
impacts would result.
8387
May 2006
48 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
C) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
No Impact. Although the proposed sidewalk project would involve the relocation of several stormwater
inlets in Dover Drive, the project would not require new stormwater facilities or the expansion of existing
facilities. No environmental impacts would occur.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The proposed sidewalk project would not require a long -term water source or a new or
expanded water supply. No environmental impacts would occur.
e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require connections or service by a recycled water treatment
provider. As in b) above, no environmental imf acts would occur.
J) Would the project be served by a lanatfrll with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. A minimal amount of solid waste would be associated with construction.
Any excess construction materials such as wood, concrete, asphalt, or metal would have a less than
significant impact on landfill capacity in Orange County.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. A minimal amount of solid waste would be associated with construction.
The project would comply with all municipal and State solid waste statutes and regulations and impacts
would be less than significant.
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of file 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 file 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 Titan Significant Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment and would not have a significant impact on any fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project
area has been examined for historic and prehistoric significance and has not been found to contain
important examples of major periods
Resources). The project does not have
of California history or prehistory.
8387
May 2006
of California history or prehistory (see section V — Cultural
the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods
49 Initial Study/M/tigated Negative Declaration
Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
UO
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 ofprobable future projects)?
Less Than, Significant Impact Based on the proposed project's minimal quantitative contribution to
traffic, air emissions and noise and its limited geographic extent, the previous sections of this
environmental analysis support the determination that the proposed Dover Drive Sidewalk Project would
not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
C) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact The project would have short-term temporary construction impacts, which
include traffic congestion/safety and noise concerns that would be alleviated by standard construction
specifications and a traffic control plan. Through the application of City construction standards, the project
would not have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly. All short-term temporary construction impacts would be less than significant, or less than
significant after mitigation.
8387 50 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
u`
SOURCES
California Department of Conservation
1998a Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,
1998 Important Farmlands Map for Orange County.
1998b Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 97 -08, Seismic Hazard Evaluation of
the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5- Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California.
1994 Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas,
compiled by Charles W. Jennings.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)
2005 USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle: Newport Beach
City of Newport Beach
1994 Initial Study /Negative Declaration for Upper Castaways (TTM 15012).
Geo- Environmental, Inc.
2004 Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Dover Drive Improvements Between Cliff
Drive and 16th Street, City of Newport Beach, California. Prepared for Van Dell and
Associates, Inc.
LSA Associates, Inc.
2001 Initial Study /Negative Declaration for the Castaways Park Revegetation Project. Prepared
for the City of Newport Beach.
RMW Paleo Associates
1997 Cultural Resources Investigation and Monitoring of Grading for the Upper Castaways
View Park, Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Prepared for the City of Newport
Beach.
Van Dell and Associates, Inc.
2005 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project Alternatives Study. Prepared for the City of Newport
Beach.
8387 51 initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2006 Dover Drive Sidewalk Project
Lf"