Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 PARK NEWPORT_NEGATIVE DECLARATION GRADING PERMIT111111111111111111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* 1 Park Newport MEMORANDUM November 9, 1999 TO: Jay Garcia FROM: Rich Edmonston SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Park Newport grading After reviewing the subject document, there is one aspect which should be changed. The proposed Mitigation Measures 1,2 & 3 should be rewritten to delete reference to the Public Works Department. MM Nos. 2 & 3 are most directly associated with the Building Department as they relate to work on private property. MM No. 1 now falls to the Deputy City Manager. (I think he picked up the NPDES program at last night's City Council Meeting.) so] MEMORANDUM DATE: November 30, 1998 FROM: Jay Elbettar, Building Director RE: Building Director's Acceptance and Approval of Negative Declaration Document in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Applicant — Park Newport Apartments, 1 Park Newport LOCATION: 1 Park Newport ACTION: Approval of the mitigated Negative Declaration for a slope stability and repair located at 1 Park Newport, the Park Newport Apartments. The Building Director finds that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), there is no substantial evidence the project, as conditioned by the mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. AUTHORIZATION: Section 15356 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines defines the "Decision - making body" as any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue. In this particular case, the project involves issuance of a Grading Permit by the Building Department of the City of Newport Beach. Section of 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that any advisory body (Planning Department representative in this case) of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision making body (Building Official) shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. The decision making body shall approve and adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. ay e ar, Building Director Attachments: Notice of Determination Negative Declaration and supporting documentation cc: Applicant Property Owner F•\USERS\PLN\ I PD-UP\PD-APPR\ I PKNPT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILED NOV 3 0 1998 GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder 1 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3225 NOV 3 0 1998 N6FJCE OF DETERMINATION GARYL.GRANVILLE,Clerk-Recorder Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 1 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in cb pliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number. City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments rQtnplex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24, 1998_(Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project ❑ will Q will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. Q A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures Z were ❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations ❑ was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings Q were ❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. ls--tz, November 30, 1998 Javier 9. Garcia, S"ehior Planner Date F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\l PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPTNODDCUMT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FILING Enclosed are two copies of a Notice of Determination for filing as required by Public Resources Code Section 21152. Please stamp one copy "Posted/Filed" and return with the fee receipt to the undersigned at the address shown on the NOD. Compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21089(b) and Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is provided as follows: ❑ Enclosed is a check in the amount of $888 ($850 as required for an EIR project + $38 County Clerk filing fee). ❑ Enclosed is a check in the amount of $1288 ($1250 as required for a Negative Declaration project + $38 County Clerk filing fee). Q Enclosed are two copies of a Certificate of Fee Exemption as provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and CCR Title 14, Section 753.5, and a check in the amount of $38 (County Clerk filing fee). ❑ The approval associated with the enclosed NOD is one of a series of actions that are part of the same project. The required DFG fee was paid at the time the Notice of Determination was filed for the first such action on this project. As provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(g), no additional DFG fee is therefore required. Enclosed is the $38 County Clerk filing fee. 9 The City is a Responsible Agency for this project. Code Section 711.4 will be satisfied by is the $38 County filing fee. The fee requirements of Fish and Game as the Lead Agency. Enclosed If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 644-3200. /I S. Garcia, �36ior Planner ' Date F \USERS\PL.N\SHARED\1 FORMS\NEG-DEC\04-COVR.MEM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILED NOV 3 0 1998 PARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3225 N O V 30 1998 NO TLICE OF DETERMINATION GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder D„ nt:D1ITV Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number. City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia _ (949) 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments r 2mplex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the tap of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24, 1998 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project ❑ will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. -- An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were ❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were r were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. 9a't:' ,(�,(, November 30, 1998 Javier S. Garcia, $t3hior Planner Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOMNENDMO\PARKNP7\NODDCUMT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 B. Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. C. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the project's potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. n Q November 30, 1998 � ►'' � �(' n= Date Ja ier S. Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOMI\PENDING\PARKNPMFG-EX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P S T E D 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NO U 1998 (949)644-3225 GAR L. G ILLE, Clerk -Recorder NOTICE OF DETERMINATION sv DEPUTY Tn• wiled in the County of Orange, California Oar L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111138 , 00 19988501317 2:32pm 11/30/98 $56 6179313 06 10 201 1 38.00 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24. 1998 _(Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: I. The City is 0 Lead Agency = Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project = will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. - An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were _ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations = was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were = were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. 4.t ¢ "=�. November 30. 1998 Javier/S. Garcia, enior Planner Date F.\USERS\PLN%SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPi\NODDCUMT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME P T E D CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION N 0 V 0 199a De Minimis Impact Finding GAR L. G I LE, Clerk -Recorder BY DEPUTY A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 B. Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. C. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the project's potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. November 30, 1998- Date Javier S. Garc' Senior Planner City of Newport Beach F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ t PLANCOM\PENDRJG\PARKNP'MFG-EX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3225 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 XX Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) : Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24, 1998 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project ❑ will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were ❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations ❑ was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were ❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. w November 30, 1998 Javi • S. Garcia, a for Planner Date F:IUSERS\PL.NISHARED\lPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPi NODDCUMT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Tel. No.: 916/445-0613) (Orange County) Contact Person: Javier S. Garcia SCH # Senior Planner Tel No.: (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Park Newport The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope alone the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Cross Streets: San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Total Acres 0.08 ac A.P.No. 440-132-52 &440-251-07 & 440-251-08 Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. West Coast Hiahwav Waterways: Newport Bay Airports: Railways: Schools: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site I and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope With some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER ❑ NOP ❑ Supplement/Subsequent ❑ NOT ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ EIR (Prior SCE No.) ❑ EA ❑ Final Document lZ Neg Dee ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other ❑ DmfV'EIR Cl Other ❑ FONSI Local Action Type ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation Cl General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan Cl Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit Q Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ land Division (Sub -division Parcel Map, Tract map, ect.) Q Other Grading Permit for slope stability and repair Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ Cl Transportation: Type ❑ Commeroial•Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.tt. Acres Employees_ ❑ Power: Type Watts Cl Educational` ❑ Waste Treatment Type ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type El Other. surface ground alterations and slope stability Project Issues Discussed in Document ❑ AestheticfVisual ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities 0 Water Quality ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Forest Land/Fire hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Air Quality CJ Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Ripadan 0 Archeologic/Historic Cl Minerals ❑ Wildlife 121 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑ Coastal Zone 0 Noise ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Dminage/Absoption ❑ Population/Housing/Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Land Use ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Service/Facilities Cl Traffic/Circulation ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks Vegetation ❑ Other F.\USERS\PLMI FORMSVJEG-DEC\03NOCOPR.DOC. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: lPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apaatments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Date Javier S. G rcia Senior PI ner F:\USERS\PI-MSHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPIWEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (i Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope; Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing 0 Geological Problems 21 Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation C1 Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards El Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems Q Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Rl I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ Signat re Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Printed Name Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPT\CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 0 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C� ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) C) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less then No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ E1 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) c) d) e) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health ha potential health hazard? (1,2' Exposure of people to existir sources of potential health hr (1,2) Increased fire hazard in area flammable brush, grass, or tr (1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise le (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an upon, or result in a need for r altered government services of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilitie including roads? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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.) CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNMCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 %VL Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EM 1997. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradinglerosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. J An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 2 Mitieation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hydrology The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites I and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites I and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. 5. Air Quality Construction/Operational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. Bioloeical Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. ) nerev and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for tdmporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicallpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of NewportBeach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay 6 Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Garden Grove SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY • ml COUNTY A..i• ,,� RE .r yo TUSTIN a t,4,• SANTA ANA • F ya r0 • IRVINE C EFTA Voy~a FrePIV4 n A '9 NEWPORT BEACH BEACH PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE LAKE LAGUNA NIGUEL `•� DANA POINT 2 MISSION VIEJO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map CULBEPUSON,ADAMS&ASSOCIATES -- - PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 v ��'' �...vJI1111►h ,�iu�nuu...� r•gll NORTH Scale: V = 400' Stabilization Sites a. UppWe" Newport Bay � 4t 71 Of 40 I' } \�P 6 rtk , qF 6►V'IP� 4oa� -4w +.'New 14 A 4 *RI, r' pw-Fgr 4j � iY - ': -Y Looking south at S ion ff �mrsa vua mmcvru «nao sm ww�m uw rw «.uwamz LEGEND m�c.m�axwa um ® a.aarz curt mew iam Qr rrmenx nu« EXHIBIT 6 1Pmrna zr�c r iao EXHIBIT 7 CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY SUMMAR' mn* xo�r GRACING 4oRCXCN M0 NO M np 61tWf! RMI XRCM O�Mm�f 61E RI�S.C110II,CLFMQ0110 Y. O.>mt O] WR 0O61�IXNM1CVRM pId RF Rl4p96I=µO RMI OW 9�i xpQO�t RpILC1UiMpIKp MR SYO RA O ttM[ HR mL V.V OC RLO T0. HM M SM u0 RA p1Y 0196i 2 O S�RXI NA.5�510. MYMYML t�4W OlY 61[Mlff4�G1 STORM DRAIN Qmaz+r cv n=u cuvurm)4op oXX =av RAm1 v ms.X m=.=Xo X5o4:.-® Go, G GLY�) R91 ¢=NEWT/JKIpI ]vµTl¢,W 9y9119171t5 , G O¢[nf�iMffi®�1�9m.51xIC�MI ip XWRm 0.mA�y6 M1m�lW W�C1A N �Y /LL W/:�0�6 H NQ 40t40Y IK IMIC M1I®� ml9i wuc man[ n II �I ImnW LJ Y Ylx H GE m1IMn! \\ G-A BEGIILW HOn tv xmna \ \ 1 I < ' p I IHmn�n•ec•m G'mm�va<mu mmm lusmxl 4=� LEGEND iX�l. (m) LYx� ms,nc srtw o==X m Km]+1 K9» O[v]iIw R iIOMXE 9W Xigl MugO V,U 15(p SOR wec ra=. mMGiO SR6 %[ ulws mxmaw spoani zl» —}E -E � -( -(-4 � awmc wY a mo..wu. X.w xo wu Ian IIpM aT 6 M WPX 9APK C0.0 \ � , Svcxa swz w,c♦w.z.umrz on.Wsvo. mmnx ♦Ia z WSXlaq nnusrtr-mtao,n®rn�Mx+U �� aX ne wr oe Ho.nluur r,.m xo wu aww'1 m srnw an a M uswl Xxoxc cme > wa.o sw=s va-tmm n.Mmm.I o""mvE's wia nWIX19WLS A[ -slice fllOpf�NR2 vRNC wafM�f9wz A16d ap1601®TM9APq U/RVL �OCYA 91uta u'm XA ¢X4SD BtMan45 CIa4 ♦ aXm0. +YRMnc wwY m.v4 al¢tnlm m, mol ImS M/lYZ HY0 �LNTERCEPTOR DffCH DETAIL (1TEMPORARY CONCRETE SLOPE LINING DETAIL e� mamcml ¢� wI m mu= wr DETAIL =awu 0 EXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all, mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design Upon project approval, a copy of the approved.project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved, plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the, City will approve the report„ request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 _ Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shalt be inspected Approval routine monitoring by established prior to the Department during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be property owner issuance of grading submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for permit review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial gmding/constmction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. 2. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Approval mutrne monitoring by established prior to the Department Works Department. property owner issuance of grading permit 3. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works control measures of the Chys grading ordinance and all applicable local approval grading permit Department and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). IV. WATER 4. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be approval grading permit Department subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the constriction area approval grading permit Department and the prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent Planning Department intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scmb habitat A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be m milamed in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the it construction fencing. Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROG NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Aparb cents October 19,1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6. Constmetion activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Feld Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section10.28.040 approval grading permit XII. AESTHETICS Light and Glare7. Provide a rough surface an the concrete apron to minimize Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department glare. glare. Approval grading permit and the Planning Department XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillece. paleontologist shall be present at the pn.gmding conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall detemdne appropriate actions, in cooperation with the pmject developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal bans. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be property preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F:\USERS\PLMSHARED\I PLANCOMIPENDINGIPARKNM W TMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date 4. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be approval grading permit Public Works subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Program monitoring Department Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. established prior to the 2. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and issuance of grading permit Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected Approval routine monitoring by Program monitoring Department during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be property owner established prior to the submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for issuance of grading review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is permit continuing to sluff, based upon the insults of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. Condition 3. The concocted facilities shall be routinely maintained by of Approval Plan Check and routine monitoring by Program monitoring Public Works Department the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public property owner established prior to the Works Department. issuance of grading permit 4. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation Condition of approval Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works Department control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local grading permit and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the Cray Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). S. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. A certified Ecologist shall oversee the habitat restoration Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works during the revegatating period and monitor maintenance and progress. approval grading permit Department and the Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the Planning Department coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the star of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. Page 1 RM (RING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 12, 1999 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date it. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Feld Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Sectionl0.28.040 approval grading permit 14. AESTHETICS Light roviPde a 7. and mu`'ugh surface on the concrete apron to minion. ovi ro ze. Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department glare gl Approval grading permit and the Planning Department 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillence. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for acheologicallpaleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicallpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be property preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, m well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPTNMTMSRTAB I Page 2 .we, E C E I V E [� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED OCT 2 31998 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 O C T 23 1998 (949) 644-3200 GARY L GRANVILLE. Gerk•Rmder GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk•Recoider Br. DEPUTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION By_______ DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apratments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. t-7f A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Ir 1 attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will -be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any %questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. /I W� Date (a /23 A/ Javier S. Ctdreia Senior Planner F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNP[\NEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some. vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain Inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the Inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where It currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an Interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the Inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying In exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources Cal Geological Problems 0 Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards 21 Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Utilities & Service Systems 0 Aesthetics El Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERINIINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. p I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ Signat ire Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner Printed Name Date P.\USERSIPLMSHAREDI I PLANCOMWENDINGiPARKNPi1CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 Ef I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Faulfrupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes In topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10.11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) o) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1.2,9,10,11.12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,49,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No' Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise avE for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standai contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation'! (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors tc pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature, or cause any ch in climate?(1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATI Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or trail congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from desigr features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency acces access to nearby uses? (1,2, Potentially Significant Impact 11 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El Lessthan Significant Impact 171 No Impact ❑ 21 ❑ Q ❑ 0 d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. 131OLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in Impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less then No' significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ L ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lessthan No Significant Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1,2) C) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ C✓1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef CHECKLIST Page 10 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Cl Cl ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIi. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less than No' Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Cd Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed In an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. ------------------ FXUSERSIPLN\SHAREDIIPLANCONflPENDING PARKNPRCKLIST 55:"4 Vt, CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644.3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plnn - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968). it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time. (he site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District, The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed far construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as ,.any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50170 or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-1005'e) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of"bluff' in the Zoning Code, As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -arcs of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction, The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Poaulation/Housing/Frnplovment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new Jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs.'' A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended Mitieation Measure No. 1 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. Mitieation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 'Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 Mitigation Measure Nn. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and acopy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hydrology The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrate). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that wilt be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately I,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites i and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project wilt not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. d That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. S. Air Onality Construction/Operational impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parkine The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only (raffle associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the,number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs alone the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed, along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume sonic energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7.00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Afiriearinn Measure Nn. h All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilitiei and Service Svstems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aestheties The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require lon, term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said rinds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. 1lrandatory Findines or Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES r COUNTY Garden Grove Riverside SANTA ANA NCOSTA 90!d MESA s� • NEWPORT BEACH �c PROJECT SITE el MAP NOT TO SCALE —'—� SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAKE OREST Pd. <0`O S4 MISSION \ VI0 .- O SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO C� DANA POINT SAN • 2 CLEMENTE\` RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY r-- SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map CULBERTSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 \ IZ r n ' NORTH : c o r •, ;' t ' asp r• � # ) �,;✓�►'-� ' �' s ti Scale 1" = 400, .. '�•� 'A ' ��1� ` • \ 1rTit • .. K �' �. .rat. ul�.a a�� �y.I q Stabilizafik "e esUppe ' Newport t,Msr t, ..��-:,x.• , ., Bay! Q-%'�'"�`' •. *� J rR � 2' r _... f . �c ate. w• , `A. -. .. i'..�ti4. L4�; •.c "a .a �. 1. �y \aKi.� 2..kSL'ite'•-}. � �. T• l�r , . �' fir'!''. ♦ i r ' �Ubking:•south w� _ __-_- �^r.."^-,.-.,A._ __:-.`. ..... .....-.. ` �_--__��•" -- BACK 8A _�-_-----'--- - +.. ..... _. • R4 e MSm.rao•sunxmiPnw"� i.now �rnrrYs O1M RP�.ZR.O0IPPPI¢.pyPMrlMl lr/. IY.P Of OM..t"1R.AI RIrYRR RY.t )>1�.p 4WPM.3 S n- Lrjl — r r ©<...Rw�.sRSReuR r.' EXHIBIT-6 SACK BAY DRIVE_ .....:;;r..—:"Le.....,. . 1 p CONSTRUCTION NOTES Qi u.wa.e nwR ru mp]R]n uoM j ` ., ' a'Ortan w'do�an �`w ort o�•�i:�:anv r m.va Q] Rye ".pnm"OS°cwin.4 aartosr ].wQ LEGS , C.�C,1 QW IOI Opp r]a pYad M]IInORW ]12 Q. wwan'��au.aert,n,•Ra pan d>an]xarw � .wu]n .4w�p mp n.n O] W]a waa a�r{Ylpp wYq aA n..w qn Ye Rapa.apN11] /,,, ,r! nYoafv)wvcm•u.n O flp ]r1w c fnY �.�io SR � b ]M']�Ra OM1O YRn Rb� (D CK"". a PARK NEWPOWAPARTMEMS}�ETpSKKJ REPAR PLAN� "" dia'� EE�— � m m_ I CfiY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXHIBIT 7 al,wwc Qilwwl�w«,ew iu rw-ir�ww<-< au aw<wir � ti a4i rw1 w.w<w w.s.r Ql�� �wTTNW Pfa,lw.u. ws a �ytlrN.� .bOOiMnW PKViwM .K> fOiR „«tI<YT KMv. <r I.Y K.}<w TrW Pfw)l l V Of4w�Wt1f•V.-1-4.0 �ar�Y,•�M.4.I Nwrlw IN1 STO11Y d11W OPN<.rCVI(4rW�f#Yw yV Onf�u' 4 T<t rPrrRMssl.twrrwt N•e •V es.,vNe--YI ro e<rrr{w.[T fP<v<w aww.rpr« a I�wOA.ti�O<.YN OrTN 1Q rrr.P6 �WmK N1P!r4�..Nt . u.u._v.w .uM�r_.�uw ••w-v-• f Yc N .Y! b w Wv--P .l Mrr.01M P OOOI.-I r\ MEACEPfOR OfTCN OETAIL �� NINYMt KSTIg1 A•A ' i ��•IFWW�i P� 1 `�\�7-E�FO-BABY CONCRETE SLOPE LtIFXi DEfA� VIYKR,.MKY< LEGEND m tsJ uaes•� mws,N.IfY. cm=> l.+.cWww R RI NY <P.K 40 vwt IN4r wrV(t O M�pv,.,K yrpNN PrYf I<r r ..er qu J s a wY r< PY Krf P.4IPr¢w.► ydy iN wr.aly m.IM<+PtWf /.l rtei oErAc m ►EXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. NIITIGATION NIONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19,1998 Implementation blethodor Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGICPROBLEMS(Earth) I_ An annual inspation of the completed facilities shalt be Conditioner Plan Cheek and Program monitoring Publie Works completed by a registered geologist. 7Le fxilifies shalt be inspected Approval routine mannoring by Lmahiishedpriurlothu Department during April or May of each year. The results of the inspecuon shall be Property owner issuanceof grading submitted to the City of Newport Bunch Public Works Director for permit review before June 1. Should it be determined that the stope, is continuing to sluff, baud upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be naluired as determined by the Public Works Director. Alt mnelial work raluirud by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. 2. The constructed fatihties shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program momtoring Public Works the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Appmeal routine monitoring by established prior to the Department Works Department. roapenyomnv issoancturgrasng peanut 7. The pmjea will comply with the erosion and siltation Contrition of Plan Check Prior to the wvanee of Public Works central mctsurus of the Cityls grading ordinance and all applicable local approval grading Permit Department and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140 or applicable sections). IV. WATER 4. Tltat die project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the isruanet. of Public Works Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall b: approval grading pertmt Department subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Depamrtent"Cityauthoriud Grading -Engineer. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction facing shall be installed along the Conlidonof Plan Check Priortuthuissuarrceuf Public Works edge of the evutal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction ana approval grading permit Depamnent and the prior to the start of constnetioo. The construction fencing will present Planning Department inuosion by construction workers and equipmerit into the coastal sage stub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shalt be maintained in place throughout construction Period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencin Page 1 Implementation Method of 'Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6. Construmion activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Feld Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040 approval grading permit MI. AISTHETICS Light and Glaro 7. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to mininti7z Condition or Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department glare Approval grading permit and the Planning Department XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Mpartment applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading perorit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The survedlance. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archcological/paleontolugical resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project ' developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologiczUpalcontological resources arc discovered, which require long -tern halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. uu, vur.,"�uu. r uvr r MDK [Am Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation July 1, 1999 G�\'011 �9 City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 0�\� 92658-8915 Attn: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner Re: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) Dear Mr. Garcia: This letter is to inform you that Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC) has been retained by Gerson Bakar & Associates to provide archaeological and paleontological services during the grading for slope stability for the Park Newport Apartments. We will attend the pre -grade meeting and will set forth the controls to be maintained during grading as well as establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural and/or scientific resources. Carol R. Demcak, Orange County certified archaeologist will supervise the archaeology. Milos Velechovsky, Orange County certified paleontologist, will supervise the paleontology. If, in the course of grading, significant cultural or scientific resources are encountered, we will notify the Project Developer and the City of Newport Beach, and a plan of mitigation will be worked out for the specimens. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. At the conclusion of grading we will prepare a report of the monitoring, which will include the number of hours worked, an inventory and analysis of the recovered specimens, and the name of the repository where the specimens will be housed. Sincerely, Carol R. Demcak President/Supervising Archaeologist Copy: Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar; Lorrie Lausten, RBF 1114 N. Gilbert Street, Anaheim, California 92801 Phone (714) 491-9702 Fax (714) 491-9766 •' Iv I•�•.I '•N. P.O. BOX 1768 Gary L. Granville R E C E I V E r)Orange County Clerk -Recorder P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, Ca 92702 '99 JAN -8 A9 _g 4) 834-4625 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF KEWPORT BEACH Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder Memorandum SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of"Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" The attached Notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 11/30/98 It remained posted for 30 (thirty) calendar days. Cary L. Granville County Clerk -Recorder of the State of California in and for the County of Orange Rachel Moctemma lin Deputy JAN 0 5 1999 The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a within 24 hours of receipt. Public Resources Code 21152 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. ***Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency ***within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by *** (a:\eir\eir30dy) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P S T E /r 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 «= Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NO 0 1998 (949)644-3225 GAR L. G ILLE, Clerk -Recorder NOTICE OF DETERMINATION BY DEPUTY Tn• FZilecl in the county of orange, california Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder 'IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII 3 e , 00 19988501317 2;32pm 11/30/98 856 6179313 06 10 Z01 1 38.00 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: i I Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 98101084 Javier S. Garcia (949) 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apartments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on November 24, 1998-(Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is 0 Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project ❑ will 0 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures 0 were ❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations ❑ was 0 was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 0 were ❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3225. A&6=�_ November 30, 1998 Javier S. Garcia, enior Planner Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPT\NODDCUMT A. B. C. D. E. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME w CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION N 0 V De Minimis Impact Finding GAR L. G I BY Name and Address of Project Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 Clerk -Recorder Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the projecVs potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. November 30, 1998 Date Javier S. Garc' Senior Planner City of Newport Beach F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNP'MFO•EX ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3200 A. General Information 1. Applicant/Agent: Kevin Culbertson Phone: (949) 581-2888 Address: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 2. Property Owner: Gerson Bakar & Associates Phone: (415) 391-1313 Address: 201 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 B. Project Description 1. Project Name: Slope Stability Repair Work (Grading Permit) 2. Project Location: Park Newport Apartment Complex (1 Park Newport) 3. Assessors Parcel #: 440-132-52; 440-251-07; 440-251-08 4. Permit Application: GP ***-98 5.a. Proposed Use: N/A 5.b. Project Size: N/A 5.c. Site Size: Site 1: 1,000 square feet 5.d. Building Height: Site 2: 2,200 square feet 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: September 25,1998 N/A Existing Land Use Designation: General Plan: MFR - Multi -family Residential Zoning: P-C Specific Plan: N/A LCP: East Bay Area: (11) Park Newport Previous Governmental Approvals: CDP 5-97-250 Other Governmental Approvals Required: Federal: N/A State: California Coastal Commission Regional: N/A Local: Grading Permit Begin Construction: November/1998 Estimated Occupancy: N/A 1 C. Potential Environmental Effects Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two specific locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Exhibit 3 is an aerial photograph showing the location of the project in relation to Back Bay Drive/Upper Newport Bay. Also shown on Exhibit 3 are the locations of the two proposed stabilization sites. The proposed project consists of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Exhibits 4 and 5 present photographs of the existing slope. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e. "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare as well as to protect private property. The site specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1- Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 - The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sand bags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" stormdrain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details of the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets and 286 feet of 12' corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. Analysis: 1. Land Use and Plannine A. Existing Land Use: LOS ANGELES r > COUNTY! 3 Riverside • m Garden Grove Freeway TUSTIN 9�d • s.97 SANTA ANA • IRVINE COSTA MESA Aj NEWP\ C, BEACH BEACH PROJECT SITE 9 MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAKE LAGUNA NIGUEL MISSION VIEJO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map CULBERTSON. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 411�= CULBERTSON, AAAMS &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS Aerial Photo with Sites Indicated EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 1'117.1 - , po BACK BAY DRIVE_ry--_--- - a MO •IV I.IfA PSv-x[Rm O pMpM1'wwR M9 Mt�sKl �M Y�pm 1YID tm¢C�iM LV0 MO et v1Y P O 06[ �`�401«GIdMIR�I P.W fuO MM � Q' mau..n nr�vrP «P+mmw.0 �m ue rP m.za�z LEGEN ® (JIXR YP[fMf11�ICIg1 Y11f OI Ii¢C1 �,1//S EXHIBIT 6 13A- ____ DRIVE 01 �n \562pNc M CONSTRUCTION NOTES r A 0 NOM OROInIpI RA'1136410t /, rl i ilV mpC3uN YC9pLtl CVImnM •�^, / 0 WR 9qN 1O6pNNCDICI NIOI RA ¢IKp tR9 RIl1 w>' / . OW �� iFRitlN R, 3nKp9tfii NN R.�(ti ,.H, / Of 064 NR Tht YRA 0C RYO 3R RK NJ I•Yd Y0 RA 1nKp96ii 0 SI�6 RMM LFL-�u031P iVN i�D{-BW CRRInWIf 4M1• " POVDIC- E•,y ,. \� © O4B,i NIgYM pM W3 ® <ORRSI00015KC.d WR OMA[1 N NI6 z EXHIBIT 7 mm vo my pl�gNC �°�'a"wacxO nrp of p'tcaaw°u" mne� Noxwvw aan c+w.orna O� NY O�II� R�.f.WIM.9i�L+i r/M60RE.1flLWm Qu:rsawi�"`iom. mwrw wxwsvrz No wv �+m�'rs aww�iva�crwrtcmn ra occ.. w aarx.w nN� �a mac N[I r.. vrua Haamrw xa+aa No vw muwamx m ``r+ v.n ma-.'°O`Ne s�`miw w m11°viralw an n avwr c+w .lL STORM GRAIN ®.wnlr... Nzuc¢vx.ae>amu aulr v n.mwv r�u. mzc .4 rl puwwcm me<lavw aoawca rn.ro.uvu arw n'I^ .our nm 4 / �um++v mcrcu�ev¢ nruuay.1Oam)nv varwrNHcsm s.o+uc uo soar uovu. m �mmc¢wa�msimnwnw +wn>a ne murr mwcrsc ue aarvm �: ttlnw.w.a tton uvmw. WNC 011I9aAYC ®IQA Y09lM+RCNr � / l� � !� �MSM®C� 9R i•w�o�0"m�u+nw - .r rzr-vavzca a.LL I I /I � I rwmo mc.umc �upaOOl�TN iY mx `` NVRO1+rxvv �NO1rM.Bn+off � 11 I �+ I� u®Ort IMO I �i ' vmiu m IMdR.IYOt nt. IrrIfl .u.Wm2m /, maz aen u M wm.amiv aac auu s rm-+mm m M uo.cmi n M samc a wa.¢ vmvc 9WL s Y� MM 46a®A M OaYCOrOII W OYaO �\ INTERCEPTOR DrTCH DETAIL_ w++o zau mai t wC[II 9uII 0n®Jna IDm�i�` IIC+w ]�y6 Mi1NW�1 mC��t�. a iwaow avuzrz r-nezne.wa.M unl a.x) a uiienwwum imr"v ro1On��n m�oi2 "°M0 a oe.o�.v+.vu a �.roi w.m n x sa,tic orvn ♦ waa JJln Mnc wrx WRans imID of mm Gel TEMPORARY CONCR= SLOPE LINING DETAIL mmsNr LEGEND ml 16Y [Ow O1V.Dw n na..a rs rmam awe¢ .a .o. urwr uc wnme rs +anawc .Q r.ortcrn wn .w"aa�urs¢ aor au. m nw.s.im snn ver w.a.u. N+wn /1 INLET DETAIL wr m w+a g� m6ro�1[Ml Riuf n EXHIBIT 8 The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sand bags that have been previously placed on the surface toprevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach GeneralPlanLand Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. nin - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5,1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-1009o) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with. in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housine/Emnloyment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the cty's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long term affects on local employment. 3. Earth 11 The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29,1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides which occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.' Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs? A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be. hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will.minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I Art annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected dtuingApril or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June L Should it be detennined that the slope is continuing to fail, based upon the results of the annual inspections, ftatherrentedial grading/constntctiort work shall be required as detennined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 77te constructedfacilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geoteehnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 'Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 12 4. H drolocv The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor, ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12 corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites 1 and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. S. Air Ouality Construction/Operational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and not will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 13 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub which extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The project will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitat that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. tion Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction,period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Enera and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safetv The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Noise impacts will be further reduced by limiting the hours of construction. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. 14 to 6.30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. �n MitiYadon Measure No. "r All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services and Utilities CThe proposed project will not have a need for public services or utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services --du ilitiep-.1 Luva. go5 �zj1tAesthetics106, The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short- term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. 1�. Lleht and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may 15 be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Of Mlti [ion Measure NoY ' �v4�1 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare.e yl. Iq Cultural and Historic Resources ���5 ��wV'o-_,dam The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during constructionrr In the event ¢radina, all 1 The project applicant during the project to All material shall b tl 15. Recreation archaeological/paleontological remains/fossils are uncovered during excavation and/or in that area o ect property until e s 'gproprj to data recovery program can be I. The co f such progsgm sha ie responsi.bility of the project sponsor. don to all archaeological/pal tologica' material/fossils, historic or prehistoric, recovered in sti lion that has the pr er fac 'ties for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. rred to he approved fa ' ity after lab atory analysis and a report have been completed. The shall be nproved b e Planning Depar ent based oryxfecommendation from the qualified The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove,the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay'Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16 Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct to the best of knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. Ken Diessel, Director of Facilities Services Agent for Park Newport, LTD. Print name of owner or representative and Title Signature For Office Use Date filed: Fee: _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 P ►-ANNINGEDEPARTMENT IVEI) By �< 2501 PULLMAN STREET CITY OF NFINPORT BEACH SANTA ANA, CA 92705 DEC 1 1 1998 December8,1998 AM PM Javier Garcia File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH# 98101084 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 Subject: Park Newport Apartments. Dear Mr. Garcia: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project is for Slope Stability/Repair Work and a (Grading Permit). The project is located along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comment at this time. Please continue to keep us informed of future developments that could potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please call Aileen Kennedy on (949) 724-2239. SMerey, Robert F. Jos ph, Chic Advance Planning Branch C: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Praveen Gupta, Environmental Planning Paul Chang, Toll Roads Roger Kao, Hydraulics CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 (Tel. No.: 916/445.0613) (Orange County) Contact Person: Javier S. Garcia SCH # Senior Planner Tel No.: (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1. Park Newport The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Cross Streets: San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Total Acres 0.08 ac A.P.No. 440-132-52 &440-251-07 &440-251-08 Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. West Coast Hiehwav Waterways: Newport Bay Railways: Schools: Airports: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site I and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER ❑ NOP ❑ Supplement/Subsequent ❑ NOT ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ EIR (Prior SCE No) ❑ EA ❑ Final Document 0 Neg Dec ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other Cl Dmft/EIR ❑ Other ❑ FONSI Local Action Type ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ land Division (Sub-disision Parcel Map, Tract map, ect.) 0 Other Grading Permit for slaIN stability and reair Development Type ❑ Residential, Units Acres ❑ Winer Facilities: Type MOD ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ O Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Power. Type Wous ❑ Educational, O Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type 0 Other. surface ground alterations and slope stability Project Issues Discussed in Document ❑ Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Flood Plain,Hooding ❑ Schools/Universities 0 Water Quality ❑ Agdcultuml land ❑ Forest tand(Fire bazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater Cl Air Quality 0 Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wedand/Riparion 0 Archeoloeic/Historic ❑ Minerals ❑ Wildlife 0 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Graung ❑ Coastal Zone 0 Noise ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Dminage/Absoption ❑ Population/Housing/Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ land Use O Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Service/Facilities ❑ Traffic/Circulation ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks 0 Vegetation 0 Other CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644.3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 FX71County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apratments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is IJ �7f attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision -makers) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposer) project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Date IVA2 Javier S. G rein Senior Pla ner R\USERS%PLMHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNP7 NEODEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1-Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing 0 Geological Problems 0 Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation 0 Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards 0 Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that tha proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ Signs re Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Printed Name Date �v12?//�1 F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDLNG\PARKNP7\CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 H I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) C) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) a) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less then No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Substantial reduction in the am-' -` of groundwater otherwise avail for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, c temperature, or cause any char in climate?(1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (E VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATIO Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Significant Impact 11 r Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 1-1 rn on r- Lessthan Significant Impact 11 No Impact ❑ a ❑ a r r-A d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) VIII. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Po Sig tentially Potentially nificant Significant mpact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ El Ell Q El El ElQ ❑ El ElQ ❑ El ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ElQ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ El El ❑ Q El El El ElQ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ El Q ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 10 Less than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ El Ell Q El El ElQ ❑ El ElQ ❑ El ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ElQ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ El El ❑ Q El El El ElQ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ El Q ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ El El ❑ Q El El El ElQ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ El Q ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 10 ❑ Q ❑ ❑ El Q ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 10 CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ Q uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ Q opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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.) CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F:\USERSIPLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDINOTARKNPT\CKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March. 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff. of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading. cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradinglerosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit tCDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add newjobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. i The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. '- A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 2 Mitigation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hvdroloev The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites I and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. 5. Air Quality Construction/Operational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parldne The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer. procedures for temporanly halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance. or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades. allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location CULBEPUSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 NORTH Scale: 7" = 400' ` six. ,. <y :. t �. At�"� �\i .7 � t• x• Stabilization Sites Uppe Newportfi - n )� �= �:• Bay y 6 Jr x�rlyy_ t VIP Fy kj kint I D • 7r' - 1� ;;%..�•'<' t ;_,� �, ' � 1Looki�� fl�o�%th �t � • . I— •�� Vim;"�• �,• CI .d' _c4j;•�: �i _ - �•••;��. �: it �.. • •��' •"" '"• ��•` '•y •�.r1.",f';?,�;' 'ram Lgoki n'g =south / �rlrn O� ~p to�a uwaw..inw roaas'r"oem"nr`v.m'mr w ,art Rw wRtwl �,n,rYe Ol r�e,. _P .Ia.P Rr4PfRIl M/ua Qi mm. r�ia r.v v,wanw.n ru.e,srra r.rawr• J _ �=AIR) BACK BAY DRIVE __----- ---�� I_ oe - f 1 1 � P�a[11 .IPm�P.,a,rn 1• 1� `,� rQ aemn.ua EXHIBIT 6 BA .. T..... II•r -- 1 r VIP gOI[wc 1 \II . I \ r p�P,.YnIN.ro �PRR.a.��� i 4oRP�PwRw r�0 M OA NO� Pr RUB Ttv O� a LviLirl A�iw\i qn,[9 rtMY0RWRN Vi91 O W�NAµ �lgnRq PgrMglYgM11 MO RY O W3>4�1VLw wORLV R.r g1Yw N\IlKnw �i cwll YLl nR rrY qnw La wY M,Pe Ye R. arY wMnL O 1R wY rW0 SR.\ i M fF� YI Lam\ � R\ PM1 q YNPI qrw .ww 9 i � \oww.n.vrn+elw wn 111111 RaPL mPPOLe wn > rw�m nIq IR / 1 T. 1 •.1 -1• P7 ; (u'1 'I. �. .._. ... EXHIBIT 7 GRMING Q qut'RwAQ.w�rim.A°gn wa u Rq'gonn � a u gYRWNG PiIP /•R.( AA P gwgr 14? O[GIP Oi wTS tat>A� It R•P MR�f[t0. fINQOROKK Wm .0 OAAIPMgtMP Wti MqM tY• O t�R W9�It qqt PLRCaP tPPW PM[ti•Y bM tTA. OO mOtq[t isa VlPPgYA t4I1PilYC MIP Rt.a Pftltl l4 O fip tt•M K�MwfA� LAMFG�MOAq q.PtgiP a• STORY ORNb ®wqa tr cv of u.q.gm> fbr.vr O NONR.PaPPIagM.e tllgG irO Yq O�Y u wru.aD) wu Alr.wr/yR�P frwtPG .w iwr..gr•R lgwq CA.�AO mQaa � O�C..tCYaaPPN IAA- . �qrP p M.n N W.wt.T T t.r�t.q�ll Pial d atgsa Vwn.ul .;-N.PI�gY Oi rL11JTEROEPfOR ORCH DETAL ql b fAl[ YIAM R:raWcaLL W gO.aq.C® q/rt K�Oo[R` m 1=^'7.- !�` rn rwnm emu v ICI I A.,u.... U u...N. n• .,. I nr•w.ww. , \ ntm lv.gnq In Awl. rI oG is ll•tlw ir'n��i.�ipn�l , .I In / ♦ tPq aq AOC .•r•. GPvq an Ku..Nrq.h IAPOFiARY CONCRETE SLOPE LMNQ DE7AL uu LEGEND m wl r�vl .R abw.u. Iw•NI n m WnaP wN 10 n rww. s.q qq w q q qtn /O MRGI wrVq w e.vi wsr.wr.t • AM On G� wn.u[a vlHfPwa �\ rLEf DETAL L'/ crbuq FXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grayling Project Park Newport Apartments Octotar 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Eurlh) 1. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall to insp a:ted Approval routine monitoring by established prior to the Department during April or May of each year. The exults or the inspection shall he property owner issuanec of grading subtitled to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for pennil review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon lice exults of the annual inspections, further remedial gmdmg/conslrucuon work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work nMuired by the City shall be completed by November 1 of thal year. 2. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works the property owner as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Approval routine monitoring by established prior to the Department Works Iepartnieia. property owner iswance of grading permit 3. 'Ile pmjMl will comply wilt the erosion and %Ration Condition of Plan Check Prior to the isurmme of Public Works wmml mlcasures of the City's guiding ordinance rand all opplieuble local approval grading lrennil Depnrtmionl and Suite building eades unit seismic design guidelines, including the ('fry limivotion unit (Imdlug Code (NHMC Scelion K(KI.10 or applicuble sections). IV. WATIM 4. 'Ibtd (lie project shall confirm Io the Nntlunnl Pollution Condition of 11hut Check I'dur to the lsmuita: ur Public Winks Discharge Elimination Sysicm (NPDE.S) requirements and %hall be approval grading pemtit Iepurtnerit subject to the approval of the Public Works Department mid the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. V11. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area approval grading permit Department and the prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent Planning Department intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be imswcled not to enter into the coastal sage semb habitat beyond the comlraction fencing. Page 1 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURFS Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those bouts allowed Condition of Feld Check Priorto theissuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Burch Noisc Ordinance Se:tionI0.28.040 approval grading permit XII. AESTHETICS Light and Glare Condition Plan Check Prior issuance Building Ihep,utntem 7. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to rmniIran or to the of re gla. Approval grading permit and the Planning Deparrnent XIV. CULTURAL RFSOURCIUS 8, 11ior In the issuance of it gmding Iwunil, the plojecl Cunditinnof lividcore of PniorIII the bsunnecof Planning Ikparnwnl applicant shall provide wti0en evidence In the Cily of Newpml Beach approval pnlwatologlsl reudnnl grading perndl and Building Dcpl that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to obwrve grading w perlbrin site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils :is necessary. 'the surveillance. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference. shall establish procedure for archcological/palcomological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the pmjed developer, procedure for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit %ampling, identification, unit evaluauon of the fo+.+ds. If major ar:heologicat/palcurnological resources me discovered. which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City -of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds an: of special significance• or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire m study and/or display them at the time:, in which case items shall be donned mr the Cily, or designee. These actions, as wall as final mitigation and disposition of the nyourccs, shall be subject to the approval of tic City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading pennit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F: USERSTLMSHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNFMTMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23,1998 to November 22,1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. Gary L. Granville Orange County Clerk -Recorder P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, Ca 92702 (714) 8344625 NOV 3 0 1998 P.O. BOX 1768 Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder Memorandum SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of"Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" The attached Notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 10-23-98 . It remained posted for 30 (thirty) calendar days. Gary L. Granville County Clerk -Recorder of the State of California in and for the County of Orange By: Rachel Moctemma Deputy The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of gh county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 days, unless otherwise required bylaw to be posted for 30 days The Cou= Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt. All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. ***Thereafter, the clerk shall return thenotice to the local lead agency ***within a notation of the period it was posted. The local l d agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by *** (a:\eir\eir30dy) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 O C T 23 1998 NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARY L. GRANVILLE, clerk -Recorder By DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 7Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project. Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apratments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any gQu,�estions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. 5---/-^4� �.�Qi. Date to I -x% I k r Javier�S. ciaa Senior Planner I=iled in the County of Orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiilllllllll 3s, 00 19988501189 2; 20pm 10/23/98 856 6177998 06 09 Z01 1 38.00 Q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Departme@t� (949) 644-3200 m o I® co m W rn 'v Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) N J LL. U Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates } 201 Filbert Street < m San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential FILED 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community OCT 2 3 1998 GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport BeachE°'_-_aa Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed Improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shoterete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shoterete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain Inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed In approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service 0 Geological Problems CAI Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards 0 Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems R1 Aesthetics Rl Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. R1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation treasures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ at�n-n A-�� Signat re Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Printed Name Date F:\USEIES\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCGM\PENDING\PARKNMCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 R1 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or*minority community)? (1,2,3) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Cl ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudfiows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATT= : Would the proposal result in: a) Changes In absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Legg than No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ CHECKLIST Page 6 0 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?(1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy Conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) c) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q CHECKUST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ C✓! ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially Potentially Less then No , Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Other governmental services? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Communications systems? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q (1,2) XIII, AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ Q highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ Q ❑ aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ (1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ (1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) ❑ [j ❑ Q CHECKLIST Page 10 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ C1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XViI. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less then No . Significant significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. FdUSERSIPLMSHAREDU PLANCONNENDINO\PARKNPnCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644.3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Plannine A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B, Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of New7tort Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project dues not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. 7.onine - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1963), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff" as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newpotl Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36,e.-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff" in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading)." grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Pnnulation/Hnusine/Emnlovment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surfiicial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. '- A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface ruts -off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. 1 Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 MiNeatinn Measure Nn, i An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hydrology The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that (lows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the suit will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfull to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not he significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,500 square feel of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 2S6 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the ~eater to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between site% I and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discltnrges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval orthe Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. 5. Air Ouality ConstructionlOnemtinmtl impact% The proposed project will result in minor impnets to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to duct during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project wHI not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parkine The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiting new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mltieation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existingsupplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Tana Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motoriacd equipment for grading, placement of shuterete, construction of storm drains and backtilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance, Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements arc completed, there arc no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation A?ea care Nn. h All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Scction 10.28.040. 11. Publie Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefor, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Liehtand Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete.apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for tdmporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require Ion, --term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access :long the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Garden Grove ORANGE 1 • SANTA ANA • COSTA MESA A NEWPOP BEACH �c PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE 1 1, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Saaia9 `� TUSTIN ' Fast ° C 0 IRVINE �1 4 `way c °fill ORANGE LAKE PORES T gad' COUNTY • �Oa 90° Sa MISSION Q Hql O E1 VI.JO jO I s \o C° J l O BEACH LAGUNA t BEACH NIGUEL 4 ; • 1 Oaf°ga �� 1 • O SAN JUAN ; I CAPISTRANODA J rim DIEGO POINT • Ii COUNTY 2 SAN CLEMENTE" .� Regional Location Map CULBEPUSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 ..rJ, NORTH. Scale: 1" = 400'IN IL le Nil Stabilization Sites Altrig y Jb �, • j � +� � • �• pp 4eW,/ NewportA r _. su , �;,..• Bay Pa J ♦ q ♦ Y ' �� JI Ile 01 0 t r f ' r• J� ri vuY,o 1 p • u / S• '•'+ i:r' ' r;Lookin9 ,r1o•a;Site 1 ry 4- 1 i AirA i .,.. a r r 1 �w•�f Y � T .11-4 rxA Y Rll' ic11 y�c t ����� y �,• J�.'',Locikii \.rho Q v."ae s+r°r`nm.-ess wa rw ra w am a r,v (]mR..aa a.c.r«e<.rmrv. wasrraay..«ama _ BACKS 0 Y___Y_�_�•_�-.�-----__'.--:.,�-- i 1 , IFGEND ��, �o.wnaeam.wce irn (a r.aa�..rwz EXHIBIT .G ' - EE BAYDRIVE:: - •�•.....�, .. • �� —` um main lQ CONSTRUCTION NOTES t �l � oda ur.rz'�.loR� amPn..m.w llx M lMI u nPa® Pr M QMOK�n pill M M Pn Q nNr RI.x w9[4rd O � M aA s R Jll6�y.Rn [P P.R M a9RP.�4 WXP O wny p{Q�.lgllDlp Plp 1p QlYd x[r]u9 R/x . Oi CM xMd �rt 10. A]nCMMQ\4p nl.]WIIW �s co.ss ..n merrpmnw sm n..arw eo nl Qr..wxns s"ro'nv: w a"'Ma-Ha .��Piia�"rwl xr"'o. m"rai•a Pn v v+vr Q.w 8\ t •. a-.. LEGEND .. nno. wnPxol v.n QI ..onv.n.z EXHIBIT 7 CONSTRUCTION OUANTITY SUMMARY can•. sac y..-n PO�VaaCc nYmtw Krns ItwfPw.s¢Ylx Qi ���aPwr ::n�w.nm.n YCPmm..cao-am au O Vq �10 YggP•yTtlPSw11� aW> OW"W�A1L� gOrtib.gPfYWMliMa1N apP am wMT.tYq nCTIR t♦TYMTaaYgPua afQ.i iu Y NaaMR YF4iMA�~�I�i.LW.q O.VRRPIatb IaYf SId1Y ORNN gcwaKcl•Mx+ca.n®lxq+ar v �p�rTMyy mgMSgMO!®tlTrwaTL ]f Sf �V C'4.Te4'��PT fQ w�0'� V�ua a� irtl/�Ja Fla ao.a7wagnomwscwsam. 1� v.0 wne !u TP Ma w,l . VtlalulW 1 nwwn aMR4 4 T tl YN LF.M4 MMar YMa <Yq M� TOAC # N tiP6 0M4 sip n.a /.\ tlTERCEPfOR ORCN DEfAl X4[ �• r. am .a..w<w (1MI6iM VN,. N ra�i� .ICI 4 'nVa + Vau[ lIV /•l l Tn _ 4 maT aMv ' r1 1 1 wm.n KL'IIOIIAA I arm. q•YY.tl, 1 IINu..Ws61A• 4^MAR .+TtlI }I{L�Y°a 4,1 / ♦ NR a.•f #OC vqut F.4AT MN of WM T.\"�EMPORMY CONCRETE SLOPE LINING OETAL V� +s 0 IN LEGEND w� .+ao-c saY wn m geYan aqq P... I.+.r INY u+o aa. LW 4l•.T>• 4W.1 ♦+MeYMI R Y/ .¢ MI MnA bOYYIR tlR #090[ O Iq.n n rtrtY O wnv.M ezrrttT.. PW tlr V Y•Ia. v ra.r.an w�.n OVI Mr X. m.nr rnY nr (l ►LET OEML H> q XYa EXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATit.'E DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 implementation Method or Tinting or Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) I. An annual inspection of the completed faciiaies shall he Condition of Plan Check and Programttomtonng Public Nvurks xmpkaed by a registered geologist. The facilities sball be N'pecttl Approval none monitoring by oawbh�hcdpnixtothe DcTanmmt during April or May of each )ear. The results of the inspection shall be prupert) owner Lssuanccorgrading submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public We& Director for perimt review• before June 1. Should it be des errifi teJ that the slope is continuing to sluff. based upon the results of the annual impcniuros. Further remedial gmdingtconstmchen work shalt be nymrcd us rktmmimd by the Public Works Director. All reinerhat work required by the City shall be completed by No%anber I of that year. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routimly maintaitteed by Condiltunuf Plan Chcak and Program irxmnonng Public R'orks the property owner as daernlincd by the City of Newport Beach Pubhe Approval n uunc inoniumng by ntahhsfnJ prior to the fkTannx:nt R'orks Depaiarent. pnpcit)owrrcr issu.mceofgnaiing permit 3. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation Condnronof Plan Check Pnortotb:iauanccuf Pubiio NVorks control measures or the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local appmval grading perms Departima and State building cods and sastmc design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBNIC Section 15.114.140 or applicable sections). IV. WATER 4 That the project shall enn('orm to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Priortothe tb.uanceaf Publicl.Vorks Discharge Elimination System INPDES) requin:mmu and shall be appraval gmdnigpenmt Depaonnt subject to the approval of the Public N'orks Department and the Building Depanmcot orGty authorized Cuadmg Enginay. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES S. Orange coreaniction Bmcing shall be installed along the Conditionof P6mChcck Prior tuthcLs,•uanccof Public Wells edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area approval grading perma DgWmnt and the priorto the Smrl of enrtslNCUnn. The constriietim fencing will pmetit Planning Departmnt intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall dims the location of the construction Devising. The fencing shall be maintained in-plxe throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is complcted. All construction empioyces shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scnib habitat beyond tlx: construction fmcine. Page i , MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those boors allowed Condition of Field Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section1028040 approval grading permit Mi. AESTHETICS Light and Glare Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to mint Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department g7.lare. glare. A Approval pp grading permit and the Planning Department MV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Pnor to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading pemrit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillance. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project ' developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicallpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. r.XUSEKJ\YLNI HAKCU\l YLANI.;UM%FhNUIiNUIPAKKNI'1XM I MSK'I AB Page 2 r-: e_t PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage Improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., 'Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach, The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road, APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental Impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92668. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange x Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 1- Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: I Park Newport, Park Newport Apratments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. �-�t A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached 11 on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held. you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644.3200. :, Date Javier S. G rein Senior Plat ner F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDINWARKNFf1NEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges, Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/• will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 m ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing 0 Geological Problems Cif Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation Cif Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards 0 Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems Z Aesthetics R1 Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DFTtRNUNATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and Z) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ aez:�� X� Signat Ire Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner Printed Name Date PIUSERSIPIMSHAILED\I PLANCGMIPENDINGU'ARKNPnCKLrST CHECKLIST Page 4 R1 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or'minority community)? (1,2,3) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ o 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Selene, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,9,10,11,12) potentially Potentially Leas than No signlllbant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C� ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ C✓1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, Insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e,g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources In a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lessthan No Significant Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ .0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Other governmental services? (1,2) p ❑ ❑ [Q Xil. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) ❑ ❑ Q Q b) Communications systems? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ p C) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ [J1 distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ p f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ M highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ Q Q aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) ❑ Q © ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ 121 ❑ ❑ (1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ J[j ❑ ❑ (1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ (Q CHECKLIST Page 10 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? XVIL EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Lesa than No Significant Significant significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site•specific conditions for the project. F.WSERMPLNISHARED\I PLANCOMWENDMPARKISIMCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5, Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land U%e and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site a% MPR-Multi-family Residential land use, The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zonfne - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex wits approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Site% In Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with it vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (367-1005r) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must he done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs'. The proposed gmding/crosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Progrma/land Use Plan . Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas, The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Putthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, it Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Populatinn/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create newjobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add newjobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and lone term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs? A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure No. I An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. l Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 Mitigation Measure Nn. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hvdrolocv The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvemenN for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will -be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not he significant. The pniject also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements, The project will provide approximately 1,800 squire feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry stern water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites I and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the now 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites I and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Afeavure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer, S. Air Otiality Consl ruct ion/One rad nna l Impact, The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parkine The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiting new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological' survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. S Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise ' Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shatcrete, construction of storm drains and backtilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area, The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate sonic construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinunce Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a,m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Lone -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not he any long-term noise impacts with the project, Mitigntimt rb awre No. 0 All consruction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services, 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence orarange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers, The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Liehland Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concreteapron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing .' access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory tindinw; of Sicnificance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effect~ on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES r^ SAN ERRDINO COUNTY COUNTY ' `�` Garden Grove ORANGE T • Cu sd��d a�i LL reeway 9Od TUSTIN • SANTA ANA • �eya F�'�0e • IRVINE COSTA MESA Goytia Freeway A NEWPORT BEACH �c BEACH PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE LAKE MISSION VIEJO LAGUNA NIGUEL O SANJUAN CAPISTRANO Q DANA POINT SAN • 2 CLEMENTE\` RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map CU LBERTSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 "I n: NORTH Scale: 1" = 400' .`. its .♦if.. �. �Y' 1-. xy. •. ,. ✓•fit/ y _l ..• ', =.; Stabilization Sites 4 �: a S;•. . x ♦ L � 410 Y V _ p 0 Newport- ' Bay N,y� J . y • - t , r F�� � , "..!dry i � i i ✓ �'"�r �� .Z A4 f fr ew :�:.t�'d� .rid► r., 3''� r J�, Ali� i Lo kin ite 1 JA:6 1 1 ....ALZ i',[Ai x .y VIVA" Oro Iry j Jt V,v lit %4 fto�e� 'I L6oki rtg south ."_'�•-^,u,-«..t. .. ...._ ......... r... ... � Jam_._,.__.. - - --_ � _ l-- BACK BAY DRIVE fYt.Y1R - .......... ..r.................... ,. lff tYMta OPfP YYMOTO�VPl Y.Y1M69a /�JfN OIT�if ��YIF IRR`YPMiM11IY / OP.1[..Yi}p{VA16T�R MrIftIN IR R.At Pfftt _ r .._---------- LL-J - - i -I 4 � _ SFGB� { � t �i 11 �l (e.elS 4RmanSsairtl { � 1 O .M{if Y111S EXHIBIT 6 .. BAC =Y DRIVE _ '•-w., r _ l 11 • . ' to "` r'."` �` — CONSTRUCTION NOTES f O Pi L� aA6t/v�<� ��ODKo LaSIKP.a['n� � T .rmp. a O�MOnO Rya Rl ��•a RPa�.<M ROrtiwfYM [Q O] w «�D a1P1 P.p I[. RIMp9Rfa u0 nµ . u�'.na o� oar •rort<roi rw uru p am <.w.u. Qi can .u. Pn.ru cnxo am rwaum mn/pu<p Mn: n'.wwn..a�0'uoiin "vwwv'"`iira Pn s.<.p. srw a LEGS Q rzxu m.aP.ae P.n 0/ ..rzrzn.n.n cy . r - �D/VL EXHIBIT 7 Sd19R�. {m(o-rwoPmrM •(amb rwr aw.w{a OM MOb6�� T![ •IMT.PS4 L.•��T 'V O> i w[ OldM lrrPfH(1 MNY I O�{P4<I� rp{(irlV lYlTf6.>MnM ilq! Of{{y[yi M(YpYM!>!>TYR qq Milq gfYPM.I ]V Q»•{:Rm-'.•Ofr v�'rll.l"I•aP`.a-•Io.ma.ra�Pl.sw r! STOMY DIINN Otl 0{(rY GS•h>{. M.NYIfIWY aYV Oq�gr[O VIM(IOMOOI.{PI'I(MNY]Nw V' rr P.Jq.ml o ba.-.�. •rcr (+xv{ +{ a J.. Nou as s:rPu>swrmrsm{•(i`s awq ma'ml�' ns>+n'ael:m a>u ..:Ir o R vu.•rw �.. a bn«raq.v wro qa. a...a..b K.a.. aanw'I$`�'i"i{iYo:uwei{sN •i..b�s orola PYIA> /.l �trEnc�rrc� t�lic�'f t>Frwt M CY.L �LMKR'.NI<V bRP JW w1014` 0 t ' u r'OL•mu.s ( ijl �S h V IVmPr {N110•la .y -_� Y� fYilq[YMT �, f� i wlsKwi. u W {IY S W 1 N {.3O/P.ir P�eln 1 OECIAXA-A 1 / NPII b• •xl>11 1 t >Is(j•rnb! t INbw.?s( j F�r�Y ♦ (OM an#{L .IWq (PI4 An NWf N![Nat Ar CONCi1ETE SLOPE IrINK) OtTAII 4Ytr LEGEND CL3 LR_= lw.q r W.f I{ ov{ b bOYOf,R R( Mb>b{ v .ri9'WOf [#A.9k�'i bq.{r u I w sb.wn{a+w rn ow wr .Y lCIIOX/i ben O a� Y(.v.bb W9.IrM ]0 �MR IN)tr b � Ki R14V( FXHIBIT.S MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION ParkNewport Grading Project Park NewportApartnients October 19,1998 Implementation Method of Turing of ResponsiblePetson Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEIIS(Earth) I An annual inspection of the completed faahues shrill be Condition of Plan Check =J Program wrinonng Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The faedlities shall be inspected Arpnasal routine mmnuering by e+tablkhedpnorro tfiu fkpanmem during April or May of sash year. Thor results of the inspection stall be properly olrmr issuamcu of grading submitted to the City or Newport Beach Public Works Director for permit abet before June 1. Should it be determined that the stole is continuing to stuff, based upon the =nits of the annual inspectumc, further remedial gmdinglronstru:tion work shall to required a; determined by the Public Works Dirxtor. All mnedial work required by the City shall be eompkted by Notamber I of that year. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Pro(Twn munitonng Public Works the property miner ai determined by itv Coy of Newport Beach Public Approi.d nninne trwmtnnig by �tabfibel prior to the: Dep.utrixatt Works DepartmenL property owner issuance of gmdrng Perini[ 3. The project will comply with the erosion and silation Condition of Plan Check Pnertothemwanccof Public Works control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable lw-d appm%ul grading permit Deparmxmt and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBhIC Section I5.04J40 or applicable sections). IV. HATER 4. That the pmjmt shall conform to the National Pollution Conditioner Plan Check Pnortotheissu.ausof Pubbe Works Dacharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be approval grading permit Depanniant subject to the approval of the Public Works Depanrnent and the Building Deparvinent or City authorized Grading Engineer. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES S. Orange construction fericing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Poor to the issuance of Public Works edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area approeul grading permit Department and the prior to the star of construction. The constitution fericing will prewrt Planning Deryxutrnett intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habn.o +hill direct the location of the construction fencing. The fericing shall to maintained in place throughout construction period and rciw%W only after all construction is erompleted. All construction employes shall be instructed not to enter into the canal sage scrub habitat beyond the Construction fericing. Page 1 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date K NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Field Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordmanee Sectionl0 28 040 approval grading permit Mi. AESTHETICS Light and Ohre7. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to mmimiu; Condition of Plan Cheek Prior to the issuance of Budding Department glare. gl Approval grading permit and the Planning Department MV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillance. paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeclogicallpaleomological resource surveillance, and shall establish, of cooperation with the project " developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeologicaVpaleontological resources are discovered, which require long -tern halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds arc of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. i•.\USCKb%rLNt MAKLU\iYLANLUM\YCNUIN(i\YAKKNPIIM'I MSKTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stabi►ity repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach, The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts In the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November.22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: City Of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 Planning Department Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Tel. No.: 916/445-0613) (Orange County) Contact Person: Javier S. Garcia SCH # Senior Planner Tel No.: (949) 644-3206 Project Location: I Park Newport The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope alone the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Cross Streets: San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Total Acres 0.08 ac A.P.No. 440-132-52 &440-251-07 & 440-251-08 Section Twp. Range Base Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #. West Coast Highway Waterways: Newport Bay Airports: Railways: Schools: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at I Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER Cl NOP ❑ Supplement/Subsequent ❑ NOT ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons Cl EIR (Prior SCE No.) ❑ EA Cl Final Document 0 Neg Dec ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other Cl Dmft/EIR ❑ Other ❑ FONSI Local Action Type ❑ General Plan Update Cl Specific Plan Cl Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan Cl Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Sub -division Parcel Map, Tract map, ect.) 0 Other Gmdino Permit for slope stability and repair Development Type Cl Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ CommerciahSq ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Mining, Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ ❑ Poaee Type Watts ❑ Educational: Cl Waste Treatment. Type- 0 Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type- 0 Other surface ground alterations and slope stability Project Issues Discussed in Document ❑ AestheticNisual ❑ Flood PlainfFlooding ❑ SchoolsfUniversittes 0 Water Quality ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Forest Land/Fire hazard ❑ Septic Systems Cl Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Air Quality 0 Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Ripanan 0 Archeologic/Histonc ❑ Minerals ❑ wildlife 0 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑ Coastal Zone 0 Noise ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Drainage/Absoption ❑ Population/Housing/Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Land Use ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Service/Facilities ❑ Traffic/Circulation Cl Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks 0 vegetation ❑ Other F:IUSERStPLN1 FORMS W EG-DEC103 NOCOPR.DOC. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 F7County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project. Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apaatments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant. and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Date Javier S. rcia Senior PIG ner F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPi NEGDEC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: Site 1 -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKLIST Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing 0 Geological Problems 0 Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation 0 Biological Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Energy & Mineral El Aesthetics Resources n r_T.,.,.,A, 0 ('nlnim] RP.gmrCP.S DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Rl I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ at�-A-n X� Signa re Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Printed Name Date F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNMCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 , 0 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) I) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?(1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ CQ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 n d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland. habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) VIII. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Cl 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) C) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1,2) C) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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.) CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F.\USERSFL\'\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPTCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan E1R, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan.Land Use Element. Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-100%) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B. Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed gradinglerosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of the bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended Mitieation Measure No. I An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial gradinglconstruction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitieation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. ZHetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 Mitigation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hydrology The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites I and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites 1 and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation of BMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. d That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. S. Air Quality Construction/Operational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29. 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction. the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. CI 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:OO a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services The proposed project will not have a need for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not have a need for public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach. or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources. shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Garden Grove Riverside p Ere ORANGE a • Cu sa4�a d U. Freeway 9oa TUSTIN • SANTA ANA • a 'Pi P i Ayy P` • IRVINE COSTA MESA Ooy�y FfePW4Y q NEWPORT BEACH BEACH PROJECT SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAKE MISSION VIEJO LAGUNA NIGUEL O SAN JUAN 'CAPISTRANO GANA POINT SAN • 2 CLEMENTE\` RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY CRegional Location Map CULBERTSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 NORTH": Scale: V = 400, t ✓1. 1 ; 40 r ,ir i WeU pp t z. �- Newport Bay 4 �Y�� fir` ` � i ��� ' ~ ,• / �.� ,t(�t'�f 'H�i.�%. r.! ":1. � • a /1� � .a�i.Y. _. _i � - �u 2 iCA.+.�i �i� ' �. �• � pit ! , ys� �. i if�'��� vd ��' i `'t ,��5-ie��y�i�y,�. � � �e s.,� ,t A lti w nt �•,t.� J yf"� ♦... ��►y� t Lookir�q �r�ore axSite 1 '". "f.' �1�%'iw♦ 7'y't'�'i "� t;�' ,1'!S':+ ' �'j? !• (�1 ��r��.i`..`_it��'...'. i`"Ia..:' rr 1 _ � rs�.a•• - IV •31 � � ram, ..'a�+'• •.tillA ,r, 1 . i{i .; . �-;:, '•'SFr. .�`., F � , ,�' . a ' o{cii ar�o h at f. a 1' .11 �'1i sf.s $ ii�t..�F•F '•.�. art- s a.. rtg south a a �. , ram: /'Mn'4-�'�^"�Mn.. .. ....n. J/�.�nrn/✓n.1 NJY ••-J / • — __--- ------- BACK BAY- DRIVE - - - — --------- - —_ 44lk�1 • O •'wt.ea.a. ,�wowir on' wiiw�+winirAw /<jr..l lrw 0' i'vn'ie.�'r'r liwai�rr n�. n. wrr w..n,r�o n.. Qi w,r wr,.a rrvlanM,n w..n lasru wrrwMr, �t� `WIIIW4 ew.a rrn � - ry r Ids r •. j Of 1�( UN 1 _ "1. w•: I' —1 t (r7 r..salwwn EXHIBIT 6 BAY :•_. --�-r---- -'�; -- `__.DK - _ DRIVE —�-� . y ` r OIT PolR`•, Oi 6tM.W..P T9K Mt P,.Y M(^KTt j �OR�PKRwuDOVrt.rN AOrawi:l'R�� �.'"Po rH a^ v °raai w.P:n' cv o Ia aono.n. wq O WnP��gmIP O�Pr la anlPMliwOTM . OW w�N PPt MS[a.rP 6la PfYf]wPnM Qi Par wrR..ru aww.e aPe nm wR•arrPxn• O NarlrM ra�b.-4-4-/• � fa i0� q 1)�F1 � �Tn P NrPr 1/P I crcu^ (POtR wR4.w Pm. V.T I /,I �/r Ram mnPRMr P.n (D rMRtrwRwl EXHIBIT 7 GRPDI G rn3 lone Qi arr so r'9w.m�101T.oun'"n.1:�"o n.i` l u x0 M CT a r(VJrG R/P wflGnil Of rN OR_Pf; YRYIraFM IMOKM PP[ro IY Ol metro �PwrOyrP lrPrO...aP NFi.P nw rrFs O m.iLI� rlr3 q rmrrGYMPYtPMfi NORM RtOI 8mer.u.m.raw.rm.u.mrNrn...rwN.ri 93nM rro� i w tR~ N.oi. i]m`t :N on s Mp. R.P MI STMM MMM ®roar. rr cv. ryi NsrN.m, Il.r r.w ry 'Q' vw... P.nr N..0 it Gs ••^ �r�cv.�OUGmi+n aw-wrruco awcro...e u...wnt roc am sis>m.v'a°"mnAOu.w ar.wn m nPm aa: or:.cu nw�'eru ewwma ..i wu i wo:�r:iawa�rw ri uua mn.a rl INTERCEPTOR IXTCI-I DEfAII Mr ro XMG .p® n� µl � �rt R� 1 OCCfIGf1An 1 � i ) X.I 1Mw.. n'OG w II- It rnon �1 ' \ IJio1 . w.n an Fec...w rm anRuurormr %ZTEMP'OFlARY CONCRETE IMN SLOPE LO OETAL V o x.3 -nee Fe..1 �me aeL awM .r a LEGEND spa. !R) came .uu qaw lYUVlr I..IYO YI.R .q Y fol OI ItleG.w.Va GwG.m tnr. I.G loua.v oa. o• Doan armrn L aecoalw 6� aFveeo aiNu w MLET DETAL \j a.ro3c.0 EXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NE(:A'1'IVE DECI.ARA'1'ION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GE01AXNC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. Mt annual mmpectian of the comgdeleP facilities %hull Is Condmouol' Plan Check unit P"'gnun monitoring Public Works completed by a registered geologist. 'llie facilities shall IV impected Approval routine monitoring by established prior lit the Deparoucmt during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be property owner issuance of grading submitted to the City or Newport Beach Public Works Director for permit review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, bated upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial gmding1comtmction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work r aired by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. 2. The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program monitoring Public Works the property owner as determined by the Cry of Newport Beach Public Approval routine monitoring by established prior to the Department Works Department. property owner issuance of grading Penn[[ 3. The project will comply with the erosion and siltation Condition or Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local approval grading permit Department and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Cade (NBMC Section 15.0,1.140 or uppdienble sections). IV. WATER 4. That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rxluiremcuts and shall be approval grading pennit Departramt subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City maborimil Grading Engineer. VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Public Works edge of the coaxial sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area upproval grading permit Department and the prior to the star or construction. The construction fencing will prevent Planning Ihpartrnent intrusion by construction workers and equipmrc a into the coaxal sago scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall lout the location of the construction fencing The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the consiniction fencing Page I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE. DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19,1998 X. NOISE 6. Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Feld Check Prior to the issuance of Building Ihparttnent by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.0411 approval grading pennit XII. AESTHETICS light and Glum7. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of Building Ihpartrment glyl s Approval grading pennit and the Planning Ikpannxm XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading permit and Building Dept that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillence. paleontologist shall be present at the pm -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeodogical/palcuntological m%ource surveillanee, and shall establish, in coolerllion with Ilia project developer. pnxcdums for temporarily balling or reduce ing work tit pennit saltrpling, rdentlfiealion, and evaluation of the` foYuls. 11 nWfnr archeological/paleontological resources am discovered, which require long -teen halting or ndine ing of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the pmjecl developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be property pnservcd in Orange County, unless said finds am or special significance, or a nmscurrt in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the rink, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final rnnigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, ilia paleontologist shall submit a follow-up mpmt for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F.\USERSU)LNISHARHD\I PLANCOM\PENOINO\PARKNPI)MTMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Bakar & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644-3200. Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by November 22, 1998. A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. 8—e6-1998 2:22PM FROM H1ETHERINGTON ENG: 760 9310545 P:2 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING - ENGINEERING GEOLOGY* HYDROGEOLOGY August 25, 1998 Project No. 3137-2 Log No. 02684 Gerson, Bakar R Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 Attention: Mr. Richard Ellis SUBJECT: GRADING PLAN REVIEW - TENIPORARY 1 ROSION REPAIR Portions of the West Facing Slope Park Newport Apartments Newport Beach, California References: Attached Dear Mr. Ellis: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the subject grading plans prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates. These plans are titled "Park Newport Apartments Temporary Erosion Repair Grading Plan" and are stamp dated August I9, 1998. The purpose of our review is to provide geotechnical comments with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. BACKGROUND The Park Newport Apartments were constructed in 1969, Geotechnical investigation and construction testing and observation was performed by LeRoy Crandall and Associates with initial geologic input by Glenn Brown and Associates. The subject slopes, on the west side of the project, were left in a natural condition and are up to 90 feet high at slope ratios typically between 1/2:1 and 1-1/2:1 (borizontal to vertical). These slopes expose a (10:k feet) veneer of terrace deposits over Monterey Formation bedrock. Numerous older landslides were identified on these slopes by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, and since construction in 1969 the slopes have been subjected to on going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate sized landslides which occurred in 1978,1993 and 1998. 5245 Avenida Encinas, Suite G - Carlsbad, CA 92008.4369 - (760) 931-1917 - Fax (760) 931.0545 109A9 Pcean 4rWnntn q, lira r` 0 Can Ji Inn r.Anictrsnn (.A 99R75-.1610 - 1949) 487.9060 9 Fax (949) 487-9116 8-26-1998 2:22PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG- 760 9310545 P.3 GRADING PLAN REVIEW - TEMPORARY EROSION REPAIR Project No. 3137.2 August 25, 1998 Page 2 Numerous studies and reports (see References) by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for permanent repair or mitigation of recent landslides and temporary repairs or mitigation measures to enhance the performance of these slope areas and to minimize impacts to the Park Newport Apartment improvements. Law/Crandall explicitly stated that maintenance oriented or temporary measures would "only reduce the potential for landslides" and that the occurrence of landslides on the west facing slope is still likely. PROPOSED IMPROVFMENTS The plans reviewed cover two small areas at the top of the west facing natural slope. The area designated "Site A' is situated west of Building 3. The area designated "Site B" is situated south of the spa building and north of the apartment designated 4830. Site A improvements include limited grading to construct a paved interceptor ditch, splash wall and cut-off wall and concrete cover of an existing concrete filled sandbag slope, originally constructed in the late• 1970's. Site B improvements include limited grading to construct a paved interceptor ditch. The two paved interceptor ditches will be connected to the existing 15-inch storm drain situated southwest of the apartment designated 4830. 9E0TECHNICAL C-010 IENT_S The intent of the improvements is to enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface water to an existing stoma drain. These improvements will enhance the stability of the natural slope in these areas by reducing infiltration of water- It should be understood by Gerson, Bakar and Associates and the City of Newport Beach that these improvements are beneficial in this regard but do not render the natural slopes surfrcially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross or surficial slope instability. With the above in mind, the erosion repair plan is considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint. Regular inspection and maintenance of these improvements should be performed. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 8-26-1998 2:23PM FROM HEETHERINGTON ENG. 760 931054S W1 GRADING PLAN REVIEW - TEMPORARY EROSION REPAIR Project No. 3137.2 August 25, 1998 Page 3 Please call if there are any questions. Sincerely, HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. &TIUJJL OGSETH Registered Geologist 3772 Certified Engineering GeoloC.s (expires 3/31/00) PAB;MDH/lg Distribution:2-Addressee2-Robert Bein, William Fro1-Kevin Culbertson, Culbe Civil Engineer 30488 Geotechnical Engineer 397 (expires 3/31/00) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 8-26-1998 2:23PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG. 760 931OS4S P.S 1 1 Bibliography Park Newport Apartments Project No. 3137.2 1. "Report of Supplemental Geologic Investigation, Prepared Apartment .Development, Newport Beach, CA," by Glenn Brown and Associates, dated November 21. 1968. 2. "Reports of Soil and Foundation Investigation Phase 1 Proposed Headlands Apartments Promontory Point Area," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated December 26. 1968. 3. "Preliminary Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Headlands Apartments, Newport Beach, California," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated January 16. 1969. 4. "Report of Soil and Foundation Investigation Phase II Proposed Park Newport Apartments Promontory Point Area," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates for Gerson Bakar and Associates, dated April 4, 1969. 5. "Supplementary Information, Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated August 21 1969. 6. "Requirements for Drilled Pile Foundations, Townhouses Adjacent to Buildings 4, 5 and 6, Proposed Park Newport Apartments, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated Julv 8, 1970. 7. "Estimated Tip Elevations - Drilled Piles, Building No. 4, Park Newport, Jamboree / Road near San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport -Beach, California," by LeRoy Crandall Associates, dated January 21, 1971. 8. "Report of Soil Investigation Proposed Extension of San Joaquin frills Road San Joaquin Hills Road to Back Bay Drive Newport Beach, California," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Park Newport, Ltd., dated July 16, 1971, 9. "Preliminary Observations, Bluff Erosion and Sloughing, Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, California," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated March 10, 1978. 10. "Suggestions for Slope Repairs Existing Slope West of Buildings 32, 35, 36 and 37, 1� Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated July 19. 1978. 11. "Soil and Foundation Inspection, Building 41 (Apartment 3170) Park Newport Apartments, Jamboree and San Joaquin Bills Road, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated August 10, 1978. 12. "Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35 "�(� W Park Newport Apartments," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated November 2,1978. 13. "Report of Slope Stability Study West Facing Slope Adjacent to Building 4 Park Newport Apartments," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates for Gerson-Bakar & Associates, dated June 28. 1979. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERINGs INC. 8-26-1998 2:24PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG. 760 931OS45 P.6 14. "Review of Foundation Underpinning, Design NWC Building 41 (Apartment 3170), _ Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, dated October 18. 1979. 15. "Verification of Drilled File Inspection, and Inspection and Testing of Compacted Fill Proposed Underpinning of Building No. 41 Park Newport Apartments One Park Newport Drive," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates for City of Newport Beach, dated July 3 1, L980. 16. "Inspection of Site Conditions, Existing Park Newport Apartments, San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, CA," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated December 3, 1984. 17. "Summary of Observations Site Visit - March 22, 1988 Park Newport Apartments," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated Kam 26, 1988. 18. "Report of Geologic Evaluation of Slope Below Building 4 Newport Beach, California for Park Newport Apartments," by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, for Park Newport Apartments, dated April 30. 1991. 19. "Consultation Regarding Existing Slope Failure on the Promontory Point area Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall, Inc, for Mr. Ken Adelson, dated Tune 22, 1993. 20. "Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall, Inc. for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated August 29, 1994. 21. "Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments," by _ Law Crandall, Inc. for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated September 1, 1994, 22. "Geotechnical Consultation, Slope Distress Near Units 3160 and 3170, Park Newport Apartments, One Park Place, Newport Beach, CA," by Law/Crandall, dated December 15, 1994. 23. "Addendum to Geotechnical Consultation Observation of Erosion Control Measures Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall, Inc., for Park Newport Apartments, dated February 16, 1995. 6, 24, "Park Newport Monitoring Survey," by RBF, dated October 10, 1995, December 1995, 'February 12, 1996. 25. "Park Newport Monitoring Survey," by Robert Bein, William Frost, & Associates, for Law Crandall, dated February 21, 199-6. 26. "Park Newport Monitoring Survey," by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, for Law Crandall, dated April 8, 1996. 27, "Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments," by Law Crandall for Gerson Bakar & Associates, dated May 14, 1996. 28. "Report of Geotechnical Investigation Existing Landslide," by Law/Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated May 31, 1996. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 8-26-1998 2:24PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG. 760 9310S4S P.7 29. 111995-1996 Annual Slope Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated June 24._1996. 30. "Memo-3160 Landslide Area," by Linda Gunther of Park Newport Apartments for Andy Dodge, Maintenance Supervisor, dated October 31, 1996. 31. "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for a Slope Wall" by Bagahi Engineering for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated November 14, 1996. 32. "Email Summaries - Park Newport Slide Area," from Gerson, Bakar and Associates, dated June 29, 1995 through October 21, 1996. 33.='Geotechnical Consultation Observation of Asphaltic Distress Near Building 4," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated March 1$ 1997. 34. "Park Newport Monitoring Survey, Newport Beach," by Robert Ben, William Front & Associates for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated April 2, 1997. 35.'"1996-97 Annual Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive" by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar and Associates, dated May 13, 1997, 36. "Landslide Mitigation Action - Park -Newport Apartments," by Bagabi' Engineering for California Civil Inc., dated July 25, 199 . 37. "Response to Coastal Commission - Park Newport Slope Repair," by Bagahi /- Engineering for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated August 4. 1997. 38. "Park Newport Apartments' Slope Rehab Project" by Gerson, Bakar & Associates for Eric Buress of P F & G, dated September 9. 1997, 39. "Retaining Wall Calculations - Park Newport Apartments," by Stample Engineering for Park Newport Apartments, dated Octobez 9. t 97. 40. "Special Inspection Report - Park Newport Retaining Wall," by Gary Rutherford for City of Newport Beach, dated October 14, 1997. 41. "Site Reconnaissance Slope Facing Backbay Drive," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated October 22, 1997. 42. "Progress Report - Park Newport Slope Wall;' by Bagahi Engineering for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated October 23. 1997. 43. "Progress Report - Park Newport Slope Wall," by Bagahi Engineering for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated December 5, 1997. 44. "Fine Grade Compaction Report - Park Newport Apartments Slope Wall," by Bagabi Engineering for Gerson, Bakar and Associates, dated December 8. 1997. 45. "Park Newport Apartment Drain Revegetation," by LSA Associates, Inc. for Park Newport Apartments, dated February 25, 1998. 46, "Final Slope Improvement Options Report," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar, and Associates, dated Agril 14, 1998. 47. "Report of Slope Stability Evaluation," by Law Crandall for Gerson, Bakar & Associates, dated Iv av 1. 1998. F. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 8-26-1998 2:21PM FROM HETHERINGTON ENG_ 760 931OS45 P. 1 DATE: TO: FAX NO. FROM: RE: COMMENTS: FAX TRANSMITTAL Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 5245 Avenida Encinas, Suite G Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 931-1917 FAX (760) 931-0545 August 28,1998 Mr. Kevin Culbertson Culbertson, Adams, & Associates (949) 581-3599 Paul Bogseth Park Newport Apartments NO. OF PAGES SENT: 7 If there is any problem with the transmission of this information, please call Sherry at the number listed above. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Of PROPOSED BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS —City of Newport Beach -""'- County of Orange, California Prepared for: Culbertson, Adams, & Associates 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 (949) 581-2888 Prepared by: J. E. Heppert & Associates -Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 3594 Mission Viejo, CA 92690-1594 (949) 367-0754 D I June,1998 AUG 2 01998 - CALIFORNIA 1 EXHIBIT No. MISSION Application Number: COASTAL COM ., b•!E•345 Page 1 of 3 Califomis Coa: Commissior On June 29, 1998 Jan E. Heppert conducted a site inspection of the proposed bank stabilization project at Park Newport Apartments, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The weather was sunny with a light breeze blowing onshore. Temperatures were in the low to mid 70`s. Park Newport Apartments proposes to stabilize three different sites along the southwest edge of their property. These three sites are in close proximity to each other, and are located at the top edge of the cliffs above Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, just north of San Joaquin Hills Road. The Park Newport Apartment site is approximately 100 feet above Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, -with a•nearly vertical cliff separating them: •- - - The first site is on the southern most portion of the property, near housing units 4550 and 4540. Itisthe leading edge of a cliff that is a sheer 90 degree or more drop. The top of the cliff is vegetated with ornamental vegetation typical of the manufactured landscaping throughout the apartment complex. This extends down the cliff until a sheer rock face begins. Coastal sage scrub vegetation begins below this rock face, and extends down to San Joaquin Hills Road and Back Bay Drive. The bank stabilization proposed for this site includes extending a preexisting timber pole retaining wall from its present location approximately 40 feet around the corner of the cliff. If this work is done from the top of the cliff, it will not impact any native California vegetation, including coastal sage scrub found downslope. The second site is located to the north of the first site along the cliff that rises above the ecological reserve, below units 4830, 4840, and 4870. There are two areas of exposed soil below these units that appeared to have been cleared recently. Between these two cleared areas is a small section of vegetation that has been left. This cleared area extends approximately 20 to 25 feet downslope from the apartment elevation. Below this cleared area Is dense coastal sage scrub that extends downslope to Back Bay Drive. The cleared area appears to have been vegetated by ornamental vegetation based upon the vegetation found on either side of this cleared area and the small patch of vegetation left between the two cleared areas. This small area left untouched consists of pampas grass, palm trees, sugar bush and small ornamental bushes and ground cover typical of the manufactured landscaping found throughout the apartment complex. The bank stabilization proposed for this location Includes the installation of approximately 5000 square feet of gunite or•shotcrete. if this gunite or shotcrete is installed in the presently cleared area or the area of vegetation left between the two cleared areas, there will be no impact to any native California vegetation. If the proposed work extends downslope any further than the 2 . COASTAL COM( .S EXHIBIT PAGE .. P-... OF . ` cleared area, it will impact coastal sage scrub, and a permit from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will be necessary. In order to avoid impacting this coastal sage scrub, it is recommended that all work be done from the top of the cliffs. The third area of proposed impact is located just north along the cliff, below the clubhouse, pool and spa. Currently there is a flat area a few feet below the complex that is vegetated with sugar bush. This flat area is 3 to 7 feet wide. A portion of this flat area has slid down the slope, along with the sugar bush. This exposed slide area is covered with plastic and secured with sand bags to prevent further erosion. Immediately below this flat area is a steep slope that Is heavily vegetated with coastal sage scrub. The proposed bank stabilization includes the installation of a 157 foot long caisson wall. The construction of this wall is described *as follows: 23 concrete caissons, 36 inches in diameter will be installed along the cliff. They will extend 23 feet into the soil, and be on typical 7 foot centers. If this work is done from the top of the cliff, it should not impact the coastal sage scrub. If any coastal sage scrub is -disturbed or removed during the construction process, then a permit will be necessary from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. There is no riparian associated vegetation or any wetland habitat on this site or any other proposed construction site previously discussed in this report. In order to avoid the time consuming and possibly costly permitting process through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the removal of coastal sage scrub, it is recommended that no coastal sage scrub be disturbed during this bank stabilization project. If care is taken by the contractor performing the work, and the work is done in an environmentally aware manner, it should be possible to avoid Impacting the coastal sage scrub located adjacent to the work sites. 3 MNX COMM' t 'iBIT �*--•-•-� r ',GE ...3... OF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: fz CULBERTSON, ADAMS &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Jay Garcia, City of Newport Beach Kevin Culbertson November 20, 1998 Park Newport Apartments - Grading Permit - Amendment to Approval in Concept No. 1842-98 Transmitted herewith for your review and approval is the application materials for the Amendment to the Approval in Concept (AIC) No. 1842-98 for the slope stabilization project for the Park Newport Apartments. Per our previous conversation, this amendment will serve to add the grading and erosion repair work for the interceptor ditch/retaining wall (Sites 2 & 3) to the previously issued Approval in Concept. We respectfully request your approval of the AICconcurrent with the Negative Declaration's review period ending on Monday, November 23. If at all possible, we would like to secure your approval by Monday so that we may include the AIC with our application to the Coastal Commission which we plan to submit on Tuesday, November 24. We will be submitting the necessary application fee to you on Monday under separate cover. Please give me a call if you need anything further or if you have any questions at 581-2888. Thanks for your help! Enclosures cc: Richard Ellis, Gerson Bakar Associates (memo only) 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, California 92656-4105 • (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 23, 1998 TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILING Enclosed are two copies of a Negative Declaration for posting along with the $38 filing fee. Please stamp one copy "Posted/Filed" and return with the fee receipt to the undersigned at the address shown on the Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Javi r S. Garci , AICP Senior Planner F.\USERS\PLN\SHARED\I FORMS W EO-DEC\02-COVR.MEM RECEIVED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 POSTED OCT 2 3 1998 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 O C T 23 1998 (949) 644-3200 GARY L GRANVILLE. Clerk -Reader GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk -Recorder 8y DEP(ny NEGATIVE DECLARATION By DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 XX 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) FXxCounty Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 23, 1998 to November 23, 1998 I Name of Project: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Project Location: 1 Park Newport, Park Newport Apaatments Complex Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Ir 1 ter attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. / If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. If �..�noov ' � 0�1 Date Javier S. Cl&cia Senior Planner F•\USERS\PLN\SHARED\l PLANCOMNENDING\PARKNPTNEGDEC 1. 2. 3. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) - Park Newport Apartments Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential Zoning: P-C - Planned Community 8. Description of Project: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sandbags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. CHECKLIST Page 1 The site -specific upgrades for each site are as follows: . Site l -Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where It currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 -The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shoterete) over existing sandbags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the Inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-font long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed Improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading In order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the Interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shoterete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's Surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the cast: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission CHECKMT Page 2 0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing Ef Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service 0 Geological Problems 0 Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards 0 Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems 0 Aesthetics 0 Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. d Signal Ire Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner Printed Name Date /O/Z?i/N F.\USERS\PLNISHARED\I PLANCONI\PENDINMPARKNPTCKLIST CHECKLIST Page 4 Ef I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ C✓I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ CAI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erasion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes In absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge Into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less then No', Significant Significant Significant Impact impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ v ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ Cd ❑ ❑ ❑ �( ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIbr Page 6 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Change in the quantity of ground ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount ❑ ❑ ❑ of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) c) Inadequate emergency access or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) CHECKLIST Page 7 d) Insufficient parking capacity pn-site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less then No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1,2) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lessthan No Significant Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1✓7 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 e) Other governmental services? (1,2) Xil. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact 9 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El Lessthan No . Significant Impact Impact ❑ d ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 121 ❑ ❑ ❑ RI ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ �( ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Ell ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ G ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ClIECUNT Page 10 a • - Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ Q uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑✓ neighborhood or regional pal•ks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ Q opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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.) CHECKLIST Page 11 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIi. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Lesa than No'. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑' ❑ 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CSQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(0). In this case a discussion should Identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,' describe the mitigation measures which were Incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. E.\USERS\I'LN\SHARBU\I PLANCONI\PENbtNG\PARKNPTICKLIST CHECKLIST Page 12 XVI. Source List The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660: 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review - Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilzation Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. CHECKLIST Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644-3200 ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use and Piannine A. Existing Land Use. The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sandbags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zonine - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code its adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The propo<ed slope stabilization project must be analyzed -under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "hiuft"its defined in Section 20.35.060(A). Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any lundform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50r/) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question Is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%400%5) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff" in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erasion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs'. The proposed gradingterosion preventative measures is considered emergency work to assure the stability of ilia bluffs and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of ilia PC District zoning code, Local Coastal Progm: ft.and Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. PauulationlHousindEmnloyment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach, Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long-term affects on local employment. 3. Earth The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides that occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and' Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs. A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended Mitigation Measure No. I An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to sluff, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November I of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 2Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 Miri atinn Measure Nn. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of it grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Hvdroloev The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall failing on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate Into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at die bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carrystorm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites i and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the hay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. The incorporation ofBMP's and the application of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Requirements (NPDES) into the project will minimize discharge of pollutants into the Bay during project construction. Mitigation Measure No. 4 That the project shall conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Department or City authorized Grading Engineer. S. Air Ouality Cnnctruct i on/Operational lmrlact s The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be same exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and will not significantly impact arcs residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Ciretdatien/Parkine The proposed project will nut have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the twb sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub that extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The projects will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitats that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure No. S Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shoteretc, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Limiting the hours of construction will further reduce noise impacts. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28,040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long _Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long- term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore. there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. 69itieutinn Mrnsnra No. 0 All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by tite City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. It. Public Services The proposed project will not have a treed for public services. Therefore, the project will not impact any services. 12. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will not haw a need fir public utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apurttnents closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only he directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that ire adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most or the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Buy Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long term aesthetic impacts. Although some'of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. Lieht and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. 14. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological/paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for tdmporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, which require lon, term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the Final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16. Mandaton, Findincs of Sienificance 1. an the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROJECT SITE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location CULBERTSON. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 o.0 NORTH •. `ti Scale: 1" = 400'i •� S!'/ t �I .','(' . r •r.'- A • II ' �. J Y Y. J. .M• .•�Zj 3 j �Y 4 ±iIH� J 'fir yd�1S•�. •, Cw•` Stabilization Sites d'•� Qrl. �` 07 + N Newport ? ��� ,� %> .�..:• BayJs 14, "�'. • r Tom.) •:+' f vw— '� iv. -... a ,:a � w+y rLr1:.�• _ J � _. �. �, : 4::...r'�1i +. � ■ Stu FW / hiwy ,ry A 1 i art- -ell o. I 'A in- • �_-_�� `.""`.T'^.-.. .. - .-.ate. _ ___ __—___—__�_.. �i'rw.✓-r'"^•.._w."�� BACK BAY DRIVE ._.`� - - - - - - - - - .......... ..__n__ ....... .... - a Wr r '±L. , •,� �'-`�'' _-" _ _ t4fLEGEND w•ww�y xai Y1M.•xr = wb 1 '.4Y[«iMut.YRIF.a.xO Fes«. MriwM i•, 1 , I Oi xq[♦.n..R iNR MR xR«b FaMA Mkt>wbFIM Mri PANG NEWPOW APAH(1BfT8 cni OF rEWPoRr eEAc►i EXHIBIT-6 BACKBAY D _ - .{......�. ... - - / CONSTRUCTION NOTES ' ' aow.rnwmwexenou+v. iw.a, w. f -. mw< �' .wror�ea'm"'vd K�n`a+ ar"`.e�'.1vc"Ocm,.n rK aenow.o-o.a �a mW,snc� +mmm o-m,w a,uuaara wv,.. ` LEGENQ wex wrs ww�.oaoirr 1A0rtcmr.a aru w xn, no.uv � ''°'^n .nw�w o-rw �..n �wnr..<. nrz.n.an..n em nwn nmwa•araaxa: ,,�, ��, nssoa m.,nxew �..n ' �miwn m.. .-nOgwirv�`iv..wu -i n'an a,rrar as �� �r nertn.n..a P E iD%ON REPAIR PLAN v' U CfTY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXHIBIT 7 CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY SUMMARY OC�Yp4 ��4m/�K {4e\gi.WRap wi ZV mm.Yf arm n..cP.s pw.w.-wcNAa �wica ensY"tw\faia qrr--miwnNm+NrenoPm \u O] P6P �P.gP•pa.gqi[Vas..ttt.. N— Ip{f O,P�fq..MR -Om0\q A„a PaQ\ilMaY. pp> O4R .N\iw[Yq KMM f. 1,MN\i MIgRV NaUYI >V >�I\M..IM-.fMOM AtigOM1I.t.Vt.Rw a.f ST'" MR OPec \Yeu NP wNm)nv. P... tp V AMt.Pb ItA{i N[...V41"•s V � (rY6w,Np1.d. WM11.yVytO ivKyI MfAYPat On P�Mf 1.$�sl/w PO�MPMA RPA C — T... Y.1•pRp NYNYN.ONMm P OPR i1 rrr>�YOR DffCH OFFAL W\ p iCV[ rp.v.v ,s,>N.s.mss RrPO/ I / r 1�5 YN YM60.M r` f a JY[T 1Vaal.pl f a ta..aana e[....Y wNa A,npm p„q. (1�fEMPOFiARY CONCFIEM MLQM UNING OFFAL �fi u.>e. WniMt..t .0 ft LEGEND iRS3. �I tw...y, [PSWcfs,Pr rmm iYfaC Ww.f Y](a W+Y /G 1N..➢>.Y R ,.vYt➢a/Yt W w> ew w>.a"Pa..xwrY Py{a{u P YT4t L1] WPn 1 F-- a +- a. •1 lCIIRIH L -> 6tli ®„PRMRIYI- !1 N_Ei OETAL Nf AX4 FXHIBIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport GradingProject Park Newport Apartments October 19,1998 Implerrrentation Method of Timing of ResponsihkPersoo Verification MMGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (Earth) 1. An annual inspection of the completed facilities shalt be Condition of Plan Cheek and Prugram momtunng Public Works completed by a registered geologist. The Wlitics shalt be rmpvctvd Appmval mutina• m nitanng by estabhetied prior to the Department during April or May of each year. The results of the inspaKmn shall be pmpeny nwrox i—= v of grading submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Directur for permit review before June 1. Should it be daemuned that tax slope is ciemring to sluff. billed upon the results of the annual impecuons. further remedial gradinglconstmction work sh.d) ba required as determined by the Public Works Dim -toe All remedial work required by the City shalt be completed by November t of that year. I The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained by Condition of Plan Check and Program momo*ring Public Works the property aura as dcietmined by the City of Nmiport Beach Public Approval routine momtonng by cstabh-het prior to the Apartment Works Department proNny owner as;uanx of grading pemua 3. The project will comply uith the erosion and pivaron Condrticnof Phan Check Pnorto tax issuance of Public R'ed;s control meosuns ofthe Cuy's grading ordinance and all applicable loc-al arpmval gmdmg permit Department and State building codes and scistmc design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 1504.t4U or applicublesecfions). IV. 1VATER 4. That the project shalt conform to the National Pollution Conditionof Plan Check Prior to the issuanccuf Publie Works Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requitcrocrits and shall be arpm%al gradmgpernin Department subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Building Apartment orCity authorized Grading Engineer. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5. Orange construction fearing shall be installed along the Condition of Plan Check Priurtodicissuanrcof Public Works edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area approval grading permit Department and the prior to the start of camtmction The construction leaving will proem Planning Deparnnt intrusion by construction workers nail equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub, habitat stall dirt the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and ro mmvei only after all construction is completed. All comY[uctien employees shall tx instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the conctructionfencine. Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Park Newport Grading Project Park Newport Apartments October 19, 1998 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification MITIGATION MEASURES Action Verification Verification Date X. NOISE 6 Construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed Condition of Field Check Prior to the issuance of Building Department by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section10.28040 approval grading permit XII. AESTHETICS Light and Glare Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to mmun'rce Condition of Plan Check Prior to the issuance of BuildingDe artmem g7.l glare Approval pp grading pemm tp and the Planning Department MV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project Condition of Evidence of Prior to the issuance of Planning Department applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach approval paleontologist retained grading perut and Budding Dept that a qualified paleontologist has bun retained to observe grading to perform site activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The surveillence paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeologicallpalcontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils If major archeologicallpaleontological resources am discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the City of Newport Beach. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Newport Beach, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may return said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds am of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Prior to the final of the grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the City which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. F\USERS\PLMSHARED\I PLANCOM\PENDING\PARKNPTVNTMSRTAB Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for the project listed below: SUBJECT: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments. The proposed project consist of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. LOCATION: 1 Park Newport, within the property of the Park Newport Apartments. SETTING: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The nearest major street intersection is San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. APPLICANT: Gerson Baker & Associates for Park Newport Apartments REVIEW PERIOD: October 23, 1998 to November 22, 1998 This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment is based on an initial study and project revisions/conditions which now mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts In the following areas: Geological Problems, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, Aesthetics (light and glare), and Cultural Resources. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and supporting documents may be reviewed, or purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For information, contact Javier S. Garcia at (949) 644.3200. Written comments environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision -making authorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FILING Enclosed are two copies of a Notice of Determination for filing as Code Section 21152. Please stamp one co "Posted/Filed" and the undersigned at the address shown on the NOD. Compli Section 21089(b) and Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is provi d ❑ Enclosed is a check in the amount of $888 ($850 as County Clerk filing fee). J by Public Resources with Public Resources Code as follows: for an EIR project + $38 Q Enclosed is a check in the amount of $1288 ($1250 as required for a Negative Declaration project + $38 County Clerk filing fee). ❑ Enclosed are two copies of a Certificate of Fee Exemption as provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and CCR Title 14, Section 753.5, and a check in the amount of $38 (County Clerk filing fee). ❑ The approval associated with the enclosed NOD is one of a series of actions that are part of the same project. The required DFG fee was paid at the time the Notice of Determination was filed for the first such action on this project. As provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(g), no additional DFG fee is therefore required. Enclosed is the $38 County Clerk filing fee. 9 The City is a Responsible Agency for this project. Code Section 711.4 will be satisfied by is the $38 County filing fee. The fee requirements of Fish and Game as the Lead Agency. Enclosed If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 644-3200. Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Date F:\USERS\PLMSHARED\I FORMSW EG-DEC\04-CO VR.MEM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 BUILDING DEPARTMENT - (714) 644-3288 FEE RECEIPT Date Z PlanCheck No. Received By: T GW tG 1J . , 3e•i _. e ae.l t� Q(AV (L P� po a �' Received From Job Address Building Plan Check......................................................................2900-5002 $ Zoning Plan Check (Architectural)...............................................2700-5003 $ Zoning Plan Check (Grading).......................................................2700.5003 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds...................................................... 2auu-5uu4 FirePlan Check.............................................................................2330-5055 $ Electric Plan Check....................................................................... zauu-4U1L a Plumbing Plan Check....................................................................29A0-4616 $ Mechanical Plan Check.................................................................2960.4618 $ Overtime Plan Check - Building...................................................2900-5023 Overtime Plan Check - Grading....................................................2900.5004 Overtime Plan Check - Planning..................................................2700.5003 Preliminary Code Compliance Review..........................................2900.5902 Reinspection B E H P/Special Inspection.....................................2900.5008 Reinspection Fire...............................................................2030.5050 Temporary Electric .............................. 0�% �.... 7 rg 2900-4612 Temporary Gas ...................................... ..QF..N 2900-4616 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ................................ Underground Utilities Waiver......................................................010.2225 Grease Interceptor ................. ...................... �nv1ra 2900-4620 Planning Department Fees . ....2700-5000 Sale of Maps & Publications.........................................................2700-5812 Determination of Unreasonable Hardship...................................2900-5018 Microfilm Copies/Photocopies........................................................010-2263 Other(Specify).......................................................................:....... TOTAL FEES Fee Receipt No. $a5 NOTICE: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS FROM DATE OF SUBMITTAL (fVeercpt.198) 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach , Y , ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3200 A. General Information Date: September 25, 1998 1. Applicant/Agent: Kevin Culbertson Phone: (949) 581-2888 Address: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 2. Property Owner: Gerson Bakar & Associates Phone: (415) 391-1313 Address: 201 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 B. Proiect Description 1. Project Name: Slope Stability Repair Work (Grading Permit) 2. Project Location: Park Newport Apartment Complex (1 Park Newport) 3. Assessors Parcel #: 440-132-52; 440-251-07; 440-251-08 4. Permit Application: GP ***-98 5.a. Proposed Use: N/A 5.b. Project Size: N/A 5.c. Site Size: Site 1: 1,000 square feet 5.d. Building Height: N/A Site 2: 2,200 square feet Q 7. L1 a Existing Land Use Designation: General Plan: MFR - Multi -family Residential Zoning: P-C Specific Plan: N/A LCP: East Bay Area: (11) Park Newport Previous Governmental Approvals: CDP 5-97-250 Other Governmental Approvals Required: Federal: N/A State: California Coastal Commission Regional: N/A Local: Grading Permit Begin Construction: November/1998 Estimated Occupancy: N/A 1 C. Potential Environmental Effects Project Description: The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two specific locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Exhibit 3 is an aerial photograph showing the location of the project in relation to Back Bay Drive/Upper Newport Bay. Also shown on Exhibit 3 are the locations of the two proposed stabilization sites. The proposed project consists of surficial grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Exhibits 4 and 5 present photographs of the existing slope. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e. "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare as well as to protect private property. The site specific upgrades for each site are as follows: ELL! - Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12 corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 - The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sand bags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" stormdrain line. Also, a 32-Foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be. constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details.of the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200, square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. Analysis: 1. Land Use and Plannine A. Existing Land Use: 1 1� LOS ANGELES r^ SAN COUNTY BERNARDINO COUNTY a (L I N m rI Riverside p Ftee�ay ; f 000, ' `` ORANGE sa • a si ` RIVERSIDE °�a v rj ` COUNTY Garden Grove Freeway .mow sa TU:TIN .� sa' SANTA ANA ♦♦ m j • ♦ 3 � °q I dq � • y ♦♦ COSTA IRVINE `a Free ♦ °Olhlll ORANGE °dsr MESA G09 K'dy FOREST LAKE COUNTY / Frwy • o N T • \ MISSION✓°a9`' U 01 Sal VIEJO to EACH C/ J` Mlls A • 1� C01 O LAGUNA BEACH LAGUNA T at i NIGUEL % a • • Orte9a �a♦� i O SAN JUAN S PROJECT SITE CAPISTRANO , J DANA I SAN DIEGO POINT • COUNTY Z SAN CLEMENTE\♦ MAP NOT TO SCALE Regional Location Map CULBERTSON, ADAMS &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 1 ry b' e'a,.y'✓ Yu•S=a.: 'e;.: J T " .F9�.'' .'•' �� `i . ✓ ..a F .:, ..iiSIrst'�_L.;#,.." a '•-tip i P'yT°'3"a'zzFia'V ` . J�,•"VS'`� r '��k; � . Ir, f o � 'air. .Hn ,x.. �`y'=1 �I�.�� .°isr�lr� 5 4,��;• `T Cd• a � �.As' PH ��4Vn. y�' �.9 e•M^ • M'F�! ,,5�, ii a li � 4M 4 v A � is 4��,,.kvi•. ♦. �;� �: � .�.�e'�nc..;F��nr�fi 4::z � .n � ,:t' �. •., tr'�. ,dry/ .�J '♦ - ,^'i .. i 1. «`.c d t 'F' h J•'•".y,:v' � e�.�.:.�,.' r• ,•^s,.qr< ' • S:Li: �1, f, a• 4`jJ •$�£�n ht�4. T a� n�AM 1� f'Yr��~ 7' .�"1�%�6n.1• "_ sklpp �1�°s tr�:Pr '`Y�Ssa. J,r^ "�L ..I.i:r..v, '�i'. ,. •,V\, 'r 3 d"<`^a�f�"-i �'�3,�vygY�., 'i�'ax 2i!, r%•{; c,`�� , _l'+',�L,.'R'��ti�' . ��� '9". .�,. .�'. �; i'i�.i.;hv' •:;n +�}� �i(crc i',' r r ` a ,�ii, #,Y �5.', � ' • tr ;y. �,- i{ .5 ,lc:�:{"'�,`{.+;.���� ��5 - . ; a ` f � � °.JW►i ^ ���.¢° Mr`'�w>�Rrw"�'.. ,� � j,.. . f'.;s"' � ,�k�t•'. ' rf'.�4r°+ - ,I z' ,, Frr S0"r� ��'-�r� � t4.�x�-fir <�_'��. Jn •. .��,�`f�•. - � '.:. ^'� � iN 1v ry � � `� • f ys ea� A`%�'r, lT.:•F, 515�y,f� ��'f/ �v. ... ��� ram.}+1�, r r,wq• •� .4` r �,��fs,�,. � 1/.. r •6 •,!"#f:�:r'41%' "�� µd •7 'F� ' r •v ` 4ySSS�YYY""" . , y i ri.:� r zr4} • ���j�`�, - df` �i. -t - iP...n.(',-'• :dt �+.���' i:��V/./,�y:4:?l\Tfy l\:� 1ay�Y �;j. r)M1d'✓ �.xi%�Y{��;Y. .! x'�y. Ai'vr,.rf • ni �sgyayv •;''F a 'T•....r :'i'� r. �.S','�� m hf��°i s. � i��� *•��° in.%l�Srr �,bt'�'.�' t .i�`;►.liTn a '' 1 �.t�n'�• 77„'�� Ta'. I I J !�. a € ,tS� rJ�. ! �N rd"•'Y.: Aerial Photo with Sites Indicated CULBERTSON, AAAM�S &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 I V, SEP. wilk!r 44t hh"O BACK BAY DRIVE ,�_�--- n --� w ' --_�----- - . . _ _ .v l,surc s SZ v —-�"_"� 07- d (}� � ; � � v WItYm �•�1 LEGEND �J-+ v r / 1 tlx.' I[MIv010(YIW WR OI 1yAY01M vif /Cry iK r 1 ® fppl[I[9Y[ORMFIOI I�R QYROw'LgO@ ��V lWIt9'[CIU[ Y WSf ISm 1 �' u�'irs''auw�a�mw va uu,a � �norvx 1, t, Q, rwrtcr•rurc OCpff M[f MS V {OI CC TYO iR RW q IOf MY M p1K q 9611 _ R D PAfICGM REAPAFifM@fI8 !�Y a�.l •YIW, ll! �rM 6i0610N RAH PLAN arl n A� 1*x�� ""' H1E'B tliFOfq PLAN Asr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n vm EXHIBIT 6 r SACK 9,4r- == -- ol -�` �v'Awo CONSTRUCTION NOTES / Qma wn,w�vrw awyo sm wxw mn wo iw mrawamv a�rw w�ma .Bpp1lvo eia'�`r�wvv"`o mm`-. sia my r r..u, s.w' v�� 'fir' ' ♦ v`.�.'A z � 1 a wee.. x.a EXHIBIT 7 a.z..e2 Rf Qi aw.mMoro lavc Az mro mrsnM �rtnwOiO@"r. x o zzz oim.o vn wrurc'm'•nl eoalw. �i iosmrn w�OM.G`mz90RwAzo�Lcl�w.nxrtom.uom ru �z W atlM�iortw"mlw mwmmrwaar a.io.A. INOY Q��Rao•zrartcewmmnwamzAa vn rmoY Qi mar. wxarmmmmMwa¢ri au �zo.w.uvw:Me`rzo n.x l�"`iu nrt1`e.a-.rm rnwlawnxw zma ." RM DRAIN ®meL mry ozucravwm>zrw eu. zMv r.a...Y.0 zrm lu II IrYGwVwlal a�wFwr/JSFmImwM[.w aw. WVLL a�s�u w IWi1et�AwC ®IOm1�A•a 9GtmImmCEm llo al rvm m ® ewZICWn��4 �i3 uIC�w RL wzm.n. n II .I ewllRw I[ml�w- Li ,� rzr-aez ao.a. '�! '�' I roo Nmaxzaoc � � Nexa.a oc t r el.. \\ N GW wrtwvc �Nwrtmenlro \\ I � p®ate aYe I 1M mrt.tYecm �lll Av �lm'Z'ZiIIN <�I� aH, re� L tPGn[9WLW YMI®MOAY9wl � �rtWYwlxvYlm °Amew m00Yii w xn w u wm wex co:. L WOSR 9WL W)CA1NrY 4dArt 0A1®Jr SvpLlZ Ar tO L WlwOC 9WLY e•Y {'-aOZaOYO®ZwL1dl (lW1 WIpY IO�Ytml w]IVMWOY�AN @C ��L IXu49aYt Ki4-RmOWMYffiNmIVMMl1G w CIOW [rtw W flAOGr 6 wAT[R YViN[ 2 CMM9Wl6NPr<IIW WiK GffiICCNVM..W w R1MIMr 9M141®.YIRW®n M}ZbC O1A1rL VI9Yw Ml BC A.MY ROMCnMY COM4 � l OHS a�R X/ OC INW4 0�w.1 A3 Ma W 1• DDM w Wm (1 INTERCEPTOR DffCH DETAIL_ 4 TEMPORARY CONCRETE SLOPE LWNG DETAIL ar ro scut ar to YAs ®r LEGEND lal m:swr w.. a nvoYo slw ae.. pulvl A x� .con m...c.uz an W+r u< m w a,R awYoz 0 .wY O 9VS w3��C eM.(4[xr osOY arnrt wL( vaM m.R rtl�•d tl'4 rt , F-0-1 1� T. Au mm ��G I� nY0 (;l INLET DETAIL WI ra SCM[ EXHIBIT 8 The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sand bags that have been previously placed on the surface toprevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Zonin¢ -At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5,1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District), Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff' as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36%-1009o) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff' in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading),"grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. 2. Population/Housing/Employment The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long term affects on local employment. 3. Earth 11 The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandell (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides which occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.1 Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long-term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc, reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs? A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help -reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Miugatiot Measure No. 1 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. 77te facilities stall be inspected duringApril or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June L Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to fail, based upon the results of the auutal inspections, fitrtherremedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. Mitigation Measure No. 2 77te constntcted facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure No. 3 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. t Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. ZHetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 12 4. Hydroloev The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from site 2. The proposed improvements for site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of IT corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites 1 and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. S. Air Ouality Construction /O perational Impacts The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and not will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on -site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 13 7. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub which extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The project will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitat that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize.hnpacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Mitigation Measure 5 Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. 8. End and Mineral Resources Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch,, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. 9. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. 10. Noise Short -Term Construction Noise The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate,some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Noise impacts will be further reduced by limiting the hours of construction. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. 14 to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m, on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Long -Term Noise Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. Mitigation Measure Now lP All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040. 11. Public Services and Utilities The proposed project will not have a need for public services or utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. 12. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short- term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. 0 Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may 15 be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Mitigation Measure No. .6 l Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure No. 7 In the event that significant archaeological/paleontological remains/fossils are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project applicant shall donate all archaeological/paleontological material/fossils, historic or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropriate local institution shall be approved by the Planning Department based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist/paleontologist. 15. Recreation The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. 16 Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct to the best of knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject,of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. Ken Diessel, Director of Facilities Services Agent for Park Newport, LTD. q- - Ct, i Print name of owner or representative and Title (Sigilahire For Office Use Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: Rev. 7-24-97 17 CHECKLIST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS [ ] Negative Declaration package ✓ Notice of Completion form ✓ Negative Declaration form Initial Study checklist and analysis V Exhibits/attachments v Mitigation on monitoring program �— Public hearing notice (Hearing date: ) ✓ $38.00 County Clerk filing fee [ ] Concurrence from lead division if not Advance Planning Contact Person: [ ] Consultation with applicant regarding mitigation measures [ I bG �9i6eV3_,%>VPosting period: O UeNs14 qe _7 20 days (no state or regional issues) 30 days (state review required) [ ] Postinglocations: V County Clerk _✓ Project site City hall Newspaper State Clearinghouse (Notice of Completion + 10 copies) Direct mail to adjacent property owners and residents [ ] Distri tion: File Lead planner Applicant or City contact n I� �� f— �_ City departments 'd�t\� l W h WJ W t o f1 Public agencies _ HOAs Private groups Individuals [ ] Notice of Determination (Date filed: [ ] State Clearinghouse [ ] County Clerk Department of Fish and Game fee status Exempt (Notice of Fee Exemption form + $38 filing fee) Not exempt ($1250 fee + $38 filing fee) Revised 1/21/981/21/984A&W F:\Planning\Users\Shared\lforms\neg-dec\ndchklst 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing 94 Geological Problems V/Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ['Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards a0ise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service /Syystems MOAesthetics or Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ Signature Date Printed Name F:\USERS\PLMSHARED\1FORMSVEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 4 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3 ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?(1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?(1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a/ ❑ ❑ ❑ W ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ C90 000, CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12 ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,419,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Less than Significant No Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cam/ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 6 t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f� ❑ ❑ ❑ i� ❑ CHECKLIST . Page 7 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e:g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) VIII. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ (� ❑ ❑ ❑ G/ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2010' ❑ ❑ ❑ C7 El E3 ❑ ❑ ❑ LY/ ❑ ❑ ❑ C� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cal CHECKLIST Page 8 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (12) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (12) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (12) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ,_,/ ❑ ❑ ❑ R ❑ ❑ ❑ e ❑ ❑ ❑ El El El ❑ ❑ ❑ Do or ❑ ❑ ❑ lY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D' ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 CHECKLIST Page 9 b) Police protection? (1,2) c) Schools? (1,2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2) e) Other governmental services? (1,2) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) b) Communications systems? (1,2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less than Significant Impact No Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ [!dam ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2r ❑ ❑ ❑ goe ❑ ❑ ❑ ER0001 ❑ ❑ ❑ Be ❑ ❑. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ We ❑ ❑ ❑ M �/- ❑ ❑ ❑ l� ❑ 17 �Si / CHECKLIST KA ! Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ (1,2) K/1/ c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) ❑ p sY Cl l/ d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ COY uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑. ❑2001, neighborhood or regional parks or, other recreational facilities? (1,2) / b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ 00 opportunities? (1,2) XVi. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ to degrade the quality of the .environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? CHECKLIST Page 11 c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when Viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. 0 IN] 0 C 0 M M Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. , b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. CHECKLIST Page 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) -Park Newport Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department (714) 644-3206 4. Project Location: Park Newport Apartments (1 Park Newport) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, CA 94133-3298 6. General Plan Designation: MFR - Multi -family Residential 7. Zoning: P-C - Planned Community Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The proposed project consist of surtical grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. CHECKLIST Page 1 The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. The site specific upgrades for each site are as follows: ite i - Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit G shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 - The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sand bags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross - sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch,1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) C u r r e n t Development: The proposed project is located within an existing residential apartment complex (Park Newport Apartments). To the north: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the east: Existing apartment complex structures. To the south: Natural slope and existing apartment complex structures. To the west: Natural slope, Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. Casctaas•r Page 2 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. ANEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ Signature Date Printed Name F:\USERS\PLN\SHARrDNIFORMS\NEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 4 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,2,3) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2,3,4,5) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2,3) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1,2,3 ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?(1,2,3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major Infrastructure)? (1,2,3) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?(1,2,4,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 5 b) Seismic ground shaking (1,2,4,9,10,11,12 ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) h) Expansive soils? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,2,4,9,10,11,12) IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,2,9,10,11,12) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,2,9,10,11,12) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,9,10,11,12) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,2,9,10,11,12) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,9,10,11,12) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 6 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,2,9,10,11,12) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2,9,10,11,12) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,9,10,11,12) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1,2,9,10,11,12) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2,6,7,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,6,7,8) d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? (1,2,3) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 7 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,3) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (1,2,3) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2,3) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1.2,3) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(1,2,3) VIi. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,3,13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2,3,13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3,13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1,2,3,13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,2,3,13) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflictwith adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1,2) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1,2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1,2) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1,2) X. NOISE. Would the,proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Police protection? (1,2) ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ c) Schools? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ including roads? (1,2) e) Other governmental services? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Communications systems? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ distribution facilities? (1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ highway? (1,2) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ aesthetic effect? (1,2) c) Create light or glare? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (1,2) CHECKLIST Page 10 b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1,2) c) Affect historical resources? (1,2) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1,2) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 11 c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. CHECKLIST Page 12 SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook,1993. 9. Conference Summary, Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35, Park Newport Apartments dated November 2, 1978 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 10. Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program, Slope Facing Back Bay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated May 14, 1996 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 11. Maintenance Program, Slope Facing Back Bay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 29, 1994 as prepared by Law/Crandall. 12. Grading Plan Review -Temporary Erosion Repair, Portions of West Facing Slope, Park Newport Apartments, dated August 25, 1998 as prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 13. Biological Assessment of Proposed Bank Stabilization Project, Park Newport Apartments, dated June, 1998 as prepared by J.E. Heppert & Associates. F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\1FORMS\NCG•DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Slope Stability/Repair Work (Grading Permit) Park Newport Apartments 1 Park Newport Proiect Descrintion The project is located in Newport Beach along the east side of Upper Newport Bay as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The project consists of slope stability repair work at two locations on the slope that is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex located at 1 Park Newport in the City of Newport Beach. The Park Newport Apartments complex is located at the top of a slope along the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Exhibit 3 is an aerial photograph showing the location of the project in relation to Back Bay Drive/Upper Newport Bay. Also shown on Exhibit 3 are the locations of the proposed stabilization sites. The proposed project consist of surfical grading and related drainage enhancements at two separate areas on the slope (Site 1 and Site 2) to provide better drainage improving the stability of the slope. The area proposed for construction is natural slope with some vegetation. However, the site is mostly vacant. Site 2 has some existing sand bags that have been placed on the slope to prevent soil erosion. Exhibits 4 and 5 present photographs of the existing slope. The proposed corrective work will enhance the integrity of the slope for both the existing structures on the top of the slope (i.e., "Park Newport Apartments") as well as Back Bay Drive, a public roadway providing access to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, at the toe of the slope. The work is being proposed in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to protect private property. The site specific upgrades for each site are as follows: ite t - Proposed improvements at this site include excavating and recompacting the existing terrace near the top of the slope and constructing an interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipe to collect storm water. A 12" corrugated steel pipe will also be constructed from the inlet and connect with an existing 15" storm drain located south of this site. The existing 15" storm drain line carries water to Upper Newport Bay where it currently discharges. Exhibit G shows the proposed improvements for Site 1. Site 2 - The proposed work at this site consists of providing concrete (shotcrete) over existing sand bags that have been placed to temporarily protect the slope from further erosion. In addition, an interceptor ditch will be constructed at the toe, or bottom, of the sandbags to collect rainfall flowing from the concrete. An inlet will also be constructed in the interceptor ditch that will collect storm water runoff in the ditch. A 12" CHECKLIST Page 14 corrugated steel pipe will be constructed from the inlet to the existing 15" storm drain line located north of this site. Water from Site 2 will also be discharged at its current location into Upper Newport Bay via the existing 15" storm drain line. Also, a 32-foot long retaining wall varying in exposed height from 0' to 3' +/- will be constructed near the center of the interceptor ditch to stabilize the interceptor ditch where erosion has occurred. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed improvements for Site 2. Exhibit 8 shows cross -sections and details for the proposed improvements. The project will require minimal grading in order to construct the proposed facilities. Approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt will have to be exported due to trenching for the interceptor ditches. All together, the project will result in the construction of 1,800 square feet of interceptor ditch, 1,200 square feet of concrete (shotcrete) slope protection, 200 square feet of retaining wall, three storm drain inlets, and 286 feet of 12" corrugated storm drain pipe. Construction is anticipated to begin late 1998 and be completed in approximately one month. The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. I. Land Use and Planning A. Existing Land Use: The area proposed for grading and reconstruction is part of the Park Newport Apartments complex. The actual .area proposed for construction is vacant, except for existing sand bags that have been previously placed on the surface to prevent further erosion. Also, there is some landscape vegetation, but it is minimal. The slope requiring stabilization is located along the southwesterly edge of the Park Newport Apartments Complex property and extends from the top of the slope approximately 20 feet down the slope. B. Existing Land Use Regulations: General Plan - The City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as MFR-Multi-family Residential land use. The proposed slope stabilization project does not propose to change the existing residential land use designation for the site. Therefore the proposed slope stabilization project is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. CHECKLIST Page 15 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 CHECKLIST Page 18 Exhibit 4 CHECKLIST Page 19 Exhibit 5 CHFCKLIST Page 20 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 CHECKLIST Page 22 Exhibit 8 CHECKLIST Page 23 Zoning - At the time the Park Newport Apartments complex was approved (December 5, 1968), it was in an unclassified zone. Since that time, the site has been classified by the City's Zoning Code as PC District (Planned Community District). Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code as adopted in March, 1997, discusses the types of development activity allowed in the PC District. The proposed slope stabilization project must be analyzed under the PC District zoning to determine consistency. The area proposed for construction is considered as "bluff" as defined in Section 20.35.060(A), Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts, Definition of Bluff, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Code defines bluffs as "any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater". The slope in question is steeper than 26.6 degrees (36 %-100 %) and extends approximately 100 feet in height. Therefore, the subject bluff meets the definition of "bluff" in the Zoning Code. As such, the proposed grading for the two sites must be done in accordance with Section 20.35.060 B, Grading, of the zoning code. As defined in Section 20.35.060(B Grading), "grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion preventative devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs". The proposed grading/erosion preventative measures is considered emergency work and therefore, consistent with Section 20.35.060 of the PC District zoning code. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan - Portions of the City of Newport Beach are located within the Coastal Zone. The areas of the City in the Coastal Zone have been divided into sub -areas. The project site is located with in the East Bay Area sub -area of the Local Coastal Program. Furthermore, the project is located in the Park Newport area of the Eastbay Area. Since the project site is located in a Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required prior to construction. A CDP application will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval prior to the start of construction. The proposed corrective and stabilization grading is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the property. The emergency grading and slope stabilization is also allowed within the coastal zone. The project will not have any land use impacts. The proposed project will not impact population, housing or employment in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project will not provide new housing or create new jobs, it will not impact the city's housing inventory, increase the City's current population or add CHECKLIST Page 24 new jobs. The project will temporarily provide construction jobs in the City, but will have no significant or long term affects on local employment. The project includes corrective grading for slope stabilization. Numerous landslides on the subject slope were identified in geotechnical reports prepared for the site prior to construction in 1969. Subsequently, several reports regarding the monitoring of the existing slopes on the site have been prepared by Law Crandall (November 2, 1978, Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall Adjacent to Building 35; August 29, 1994, Maintenance Program Slope Facing Back Bay Drive). Since the construction of the apartments in 1969, the subject slope has experienced on -going erosion and surficial instability and small to moderate landslides which occurred in 1978, 1993 and 1998.' Several geotechnical studies and reports by LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall have provided recommendations for repair of the recent landslides and long- term solution for the local slope instability. The firm of Hetherington Engineering, Inc. reviewed the proposed grading plans with respect to the proposed erosion repairs.' A copy of the Hetherington Engineering, Inc. report is attached as Appendix A. The proposed improvements will enhance surface drainage conditions by intercepting and directing surface run-off to existing storm drains. The proposed improvements will help reduce overall water infiltration in the slope resulting in greater slope stability. The proposed improvements will not, however, render the natural slope surficially or grossly stable and as such, the proposed improvements are subject to future damages resulting from gross slope or surficial slope instability. The proposed erosion repairs are considered suitable from a geotechnical viewpoint, however, regular inspection and maintenance of the proposed improvements should be performed. The project will require approximately 100 cubic yards of cut in order to construct the proposed facilities. The 100 yards of excess dirt will have to be hauled from the project site. During construction, measures should be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with further erosion impacts. Should construction occur during the rainy season, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required to prevent further erosion. The incorporation of BMP's into the project will minimize additional erosion impacts that may occur during project construction. To reduce potential grading and erosion impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended: `Hetherington Engineering, Inc., Geotechnical Report Dated August 25, 1998. 'Hetherington Engineering, Inc. letter dated August 25, 1998 CHECKLIST Page 25 An annual inspection of the completed facilities shall be completed by a registered geologist. The facilities shall be inspected during April or May of each year. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director for review before June 1. Should it be determined that the slope is continuing to slough, based upon the results of the annual inspections, further remedial grading/construction work shall be required as determined by the Public Works Director. All remedial work required by the City shall be completed by November 1 of that year. u I �r The constructed facilities shall be routinely maintained as determined by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. IV. Water The project will generate an incremental increase in the amount of surface water runoff from Site 2. The proposed improvements for Site 2 will include covering approximately 1,200 square feet of existing natural slope with concrete (shotcrete). The concrete covering will increase the amount of water that flows over this area by eliminating exposed soil that presently absorbs water. Therefore, the covering of the soil will reduce the amount of water that will be absorbed and increase surface water runoff. Once the concrete slurry is in place, all rainfall falling on this portion of the slope will runoff to the storm drain collection facilities that will be constructed below the concrete apron. While the existing natural slope allows some rainfall to percolate into the soil, most of the rainfall runs off the slope due to the steepness of the slope. Although the proposed project will result in an increase in runoff, the impact will not be significant. The project also includes the construction of new storm drain improvements. The project will provide approximately 1,800 square feet of concrete interceptor ditch at the bottom and 286 lineal feet of 12" corrugated steel pipe storm drain. The 12" corrugated steel pipe will carry storm water collected in the interceptor ditches to an existing storm drain line between Sites 1 and 2. The proposed interceptor ditches will collect rainfall and direct the water to the center of each ditch. At that point, inlet pipes will be constructed that will transfer the water via the new 12" corrugated steel pipe and connect with the existing 15" storm drain line located between sites 1 and 2. The existing 15" storm drain line carries storm water down the existing slope and discharges the water into the bay. CHECKLIST Page 26 The existing 15" storm drain facility has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff generated by the project. The proposed project will not significantly impact any existing storm drain facilities presently serving the site. V. Air Quality The proposed project will result in minor impacts to local air quality during construction. The air emission impacts associated with the project will be due to dust during grading and construction. Also, there will be some exhaust emissions in the immediate local area with the operation of motorized construction equipment. Because the project is very small in scale and the construction will be short-term (less than one month), the construction emissions are considered to be insignificant and not will not significantly impact area residents. The project will not have any regional or local impacts to air quality. VI. Transportation/Circulatioit/Park nng The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on transportation or the local circulation system. The only traffic associated with the project will be due to construction employees commuting to and from the site during construction. Occasionally materials will be delivered to the site, but the number of truck deliveries to the site during project construction will be minimal and not impact local traffic. There is adequate parking on - site within the apartment complex for construction employees to park without requiring new parking. Back Bay Drive is currently closed to protect the public from the potential of future landslides associated with the cliffs along the east side of Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will continue to be closed during construction of the proposed improvements to protect the public. Completion of the proposed improvements would increase the opportunity to reopen Back Bay Drive to the public in the future. The reopening of Back Bay Drive will have positive impacts for the public by allowing through access along the bay. There are no known significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. 1/ 1 : _ I MUM i[L� A biological survey of the project site was conducted on June 29, 1998 by J.E. Heppert & Associates. Based on the biological survey, the only vegetation present on the two sites proposed for construction is ornamental vegetation typical of that found throughout the apartment complex. Below and adjacent to the area proposed for construction, however, is coastal sage scrub which extends down the slope to Back Bay Drive. The project will not impact the existing coastal sage scrub habitat that exist below the areas proposed for construction. Restricting all construction activity to the area identified on the CHECKLIST Page 27 construction drawings will minimize any potential impact to the existing coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the construction area. The installation of construction fencing along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area to prevent intrusion into the coastal sage scrub during construction will minimize impacts to the habitat. Based on the biological survey, the project will not have any significant biological impacts. Orange construction fencing shall be installed along the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat closest to the construction area prior to the start of construction. The construction fencing will prevent intrusion by construction workers and equipment into the coastal sage scrub habitat. A biologist familiar with coastal sage scrub habitat shall direct the location of the construction fencing. The fencing shall be maintained in place throughout construction period and removed only after all construction is completed. All construction employees shall be instructed not to enter into the coastal sage scrub habitat beyond the construction fencing. it _ 1/_.J_ : 1:• M Although the project will consume some energy and mineral resources during construction, the quantities will be insignificant and not impact existing supplies. Some gasoline will be consumed with operation of construction equipment. Minerals will also be consumed in the form of concrete interceptor ditch, masonry wall and corrugated steel pipe. However, the quantities will be minimal and insignificant and the project will not have any significant impact on energy and/or mineral resources. IX. Public Health and Safety The proposed project will have positive impacts on public health and safety. At this time, Back Bay Drive is closed to public access due to both the presence of dirt on Back Bay Drive from previous slope failures and the threat of future slides. Construction of the proposed improvements will significantly reduce and minimize the potential for continued slope failures. Therefore, the project will have positive impacts on public health and safety by reducing the threat of continued slope failure. Construction of the proposed improvements may allow a future opportunity for the City to reopen Back Bay Drive since the threat of public health and safety will be reduced. There is no foreseeable hazard to the public health, safety and welfare as a result of this project. Furthermore, the project will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing the likelihood of slope failure in the future. CHECKLIST Page 28 . 1•-I rimWeISTITMANUITive•_ The project will have short-term noise impacts during project construction. The noise impacts will be due to the operation of motorized equipment for grading, placement of shotcrete, construction of storm drains and backfilling of dirt. The greatest potential noise impact will be to on -site residents that live adjacent to the construction area. The existing topography and block walls along the top of slope will serve to attenuate some construction noise reducing some construction noise levels. Noise impacts will be further reduced by limiting the hours of construction. Restricting construction to the hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, which is 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, will reduce potential short-term noise level impacts to a level of insignificance. Although some residents may be disturbed by construction noise, the noise impacts will be short-term and not last more than a month. Once the proposed improvements are completed, there are no components associated with the project that will generate any long-term noise impacts. The only activity associated with the improvements after construction will be the routine maintenance of the facilities. The maintenance will consist of removing debris from the interceptor ditch and storm drain inlet pipes and will not generate any increased noise levels. The removal of debris from these facilities can be done by hand and will not require the operation of mechanical equipment. Therefore, there will not be any long-term noise impacts with the project. All construction activity shall be limited to those hours allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section I0.28.040. XI. Public Services and Utilities The proposed project will not have a need for public services or utilities. Therefore, the project will not impact any services or utilities. XII. Aesthetics The project will have short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the proposed improvements. The short-term aesthetic impacts will include the visible presence of orange construction fencing, mechanical equipment and construction workers. The construction site will be visible to residents of the Park Newport Apartments closest to the CHECKLIST Page 29 construction areas and people west of the Upper Newport Bay. However, people west of the site will be approximately one-half mile west of the site. The construction area will only be directly visible to those residents of Park Newport Apartments that are adjacent to the construction areas. There are existing trees and other vegetation along the top of the slope where the construction is proposed that will block some direct views by the residents. Although the construction areas will be visible to some residents of Park Newport Apartments, the potential short-term aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant because the construction area is somewhat hidden by existing buildings and trees. The improvements will be partially visible to the public walking along Back Bay Drive. However, the existing vegetation will screen most of the improvements from direct view to pedestrians on Back Bay Drive. Due to the relatively small scale of the improvements and the fact that most of the improvements will be hidden by vegetation, the project will not have any significant aesthetic impacts to people on Back Bay Drive. The project is not anticipated to have any significant long-term aesthetic impacts. Although some of the improvements will be visible to people west of the site, the aesthetic impact will not be significant. XM. Light and Glare The project will not generate any new sources of light. Therefore, the project will not have any light impacts. The project will generate some glare from the area covered with concrete. If the concrete surface is smooth there will be more glare than if the surface is rough. Providing a rough concrete surface will reduce any glare impacts that may be generated by the concrete. Although the project will generate some glare, there are no glare sensitive land uses in the immediate project area that will be significantly impacted. Provide a rough surface on the concrete apron to minimize glare. XIV. Cultural and Historic Resources The project site is located in an area where archeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past. There may be archaeological and/or paleontological resources present that could be discovered during project construction. Compliance with City Council Policy K-5 will ensure that the project does not impact any archeological and/or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. CHECKLIST Page 30 MWA In the event that significant archaeological/paleontological remains/fossils are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. The project applicant shall donate all archaeological/paleontological material/fossils, historic or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropriate local institution shall be approved by the .Planning Department based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist/paleontologist. The proposed project will not provide any new recreational opportunities or create additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the area. The project could have a positive impact on existing passive recreational uses in the area should the project allow the City the ability to remove the existing barricades and fencing on Back Bay Drive. At this time, barricades on Back Bay Drive prevent public pedestrian access below the project site to protect the public from slope failures. The barricades prevent the public from walking the entire length of Back Bay Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Bluff Drive. Upon completion of the project, the City may determine the slope is stable and may remove the barricades, allowing the public through access along Back Bay Drive. The removal of the barricades and fencing will have positive impacts for people that use Back Bay Drive by allowing access along the entire length of Back Bay Drive. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. That there are no known substaintial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. CHECKLIST Page 31 LAW Crandall LAWGIBB Group Member j ROBERTBEINWILLAMFROST November 2, 1978 JUL 2 01998 RECEIVED 11 Gerson-Bakar 6 Associates Woodlake Apartments 900 Peninsula Avenue San Mateo, California 94407 .(Our.Job No. C-78019) 'Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson ' Gentlemen: Conference Summary Erosion Control Retaining Wall " ' Adjacent to Building 35 Park Newport Apartments One Park Newport Drive Newport Beach, California This letter summarizes the conclusions reached at a conference on October 24, 1978, regarding the installation of an erosion control retain- ing wall adjacent to the westerly side (or bluff side) of Building 35. The conference was attended by representatives of the City of Newport Beach, your organization and our fi>=m. The conditions requiring the retaining wall and the recommended design parameters for the wall were discussed in our report dated July 19, 1978 (our Job No. C-78019). The design of the wall, as well as the proposed ' regrading and drainage control of the area, is shown on plans prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, dated October 10, 1978• The plans and calculations are currently being reviewed by the City of Newport ' Beach. During the review process, City personnel have postulated more adverse geologic conditions than disclosed by the initial foundation in- vestigation. As a result, the City has questioned whether the wall should be designed to provide lateral support to the adjacent building and its underlying foundation soils. The City's question is prompted•by changes in personnel and different interpretation of the foundation conditions for the building since the City's approval in 1968. It was this new interpretation .of the soil and geologic data that initiated the conference. - ' LAW Engineering and Environmental Services. Inc 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90040.1554 213-889-5300 • Fax: 213-721.6700 r Gerson-Bakar 6 Associates November 2, 1978 ' Page 2 (Our Job No. C-78019) The top of the proposed wall will be slightly outside of the geo- logic setback line established in.1968, although the foundations will be within the set -back zone. It is realized that any structure beyond the set -back line could be subject to the effects of slumping and sloughing of L the downhill portion of the bluff and such a structure has to be considered as potentially expendable in the event of excessive sloughing of the bluff. The purpose of the proposed wall is to minimize erosion of the upper portion of the bluff adjacent to the building, to provide a means of controlling drainage and restricting moisture penetration into the subgrade soils adjacent to the face of the bluff, and to re-establish and stabilize the outer edges of the patio areas adjacent to the building. Building 35 was not affected by the sloughing and erosion of the bluff that occurred during the rains of 1978, and the proposed retaining wall is not designed to provide any support to the building. However, the wall will obviously improve the foundation conditions for the building by reducing the slough- ing of the upper portion of the bluff and thereby giving the building added protection. The owner is aware that the proposed wall extends beyond the re- commended set -back line for structures that has been previously established. It is realized that the wall may require replacement or repair if future sloughing were to extend as far as this set -back line. We strongly believe that such a possibility is unlikely; however, the City has asked that the owner acknowledge that the wall may require corrective work in the event of a massive failure of the bluff. The owner's representative agreed, at the October 24 conference, to stipulate that the retaining wall is within the portion of the bluff which could be lost and that the wall is not designed to provide support to the building or its foundation soils. The City's recent interpretation of the geologic data considers that the setback limits, or limits of potential bluff failure, could be further towards Building 35 than previously suggested. If this is true, a portion of the building could be affected by potential failure of the bluff. We strongly doubt that this condition exists, however, it was agreed that geologic observation of the borings drilled for the piles for the wall will provide information for evaluating the conditions. Based on the re- sults of these more complete observations, it will be possible to determine if there are adverse conditions which would affect Building 35• if adverse conditions are encountered, correction procedures can be performed within the building limits without affecting the proposed retaining wall. This to the City's procedure was agreeable representative. 1 I Gerson-Bakar s Associates Page 3 November 2, 1978 (Our Job No. C-78019) Since time is of the essence, as far as providing erosion pro- tection to the top of the bluff is concerned, we respectfully suggest that the City permit construction of the wall as soon as possible. Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES .C.E. 6157 President LC-JM/lb (6 copies submitted) cc: (4) Park Newport Maintenance Office Attn: Mr. Joe Bowman (1) Brittain Poteet, Structural Engineer November 28, 1979 Gerson Bakar and Associates Woodlake Apartments 900 Peninsula Avenue San Mateo, California 94401 Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: Bulkhead Wall Geologic Inspection Building 35 Park Newport Apartments Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, California (Our Job No. C-78019) PURPOSE The purpose of this letter is to report on the geologic conditions as observed during the construction of the bulkhead wall adjacent to Building 35. This letter provides a summary of these conditions. A detailed description and accompanying photographs are available in our job file for future reference. BACKGROUND The approximately 150 feet of bluff adjacent to Building 35 has experienced erosion, sloughing and slipping. Our firm recommended the construction of a bulkhead wall to correct the situation. During con- struction of the bulkhead wall, two open fractures were uncovered in C-78019 Page 2 bedreck. The description of the fractures by our field inspector warranted an examination of these features by one of our geologists on August 28, 1979 with further examination occurring on August 30, 1979 and October 12, 1979. The examination on August 30, 1979 was assisted by the use of a small backhoe. FINDINGS Two parallel, steeply dipping fractures were observed, adjacent to the bulkhead wall: one fracture west of Pile No. 18 (southernmost pile) and the other on the 3/4:1 construction slope behind Pile No. 15. The fractures were either open or filled with soil and/or construction debris. The overall width cf the fractures varied from about 1/16 inch (cracks) up to 7 inches (open fracture). The fracture by Pile No. 18 was within 1 to 11 feet of the pile and extended in a north -northwesterly direction fcr about 25 to 30 feet, sub - parallel to the bulkhead wall. The depth of this fracture was at least six feet. About 3 inches of offset, down to the west, was observed on this fracture. The fracture behind Pile No. 15 formed a one -foot wide by two - foot high cavity on the construction slope. The fracture extended laterally for at least 31 feet into bedrock (shale) and trended north -northwesterly. Strata in bedrock did not appear to be offset by the fracture. These fractures are probably tensional, pull -apart features. However, the offset C-78019 Page 3 in the fracture west of Pile No. 18 may indicate that some slippage has also occurred. CORRECTIVE WORK Based on these findings, we recommended that the fractures be filled and sealed off with cement grout to prevent water from draining into the fractures. Our site representative observed the completion of this work. GAB-GG/kg (6 copies submitted) I Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES by Gary Guacci Staff Geologist by 1&ogiist �404. Glenn A. Brown, C.E.G. 3 Director of Geological Services II II October 18, 1979 Gerson Bakar b Associates Woodlake Apartments 900 Peninsula Avenue San Mateo, California 94407 Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: Review of Foundation Underpinning Design NWC Building 41 (Apartment 3170) Park Newport Apartments Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, California (Our Job No. C-78019) At the request of Mr. Brittain Poteet, Structural Engineer, we have reviewed a proposed underpinning system to stabilize the northwest corner of the subject building. Soil is eroding from the building corner and ap- proximately 12 feet of the north and west wall foundations are partially or nearly exposed. We previously discussed this portion of the building in a report dated August 10, 1978; a copy of that report is attached. In that report, we outlined our observations relative to the soil conditions adja- cent to this corner of the building and suggested that the building foun- dations be extended into the underlying shale by a system of slot -cutting. Mr. Poteet has developed an alternate underpinning system consist- ing of a steel needle beam supported on drilled cast -in -place concrete piles. Mr. Poteet has provided us design drawings and calculations, dated September 17, 1979, showing the proposed system. We have reviewed the con- cept for underpinning as submitted by Mr. Poteet and are in agreement with the specified procedures. In the design of the underpinning piles, Mr. Poteet has used the soil criteria which we previously provided for other areas at the site. That information is applicable to this project. For vertical loads, the drilled piles supporting the underpinning may be designed using a friction value of 1,000 pounds per square foot of contact between the pile and the shale. The upper three feet of the shale should be neglected in computing the vertical capacity. I Gerson Bakar b Associates Page 2 October 18, 1979 The lateral resistance for drilled piles may be computed by using the Uniform Building Code formula. When considering the pole formula, the lateral resistance of the shale may be taken as equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 500 pounds per cubic foot; a one- third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The above recom- mended values are for piles penetrating the shale. The upper three feet of the shale should be nealected in computing the lateral resistance of the pile. Please contact us if there are any questions or if further infor- mation is desired. Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES by James M. McWee, R. E. 11833 Project Engineer by —► ,off w►�v� LeRoy Cran all, .E. 6157 President LC-JM:mu Attachment (3 copies submitted) cc: (2) Brittain Poteet, Structural Engineer (2) Park Newport Apartments Attn: Mr. Joe Bowman (3) City of Newport Beach Building Department Attn: Mr. James Evans, Geologist i i it I SUGGESTIONS FOR SLOPE REPAIRS EXISTING SLOPE WEST OF BUILDINGS 32, 35, 36 AND 37 PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS JAMBOREE ROAD AND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (OUR JOB NO. C-78019) I r r L I [J r r Gerson-Bakar s Associates Woodlake Apartments 900 Peninsula Avenue San Mateo, California 94407 Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: July 19, 1978 (Our Job No. C-78019) Suggestions for Slope Repairs Existing Slope West of Buildings 32, 35, 36 and 37 Park Newport Apartments Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, California SCOPE As requested by Mr. Douglas Pearson, we are pleased to submit this report providing our suggestions for restoring lateral support to approx- imately 400 feet of the upper portion of the westerly facing bluff adjacent to Buildings 32, 35, 36 and 37 at the subject apartment complex. The studies were performed under the direction of James McWee, Project Engineer, with the geological data prepared by Monte Ray, Project Geologist. The area involved in this study is shown on Plate 1, Site Plan. Prior to any construction on the property, we investigated the general foundation conditions of the site, and submitted the results in our' report dated December 26, 1968 (our Job No. A-68249). We subsequently r C-78019 - Page 2 performed inspection and testing services of the grading at the site, and submitted reports related to that work (our Job No. B-69165). On March 10, 1978, we submitted a preliminary letter providing our observations regarding the bluff erosion and sloughing which was occurring during the heavy storm season of the spring of 1978. As a result of the 1978 storm season, significant erosion, slough- ing, and slipping occurred in the upper ten to fifteen feet of the bluff that exists along the west side of the property. The bluff in this area is some 90 feet in height. Although the adjacent buildings were not affected, the retreating of the top of the bluff did encroach on a few patio areas, particularly adjacent to Building 35. Some landscaped areas of the property were affected, and sloughing approached within six feet of one corner of Building 37. This study has been limited to procedures for stabilizing the upper five to fifteen feet of the bluff within the zone adjacent to Buildings 32, 35, 36, and 37. in performing this work, our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. 0 C-78019 - Page 3 CAUSE OF SLOUGHING The soil conditions along the top of the bluff are variable, but generally consist of a 5- to 12-foot thick layer of relatively permeable silty sand, geologically classified as terrace material. This sandy soil overlies an almost impervious bedrock material, geologically classified as shale. There are occasional layers of permeable sandstone within the shale, but the bedrock is practically impervious to the percolation of water. The buried surface of the bedrock has a slight slope towards the northwest, so that water infiltrating the permeable soil travels laterally to the west on top of the shale and seeps out of the face of the bluff. Erosion and sloughing of the bluff is an inevitable process in the present exposed condition of the bluff. The terrace material erodes readily, but the bedrock erodes much slower due to its general resistance to weather- ing. In addition, the bedrock tends to maintain a fairly steep slope (inclinations of 1/2:1 to 1:1 are typical). However, the sandy material at the top of the slope, not having the same degree of resistance to weather- ing as bedrock, tends to retreat more rapidly with the result that the slope of the top of the bluff is somewhat flatter. The abnormally heavy rainfall experienced this year, along with the accumulation of run-off from the yard and adjacent roof areas, significantly increased the amount of moisture introduced into the upper sandy soils. When the water percolated down to the impermeable shale (bedrock), it accu- mulated at the contact between the soil and the shale until it could flow C-78019 - Page 4 laterally along the slightly sloping shale surface to the face of the bluff. This lateral seepage weakened the sandy soils and lubricated the shale surface, thus permitting the sloughing of the otherwise stable sandy terrace materials. At the same time, the face of the bluff was exposed to significant rainfall, as well as surface run-off, which caused heavy local erosion of the sandy soils. Generally, the sloughing and sliding was limited to the upper sandy soils, but in a few areas the shale material was probably undercut and local portions of the shale surface also sloughed. However, the sloughing of the shale material was a significant distance downslope and has not caused any of the conditions experienced at the top of the bluff. INVESTIGATION The conditions along the portion of the bluff under consideration were first examined by our project geologist following the heavy rains. The various slumps, slides, and erosion areas that existed along the embank- ment were mapped. The results of this mapping are shown on Plate 1. Based on this geological reconnaissance, several cross -sections were drawn to show the estimated subsurface conditions at selected locations along the bluff. These sections were discussed with Mr. Pearson and with Mr. Brittain Poteet, Structural Engineer, and possible corrective procedures were considered. C-78019 - Page 5 To define the soil conditions within critical areas, 13 shallow exploration borings were then drilled, using hand -operated equipment be- cause of the access restrictions. The purpose of the borings was to deter- mine the depth to the shale and the general characteristics of the upper sandy soils. Several undisturbed samples were obtained for.laboratory testing and inspection. The detailed logs of the borings and the results of the laboratory tests will be kept in our files for future reference. The locations of the 13 borings are shown on Plate 1. Using the information from the borings, six cross -sections were drawn for the locations shown on Plate 1 for the purpose of studying the embankment conditions at the selected locations. The six sections are shown on Plates 2-A through 2-C, Sections. The sections show the soil conditions encountered in the borings, the estimated profile of the slope prior to failure, and the present shape of the slope at the section location. The estimated contact between the sandy soil and the shale is interpreted from the boring data and from our geologic reconnaissance. The surface improvements, such as patios, fences, and nearby build- ings and walls, are also shown on the sections. In addition, the location of the approximate geologic set -back line, as originally recommended in our 1968 report, is shown with respect to the slope. The geologic set -back line was established in 1968 as the recommended limit beyond which structures i C-78019 - Page 6 should not be constructed unless their foundations were deepened sufficiently to be below a projected line from the toe of the bluff to the geologic set- back line. General SUGGESTED CORRECTIVE PROCEDURES The procedure selected for minimizing the sloughing and erosion of the top of the bluff depends somewhat on the desire to maintain the exist- ing land area for use at the facility and the proximity of the top of the bluff to adjacent structures. Where there is sufficient space, a simple flattening of the slope could prove adequate, at least for several years. In other areas, the retreating of the bluff is encroaching on improvements which it is probably desirable to maintain. In other instances, more critical structures are affected, such as Building 37, the block retaining wall, and patio areas at Building 35. in some areas, corrective procedures could be deferred if desirable. However, in more critical areas, it will be important to take early corrective action so as to minimize additional loss of property and possible risk to adjacent structures. The primary procedure for preserving critical areas will be to retain the upper sandy soils and yet permit free drainage of those soils. One effective procedure will be to construct a stabilization wall utiliz- ing bags of sand -cement. Of course, some form of conventional retaining wall is often applicable, with a bulkhead wall offering advantages in some cases. In addition to providing support to the upper sandy material, C-78019 - Page 7 corrective procedures should include controlling the drainage adjacent to the top of the bluff so that run-off and water infiltration is minimized. The geologic reconnaissance and borings indicate that three segments of the bluff should be corrected. The first segment (identified as Segment 1 on Plate 1) is some 150 feet in length and extends from Building 37 to the existing block retaining wall oppos-ite Building 32• The present con- ditions at this location are shown by Sections A -A and B-B on Plate 2-A. The second segment (Segment 2 on Plate 1) includes the retaining wall opposite Building 32, as shown by Section C-C on Plate 2-B. The third condition (Segment 3 on Plate 1) includes the portion of the study.area adjacent to Building 35, and is shown on Section D-D on Plate 2-B, and on Sections E-E and F-F on Plate 2-C. Segment 1 The temporary sand -cement bag wall built under emergency conditions adjacent to Building 37 is within Segment 1, and is shown as 1-A on Plate 1. This wall was installed without the refinements of a more permanent stabi- lization wall. While it would be desirable to remove the existing bag wall and rebuild it to conform to the recommendations for a more stable• wall, the present bag wall seems to be performing adequately. We suggest that at least another layer of sand bags be placed on the outside face of the existing bag wall and that this outer layer be staked to the existing bags by driving reinforcing bars at least three feet in length. A sketch C-78019 - Page 8 showing our suggestion is presented on Plate 3-A.1, Suggested Correction, Segment 1-A. in addition, the ground surface adjacent to this area should be covered with a concrete slab which drains away from the top of slope. Probably the most positive method of protecting the remaining portion of Segment 1 (Segment 1-B) would be to install a retaining wall which would extend into the shale. Such a wall would be some 12 to 14 feet in height, with foundations extending at least three feet into the shale. The properly drained wall should be designed to support an equivalent fluid pressure of at least 30 pounds per cubic foot. The maximum foundation pressure at the toe of the wall should not exceed 4,000 pounds per square foot. A friction value of 0.4 could be used between the concrete and shale for resistance to sliding. Alternately, if the upper slope of the bluff in Segment 1-B can be considered somewhat expendable, or more permanent corrective procedures can be deferred until such time as is found necessary to construct a retaining wall, it would be possible to provide protection to the embankment by either flattening the upper portion of the bluff to a more stable inclination, or by installing a wall constructed of sand -cement bags. If sufficient property is available, the face of the bluff could be trimmed to a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope above the shale level. The finished slope should be planted with erosion resistant vegetation. The toe of the slope IF C-78019 - . Page 9 could be given additional erosion protection with the installation of a minimal sand -cement bag wall. The details of this suggestion are presented on Plate 3-A.2, Suggested Correction, Segment 1-B. Alternately, a more maintenance -free procedure would be the con- struction of a stabilization wall using sand -cement bags. The bottom of the bag wall should extend into the underlying impervious shale. The base width of the wall should be one-half the height of the wall, with a minimum width of four feet. Additional resistance could be developed by driving reinforcing bars through the bags. The details of this suggestion are given on Plate 3-A.3, Suggested Correction, Segment 1-B. Segment 2 This segment involves the block retaining wall for the emergency equipment access road opposite Building 32, as shown by Section C-C on Plate 2-B. At present, the slippage of the face of the bluff is somewhat surficial and probably only involves the outer two or three feet of the embankment. However, if it is allowed to continue, it is possible that the top of the bluff could retreat sufficiently to undermine, or at least jeopardize, the foundations for the retaining wall. One way to correct the situation and provide adequate support for the retaining wall would be to deepen the support of the existing retaining wall footings by underpinning the footings down to the shale (a distance of J C-78019 - Page 10 approximately 7 or 8 feet). Alternately, drilled concrete piles could be installed adjacent to the toe of the existing retaining wall and extending into the shale so as to provide a pile support for the foundation of the existing block wall. Piling would have to extend a minimum of ten feet into the shale and be designed to provide lateral resistance for the exist- ing wall. If this procedure is considered desirable, we will be pleased to provide the necessary design information for the piles. •Another permanent -type solution would be to construct a new wall to replace the existing wall. There are several possibilities for this pro- cedure and they are more realistically examined by your structural engineer. Again, if this is a desirable solution, we will be pleased to provide the structural engineer with the necessary design data for the new wall. A procedure which has a greater degree of risk than any of the above would be to develop a stabilization blanket for the outer face of the bluff in the area where sloughing is occurring. This would essentially be a modification of the sand -cement hag wall suggested for Section 1-B (Plate 3-A.31. in the case of the slope below the existing retaining wall, the purpose of the blanket would be to provide sufficient protection to mini- mize further erosion and sloughing of the outer face of the slope. If this procedure is selected, we would suggest that the bags extend into the shale in a similar manner as suggested on Plate 3-A-3, and that the blanket be C-78019 - Page 11 at least four feet wide. In using this procedure, as in using the same technique in other areas, it should be realized that it does not guarantee no future erosion or maintenance; however, it should minimize the potential for sloughing and extend the period before any permanent support, such as the retaining wall, is required. Segment 3 This segment relates to approximately 150 feet of the bluff adja- cent to Building 35, where erosion, sloughing, and slipping is occurring to a significant degree. At a number of locations, the top of the bluff is now coincident with the wood fence which borders the westerly side of the pat.io areas. The depth of the sandy terrace soils in this area is on the order of seven or eight feet. The slope of the bluff below the terrace is fairly steep, varying from approximately 1/2:1 to 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). There is also an old landslide mass, the top of which is some 15 or 20 feet below the top of the bluff in this area. The drainage above this landslide mass should be improved so as to reduce the risk of activating the slide. Our suggestion for re-establishing and stabilizing the property at the top of the bluff in this area is shown on Plate 3-B, Suggested Correc- tion, Segment 3. It essentially consists of building a bulkhead or shoring C-78019 - Page 12 wall near the top of the existing embankment using drilled, cast -in -place friction piles for both vertical and lateral support of the wall. The sections of wall between the piles could consist of either concrete panels or wood lagging. The suggested details for this type of structure are shown on Plate 4, Concept of Bulkhead Construction. The bulkhead should be ' designed for an active earth pressure, after backfilling, of 30 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure. The wall should be designed to support the soil above the shale contact. The panel portion of the wall ' should extend at least one foot into the shale to act as a cut-off for seepage and prevent piping of the sandy material below the wall. ,. For vertical loads, the drilled piles supporting the wall may be designed to use a friction value of 1,000 pounds per square foot of the rcontact area between the pile and the adjacent shale. The upper three feet of the shale should be neglected in computing the vertical capacity. The lateral resistance of drilled piles may be computed by using rany acceptable pole formula such as the UBC formula. When considering the pole formula, the lateral resistance of the shale may be taken equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 500 pounds per cubic foot; Ma one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The above re- commended values are for piles installed into the shale. The upper three feet of the shale should be neglected in computing the lateral resistance of the pile. C-78019 - Page 13 Plate 4 includes suggested details relative to construction pro- cedures for a bulkhead wall. Essentially, it is suggested that the sandy material be excavated to the shale level within the area of the proposed wall alignment. A slope not to exceed 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical') should be used for temporary excavation. After the piles are installed, and the wall sections constructed, the wall should be backfilled with either slurry mix, gravel, or compacted soil. The following additional procedures are suggested for the purpose of improving the resistance of Segment 3 to further erosion and sloughing' problems adjacent to the bluff: 1. The patio area opposite Building 35 should have a continuous concrete slab. It would be preferable, if possible, to struc- turally connect the patio slab to the bulkhead wall. The slab should be sloped so that it drains away from the top of the slope and to positive drainage control devices. Planters should have bottoms or drains leading to enclosed drainage devices. 2. The roof drains for the building should be led to positive drainage devices. 3. The existing drainage devices should be thoroughly checked for integrity. Particularly, the discharge of the storm drain C-78019 - Page 14 system should be checked to verify that it flows into a posi- tive drainage channel. 4. The graded area in front of the bulkhead should be drained to a downdrain to control run-off in front of the bulkhead wall. 5. The gully behind the landslide, downslope of Building 35, should be cleared of vegetation and a concrete or gunite gutter constructed to drain the water to the nearby downdrain. CONCLUSIONS The suggestions contained in this report are necessarily somewhat general since each portion of the embankment is an individual condition requiring individual treatment. After you have reviewed our suggestions and considered possible corrective procedures, we will be pleased to pro- vide consultation in developing any refinements or additional data needed to finalize the corrective procedures. LC-JM/lb Attachments (8) (6 copies submitted) Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES _ byevja a C.E. 11833 ce Presiaot 'CeeTooyTCranh4l, R.C.E. 6157 President cc: (2) Brittain Poteet, III, Structural Engineer u H P \ w � y e is (L.C.BA. REPORT A-69249) J! BOR.5 - �° y 4 _ J as e7y t(�iYd Tf-1. f 1•wW 13 ;r KEY; 9*— BORING NO. 9 LOC. 103.5—GROUND SURFACE ELEV. 6 /2—DEPTH TO SHALE (FEET) A A QJ—SECTION LINE (SEE PLATES 2-A, 2-B, 2-C) lam_J—PREVIOUS L.C.9A. BORING SEE JOB A-68249 - - - ----- SEGMENT 7O2,0012 O2L 6 SUp/ —,qRp li'BLID€ GNBLF SITE (SEE PLATE 3-A) -- PLAN SCALE 1((= 20, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES a;g/ \ �j l _ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF rttvvt1T A-6a299] GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE BOR.4 0 (SEE L.C.BA. REPORT A-68249 Q 9 DATED DEC. 26, 19681 103.3 T 61,2 W A C- 106t — — _ _ _�'o wv .. •e C e l ;�/ wL6 2 71/J 7� ^F 71 CRACKS S� rsr,7 PROPERTY LINE--2 -` ��a.►a�e Two 48Z \ \ -< �__� / G�sON\ J \ I EROSION GULLY / Q OF.tP SHELF \4 /a�Pyi 1p� OLD LANDSLIDE C0HC / CROCK \ // — f-•� IN SOIL \ '_ c � \ 6 0 101.0 w 'JT.J v \ % .� / I°•� wOJp A.uq. 103.0•� ,o1s elraclLs _ T __ av2v2 --� O— p eC SAW — —� `4 La T '102.9 9 7 / 1 fl Tr SEGMENT 2 -� /KEFACtO FOK 6ER90M BAKAK 4 A550CIATES 900 FEW14bU .A AVt 5AN MATEO, CA 8AA01 ATTN' UOWLAS K. ITEARSOL) (SEE L.C.BA. REPORT A-682491 GULLIES 101.O6 r_y n J_ \CONC. OR41N (EDGE 5UT1 LO-1 SEGMENT 3 (SEE PLATE 3-8) eiiICMIM[. A1M,IRJI CAP 9TAWJO A19 70 AJ01T 0.41'oF A ART AtOTK 1AMMIt 4W "GO Ip r Rlr[i 16A Of tHl PK:FIC ChA T YI;wAl t0 nw Ifs."!* of A 1 11 ate .M••TAR: 19 • rl!' YM7.tAST OF '"I UITERJI4 MM.YO. NIL* IS A WAS, CAP, . :..'Jr111 YF it 'Y . '•NVt OF ?.I Y1o:AA1 7 Till 40A•'1M11r OF Trr Cunt of 1.1 wo.N. H' !, T*1 Too `�Clt `L><lJ( `WiOYpl`�•)TMf LB �w....MK`9 1C1 t .O1TNusT COMER Of 4 71 4.1 Cyay Tt CATCH Usib, 0.4 Or A TOOT YIWO I" lid W N IL1YAt 10444.1141. 1970 W •• • •• •• •••• •_•• .."' • • •••••• Owa 4CAtt 4 M�116 1••w• t PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHICAL PLA N PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS LOT NO. 3 TRACT NO. 6947 CITY OF NEWPOJ(T BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CAL r AT F. 1 tl, I i L lL ( L L L L I 011 LA L L La ,i I 1 vI lr F- a I, ..A Y L� mI m I h 1•' W W LL z z 0 Q -1 J W WOOD FENCE CLOSEST EDGE APPROX. LOCATION OF OF BLOC, 37 TO ( GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE TOP Of SLOPE \ 1 (PROJECTED) � EDGE OF E%1ST, BLDG. NO. 37 I I 1 i ®OR. 123 I CONC, BkAB (PROJECTEDI i ESTIMATED GROUND SURFACE i 1 PRIOR TO 1978 STORMS /. / Ir / L-9_ FOOTING (AS EXPOSED / FILL SLURRY SANDY -SILT i SOIL -CEMENT BAG WALL CONSTRUCTED / FILL )6 .. IN MARCH 1978 / POORLY GRADED SANDS \ / / , -, , / APPROX. GROUND / SURFACE AFTER / STORMS Plll / SANDY - SILT 32 - - .... _ . -- //.. / — SOIL — —I — ? SHALESHALE :-ISTIMATED J8 / -_._LOOSE SOIL REMOVED ANDBENCH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN SHALE PRIOR TO PLACING CONTACT / SOIL -CEMENT BAGS BETWEEN SOIL B SHALE / APPROX. GROUND SURFACE 14 - / .. AFTER 1978 STORMS .. _... .. .. ....__.___._._.-_-.__._ Ll Joe 106 104 102 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 F W W U. z z 0 Q W J W EDGE OF EXIST &LOG. NO. 36 APPROX LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE \ .._ __..._ ............... ... ... ... ... .. .... ... _.-. ____.._-_.. _._- WOOD FENCE -. .. _. _....-_. __._.._. C ONC. i�AR / BORAI ESTIMATED GROUND SURFACE PRIOR TO 1978 STORMS 1 -- - / GROUND SURFACE / AFTER STORMS - Flu / __ _ SANDY - SILT _. _.._..._-.-- 16 . . ... . .. .. ... - -• ---- / DOR.I - � --- FILL / SILTY - SAND /• i 32 / SANDY -CLAY —... / - / SILTY -SAND SANDY_CLAYL-SK-ALE SHAL / SHALE 1 E STIMA7ED CONTACT 18 / BETWEEN SOIL AND SHALE SECTION A -A S E C T 1 0 N. S SECTION B- B SCALE 1" = 4' =11 08 06 04 JG 00 1- W W 18 IL 96 z 94 92 0 Q 90 W Be 86 84 82 80 LeROY CRANDALL & ASSOCIATES ( r' L L L f L K L� L L b?i dl 9I L.9 1- L` O ID L� m f h L 1 I- fID 102 Z 94 86 62 78 CONC. SILK. - - - --• -•• RE7 WALL •- FOOTING (AS EXPOSED) FAILURE CRACKS WITH BOR. 2 OFFSETS UP TO I• NIGH \ i \ rug -- 1 CONC. ESTIMATED -' - GROUND SURFACE P41OR --- - --- - TO 1978 STORMS \ / CRACKS _ FILL / SILTY -SAND GROUND SURFACE / AFTER 1970 STORMS / i SOIL SHALE i � SHALE , ESTIMATED CONTACT BETWEEN SOIL AND SHALE SECTION APPROX. 12• TO GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE+ 10 08 06 04 02 00 F 98 m U. 96 Z 94 92 p F- 90 -1 W 88 B6 84 82 80 78 1- W W U_ C -C S E C T 1 0 N S S CA LE I" = 4' SECTION D —D )2 w W B U. )6 )4 92 20 F 90 -1 88 86 84 82 80 78 LeROY CRANDALL 81 ASSOCIATES -B 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- 1 1 �; �� A 1 1 �-- 1 4: ri J.; 1 �� u a 1 A �I �� r- `-I 1 0 0 h 1 1 i _ � , } NO. 4 REHM STAKES (SEE NOTE N0.3) ADD NEW SOIL -CEMENT BAGS tSHADEDI •il (SEE NOTE NO. 1) !- 96 2 Z92 ----- ._—_.....—._ O Q - J W • 88 CLOSES EDGE 1 OF SLIR. 37 TO 1 • TOP OF SLOPE O (PRJECTETCD) 1 WOOD PENCE 1 i CONO. S r L_-=- FOOTING IAS EXPOSED! NOTE: EXTEND CONCRETE. SLAB, A7 NECESSARY, TO COVER GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN TOP OF SLOPE AND BUILDING. EDGE OF EXIST. SLOG. NO. 37 I I 108 106 104 102 too w W 98 LL• 96 'f APPROX. GROUND I SURFACE AFTER STORMS 94 1 1 SOIL -CEMENT SAO. 1 ' _ ._• WALL CONSTRUCTER _ ..___ __!..-_. _...-_ _ ....___._.--___ ___._.� 92 O • IN MARCH 1978 SON. / 9O W . SHALE .. ._ ....-- LOOSE SOIL REMOVED AND -- NOTES: 98 BENCH WAS CONSTRUCTED --'"— IN SNALE PRIOR TO PLACING 1. ADD NEW LAYER OF SOIL -CEMENT BAGS TO INCREASE Td ICY.NE55 CF EXISTING SOa-CEMENT SAGS . - STABILIZATION BLANKET. 86 2. CONSTRUCT FACE OF BLANY.ET AT 1:1 INCLINA➢ION OR FATTER. -APPROX. GNDUND SURFACE S4 84 - -- AFTER 1978 STORMS '• -- " - -' 7-3. STAKE NEW BAGS TO OLD BAGS WITH F4 RE:NFO�C1.`•S BARS (3- Hi:,!HUH LENGTH) - NOTE: FROM SECTION A -A, PLATE 2-A. ON THREE-FOOT CENTERS EACH WAY. 4. EXTEND CONCRETE SLAB BETWEEN EXISTING W900 FLY.CE AND BUILOI!:G 37 IN THE 82 I AREA OF THE STABILIZATION BLANKET. �RA1N YA 3 ARCA ^.JAY FF.;im TOP OF SLOPE. 80 SUGGESTED 'CORRECTION ( SEGMENT I - A ) i LeROY CRANDALL 8 ASSOCIATES r L.H i C. J-H.1 u lob 104 1- w w LL 96 z O 192 w J W 88 EDGE 0 BLDG N APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE WOOD FENCE (REMOVE IF NECESSARY) EXIST. CONC. SLAB / PLANT SLOPE OR COVER WITH BAGS REGRAOE YARDS TO DRAIN FINAL SLOPE / EYOVE OR TRIM \ GROUND SURFACE ) R2 EXISTING SLOPE AFTER STORMS AS NECESSARY _ TOE PROTECTION USING SOIL -CEMENT BAGS 3' MIH. / - _INSTAL FILTER CLOTH - _ _ _. _ _ _ , ,• . __ ___ I I MATERIAL UNDER BAGS SOIL _— SHALE NOTE: FROM SECTION B-B, PLATE 2-A. STAKES -NO.4 BARS, 3 FEET LONG, ' ON 3 FOOT CENTERS. , .... .. _ _ - NOTES: 1_ REGRADE SLOPE BY FLATTENING TO 2:1 (I{'.-i,:GTAL TO VERTICAL). i 2. REMOVE OR TRIM LOOSE SOILS BELOW TOE ;;F ;-1, AS 'IECES SARY. 3. CONSTRUCT A SOIL -CEMENT BAG STABILE:! IC -I RL:•!;KET AT TOE OF SLOPE, AT _ LEAST THREE FEET HIGH AND THREE FEET :I •;E. PLAL,E FILTER CLOFH MATERIAL BETWEEN BAGS AND FACE OF SLOPE. STAij :,SS WITH T.!3AR. 4. EITHER PLANT SLOPE WITH EROSION REST"..::;; VEGETATION, OR PLACE A LAYER I OF SOIL -CEMENT BAGS OVER FACE OF SLOilt ).:R EROSION PROTECTION. I SUGGESTED CORRECTION ( SEGMENT I - B ) lob 06 104 102 we, F- LU W 98 LL 96 z - ( 94 J 92 0 I F i90 W w i 188 +86 184 i 82 .J 89 6,0Y CRA.4 ALL a 45S0,, AT_S aq: EDGE OF EXIST - BLDG_ NO. 36 \ 106 APPROX. LOCATION OF MOOD FENCE GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE (REMOVE IF NECESSARY) 104 ___ _. _ ___- ._ _.. ._ ..._____._—_______ _- f-•----- i 1 4 MIN. , i BENCH INTO BACK I SLOPE IF NECESSANY CONC. SLAB 102 REGRAOE YARD AREAS I , (SEE NOTE B)_ _______ 1 100 100 [/ F GROUND SURFACE ~ AFTER STORMS` / / w W , /, / BENCH AS NECESSARY 98 LL U- yy DURING CONSTRUCTION REMOVE OR TRIM EXISTING SLOPE —.- ----_ .• AS NECESSARY 1 ° _ 96 96 - —. .__.. ._. _ _ .. 1 a� _ TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPE z NOTES: / y°♦y 1 NO./ REBAR STARES 1. EXCAVATE FOR STABILIZATION BAGiWALL AT DESIRED LOCATION. EXTEND 94 3/4 (SEE NOTE NO.3) EXCAVATIONINTOSHALE. INCLINE BASE FQR WALL AWAY FROM SICPE. CUT PLASTIC PERFORATED I TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIOII SLOPE AT 3/40 (HORI:ONTAL TO VERTICAL). WALL' I / PLASTIC TOE GRAIN I o 92 --_ ON S FOOT CENTERS I \ / --- - - TO HAVE A EASE WIDTH OF 1/2 TH: HEIGHT'(4' MINIMUM). 9`L 00 / 6"MIN. 12�MIM. INTO?SHALE r SHALE 7 2. INSTALL TWO-INCH-DIAHETER PERFORATED PLASTIC PIPE DRAINS AT FIVE-FOOT j CENTERS, NEAR BASE OF BAG WALL. 90 w w / T w 1 SLOPE BASE =s- � 3, USE SOIL -CEMENT FILLED CLOTH BAGS (IOY CEMENT) TO CONSTRUCT WALL. ' WIDTH-1/2 HEIGHT I 88 ---- �- la'Mlx.l _-._, __-__•_-_ __ __ ._ _ __ 4. STAKE BAGS, ON THREE-FOOT CENT:{RS EACH WAY, WITH -'4 REBARS. —j 88 j. CONSTRUCT FACE OF BAG WALL AT 1:1 OR FLATTER. 86 6. TOP WIDTH OF WALL TO BE FOUR FEET MINIMUM. BENCH INTO CONSTRUCTION { ' SLOPE AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE HINIMUM WIDTH OF WALL. 841 - - 7. REGRADE YARD AREAS TO DRAIN AWAY FROM TOP OF SLOPE. COL IEI.F YARD 84, DRAINAGE IN CONTROLLED DRAINAGE DEVICES. L B. THIS PROCEDURE IS INTENDED FORIHEIGHTS OF'12 FEET OR LESS. THE 82 STABILIZATION WALL IS NOT INTENDED TO BE EQUIVALENT TO A RLINFORCED Q^� CO':CRITE 80 NOTE: FROM SECTION D-8, PLATE 2-A. SUGGESTED - CORRECTION ( SEGMENT I - B ) I LeROY CRANDALL 6 ASSOCIATES 0 NOTE: FROM SECTION F-F, PLATE 2-C. 108 96 2 z 0 a W J W 84 GUARD CONC. BLOCK WALL OF LAGGING \ SONOTUBE PILASTER\ APPROX. GROUND SURFACE AFTER 1978 STORMS \ -_ REMOVE MATERIAL IN FRONT OF._,___ NEW WALL. NEW CONCRETE OR GUNITE GUTTER. / CONTROL FINISH GRADING TO / WEEP HOLES MINIMIXE . EROSION. \ I 108 �(LOF PROPOSED WALL ' 106 1 J APPROXC LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC SETBACK LINE 104 — REMOVE — WOOD FENCE NEW CONCRETE SLAB - GRADE TO AREA DRAINS 102 MAIM I 100 I Ij GRAVEL OR SLURRY BACKFILL� ; F / OR REMOVE DISTURBED I W COMPACTED SOIL BACKfILL MATERIAL AS NECESSARY 98 U. 96 I j Z 3/4 94 L/ CONSTRUCTION SLOPE � _ — — SOIL _ _i _ — — 92 Z I* MIN SHALE 'E 0 7 a 90 W \GRADE BEAM J W ESTIMATED CONTACT -- ------— ..... .. •' - "-' -• I BETWEEN SOIL AND SHALE —" _(" '_ ^ 88 le MIN. DRILLED FRICTION PILE 86 84 82 RECOMMENDED 80 SUGGESTED CORRECTION ( SEGMENT, 3 ) LeROY CRANDALL 81 ASSOCIATES •'_: uto"-�"--+Y--�^_.c.L-:.'s.:.—_z,..: -�_sr_._.-:.. r.:: —' :--e.r---"- _�' .=.,.��».—'>>.:�.. ��r.,::c.. r.s ._. _.��.-..:z._ _: _,—_ �. .., __.. _�:fr�: ._. ..�..__. ;__._._ ,_._ __- _• __ _. SCHEME USING STEEL RE/NFORC/Nc AMC CaVCRETE PL. A /V BLOCK WALL SC'g�/� 4i4', N Q 24-/NCH D/A. 61C Tj'P CONC.eETE D.P/GEED P/LE AND COLUM�1' 0 0 0 0 1 APP.EOX/MgTE EX/ST%/VG SLOPE A EXIST. WOOD FENCE SCHEME US/NO LA46/Ny<BETLUEEN FLANGES OF S- BEAMS OR CONCRETE PANELS OR BLOCK BETWEEN CONCRETE COLUMNS I— R.PACTVC'AL D/STANCE , EX/ST//V�j O,X-T/O AREA - SCl/EME USIN6 REINFORCED COLUMN SCHEME USING AND CONCRETE BLOCKT/I-BEAMI' AND L4661NG NOTE: G�AXd .2Alt NOT Sr//D u/V. SLURRY oq GRANA&EAR CKFILL I -BEAM AND LAGGING, OR REINFOtCED CO.x'A'ETE NB EW Co/YG SLAB-, %COLuryly AND CONCRETE BLOCK W-qu 0 J O 41 J ,0ZECA57T CONCRETE W PANEL-5 O e aRES.rORE- TREATED WOOD LA6611V6 . a -Y4 I, I SURFACE CONCRETE 1 tt y -O' MIN INTO SNAGS 1 GRADE BEAM �-Q NIIy. nvm "'I tIS7EEGLRE/NBFORCG A z. II�.I� RE/NFORC/N6 1 I ' STEED BARS f I 1( I 1 I I 24-INCH3. i t I�D/A. C0NC2ETE 4. I I M I I I I ( 1 I DRILLED PE /L I�—D�oli`..y/R1�r I I IArI c • I • 1 1 1 1 I � � I i I I) I 11 I t 1 2. I 3 I I i LI �I LL ; i l S. ELEVAT/ON ` SCALE /Iv=4k. - 7. NOTE:This droauin9 does not i<Present e o rzr>•ocfu.a/ de siyn ei the 6ul,Eh and and is Iirfcvrded }eor i/Irtsf io Einc Purpo s<r only EA REMOvE SOIL 7o SIMLE SvRFACE TO M FOR Ek/TT. FILL A WORKLNG AREA. AT COMETi OL%V of W--4LL U7NSTRy/L•TION 6AADE AREA /N FRONr OF , • WALL TO DRAIN CXXE Nor£ SOIL �- \ SHALE - 1-0 affa. /am d'gALE (SEE NOTE 6� 'a \ 4I atp P/LE I la - I I \ • I- BEAM ' OR REINFORCING o o to I TYPICAL EXIST/N6 SLOPE — STEEL AFTER 197Ar STORIyS 11 I D = PENETRA7/ON o a I INTO rAWE \ p-I • /O FEET MIArIMUM I (NEGLECT 7E7P 3 • OF PE/YETRATIoN INTO - la I SHALE FOA ✓ERTIG4L AND ' I LATERAL S7/PFORT VARIES RO(%NO S,E-C 7-1 0 Al RTH PRESSURES FOR DEW41NING PILE LENGTHS: SCALE /rI= 4 Ertl Active earth pressure (ifter backfilling) - use an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 Kurds per cubic foot. Design wall to support soil abpve shale contact. (See Section). For vertical loads, use a friction value of 1,000 pounds per square foot for the shale. Neglect the upper three feet of shale. Passive resistance of shale - use 500 Pounds per square feet Per fool of depth. Neglect the jpper three feet of shale. Compute required pile length using U.B.C.,pole formula or equivalent ONSTRL'CT ION K0TE5: { Construct a working area by removing soil to apprpxi ately the shale ,y. Install a cpntinuous concrete patio slab from adjacent building to surface_ Tevporary excavation slopes'should not exceed 3/4:1 hers- retaining wall. Grade to drain away from wall. tontai to vertical). , 10. j Eliminate all moisture infiltration into soils from pianten, roof Drill piles (24-inch minimum diameter) at desired loot ion for wall. I gutters, and yard drainage. If planters are used they should have solid bottoms with drain lines leading to catch basins. Piles should attend a -minimum of 10-feet into shale. { it. Construct paved terrace drain at base of new wall and drain to Install full depth reinforcing and fill pile with concrete. I concrete -lined downdrain. Install wall between piles using concrete blocks, treated wood, or { precast concrete lagging, depending on the 4Pe of wall selected. Extend wall, between piles. a minimum of one f.t lot. firm shale. CONCEPT OF Baekfillbehind wall with sand-eementslurry. BULKHEAD CONSTRUCTION If concrete wail is used-. provide veep holes above downslope grade. LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES F 7 LJ I' PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS BLUFF EROSION AND SLOUGHING PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA FOR GERSON BAKAR AND ASSOCIATES (OUR JOB NO. C-78019) Gerson Bakar and Associates Wood Lake Apartments goo Penlnsdla Avenue San Mateo, California 94404 Attention: Mr. Douglas Pearson Gentlemen: March 10, 1978 Preliminary Observations Bluff Erosion and Sloughing Park Newport Apartments Newport Beach, California for Gerson Bakar and Associates (Our Job No. C-78019) We recently observed the erosion and sloughing which is occurring along the bluff overlooking Back Bay Drive and Upper Newport Bay. The areas of concern are those at the top of the slopes where adjacent structures could be affected. The erosion and sloughing coincides with a sustained period of rainfall which has deposited, in the last two to three months, more than twice the normal annual rainfall for this area. The most significant sloughing actually occurred after a parti- cularly intense storm on March 11. Either during or shortly after the storm, a significant amount of bluff material sloughed onto Back Bay Road. Also, a small portion of the top of the bluff in the vicinity of Apartment 4830 sloughed to within six feet of one corner of the building. I C-78019 - Page 2 Because of the probability of continued rain, our advice to your ' maintenance personnel was to place plastic sheeting over the exposed area adjacent to the top of the bluff. This includes the level areas between the top of the bluff and the adjacent structures. We also suggested that the surface drainage, and the roof drainage of adjacent buildings, be controlled with sandbags so as to minimize moisture infiltration into the soils within the immediate area of the bluff. We provided your maintenance personnel with an emergency slope repair procedure for the bluff area adjacent to Apartment 4830. Work has already commenced on repair of this area and is being periodically inspected by our personnel. We have been requested by Mr. Pearson to develop recommendations for correcting the erosion and sloughing conditions. This will require ' soil investigative work of the existing conditions so that we can discuss alternate corrective procedures with your civil engineering and structural engineering consultants. We will be proceeding with this work as the weather permits. As part of the work for developing corrective procedures, we requested that a survey be made of the top of the bluff within the area of major erosion and sloughage. Mr. Pearson authorized Bein, frost and Associates, Civil Engineers, to proceed with this work. Until permanent solutions are developed, we suggest that the sur- face areas adjacent to the bluff be kept covered with plastic during rainy C-78019 - Page 3 periods. During periods of dry weather, the plastic covering should be temporarily removed to allow the soils to dry as much as possible. Mr. Pearson has informed us that roof gutters will be installed on all the roofs that discharge run-off water towards the bluff, and we strongly agree with this procedure. it will be important to carefully control the gutter discharge so that it is positively connected to the storm drain system. We will continue to work with your personnel on determining proce- dures for minimizing erosion and sloughing of the upper portion of the bluff. However, it must be anticipated that under excessive rainfall con- ditions, the upper soils within and adjacent to the bluff are susceptible to loss of strength and local failure. Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES James M. McWe R.C.E. 11833 Vice Presiden 375 LC-JM/lb (4 copies submited) cc: Gerson Bakar and Associates San Francisco LeRoy Crandall, R.C.E. 6157 President ' LAW Crandall ' LAWGIBB Group Member Ak RpgERTBEINWIIIIRMFROST ,juL 2 01998 May 14, 1996 RECEIVED 1 Mr. Ken Dressel Gerson Bakar & Associates ' 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, California 94133-3298 Subject: Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments I One Park Place Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 70131-4-0896.0006 Dear Mr. Dressel: This letter presents the results of the monitoring survey and evaluation of data for bi-monthly monitoring of selected survey monuments. The monitoring evaluation was performed in accordance with.our proposal dated September 12, 1995. The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advise included in this letter. MONITORING PROGRAM ' The purpose of the bi-monthly monitoring program was to evaluate whether selected survey monuments on the slope facing Backbay Drive show displacement which could be indicative of future slope instability. Based on the results of the 1995 annual monitoring program, several survey monuments were selected for the bi-monthly program because they showed significant movement during the 1995 annual monitoring period. We have compared the recent data with previous data sets to evaluate whether a trend is developing that could be indicative of future slope instability. Bi-monthly monitoring of Stations 1003, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1013, 1016-1020, 1022, 1023, 1037, 1039, and 1043-1047 ` was performed in September 1995, November 1995, and January 1996 by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF) under a separate subcontract with you. The survey readings in September 1995 were compared to the previous data set from May 1995. The readings in November 1995 and January 1996 were compared to the previous data sets of September 1995 and November 1995, respectively. Additionally, all of the bi-monthly readings were compared to the baseline data set from January 1994. LAW Engineering and Environmental Services. Inc. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles. CA 90040.1554 �1 213.889-5300 • Fax, 213.721-6700 t Gerson Bakar & Associates—Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program May 14, 1996 Law/Crandall Project 70131-4-0896.0006 I I II I 11 I I I r II II I I It � i i The survey of the selected survey monuments by RBF was performed using a combination of Global Positioning System Interferometric and conventional surveying techniques. A report of the survey monitoring results by RBF is attached at the end of this. report. As indicated by RBF, vertical movements (displacements) of 0.07 feet (0.84 inch) and lateral movements of 0.06 feet (0.72 inch) are within the relative error of the survey. Besides the relative error of the survey, local soil conditions not related to slope instability can also affect the survey results. Local soil variations and conditions such as surficial creep and expansive soils can add to the cumulative change in the position of the survey monuments during any of the monitoring periods. Therefore, all recorded changes do no necessarily indicate gross slope instability. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Many of the survey monuments showed significant downward (negative elevation change) and out of slope (westerly) movement during the 1995 annual monitoring period of January 1994 through May 1995. This kind of movement could be indicative of slope instability. Significant incremental and isolated movement of these survey monuments was recorded during the bi-monthly monitoring period of May 1995 through January 1996. However, the movements of the survey monuments during the bi-monthly monitoring program show no trends indicating gross slope instability. For gross instability, we would expect to see widespread movement toward the slope face (west) and downward. This pattern is not evident. All the patterns of movement recorded between May 1995 and January 1996 were localized and variable in nature with changes in horizontal and vertical movements. This type of movement suggests a localized shallow soil condition such as expansive soil or localized surficial soil creep. The monitoring points are grouped by general area. The results of the monitoring will be discussed by area as indicated below. Slope Below Townhomes 4570 Through 4640 And Building 3 Survey monuments 1016 through 1020, 1022 ,and 1023 are included in the bi-monthly monitoring program. These survey monuments are located on the slope below Townhomes 4570 through 4640 and Building 3. The following table summarizes the survey results. Survey monument Cumulative Change During Bi- Cumulative Change Since monthly Monitoring Program (feet) Baseline Readings (feet) (May 1995 January 1996) (January 1994—January 1991 1017 0.068 east # 1018 # # 1019 0.084 down 0.110 down 1020 # 0.127 north; 0.081 west; 0.148 down 1022 0.082 east # 1023 # # # indicates cumulative change less than relative error i Gerson Bakar & Associates—Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program May 14, 1996 Law/Crandall Project 70131-4-0896.0006 The survey monuments that showed significant lateral movement during the bi-monthly monitoring periods (1017 and 1022) both showed displacement to the east (or upslope) of 1-inch or less. During the previous monitoring period of January 1994 through May 1995, survey monument 1017 showed a downward elevation change and a lateral movement to the west; survey monument 1022 showed upward elevation change and a lateral movement to the west. This type of movement (up and down and changes in lateral direction) is localized and appears related to surficial soil conditions and not indicative of gross slope instability. Survey monument 1019, located in the head area of a previously mapped landslide, showed significant downward movement of 0.084 foot during the bi-monthly monitoring program (May 1995 through January 1996); lateral movement was insignificant. Cumulative vertical movement for this monument for the monitoring period of January 1994 through January 1996 is 0.110 foot down. The isolated movement of 1019 seems to be indicative of a local condition and, therefore, is probably not related to gross instability of the slope. The apparently ongoing downward movement recorded at survey monument 1019 over the monitoring period of January 1994 through January 1996 is probably related to localized downhill creep and/or settlement of the existing landslide debris in the area. The lack of movement of other survey monuments in the immediate area during the bi-monthly program suggests the downhill creep and/or settlement of the landslide debris is localized. It should be noted that survey monument 1019 is the only survey monument in this area that showed ongoing movement during the both the 1995 annual monitoring period and the recent bi- monthly monitoring period. None of the other survey monuments in this area that showed significant vertical or lateral movement during the bi-monthly monitoring periods of May 1995 through January 1996 showed significant cumulative movement during the 2-year monitoring period of January 1994 through January 1996. Likewise, none of the survey monuments in this area that showed significant cumulative movement during the 2-year monitoring period (except survey monument 1019) showed significant movement during the bi-monthly monitoring periods of May 1995 through January 1996. This suggests that different localized phenomena are occurring at different times in different localized areas. This does not suggest a pattern of gross slope instability. Slope Below Clubhouse and Pool Survey monuments 1012 and 1013 are included in the bi-monthly monitoring program. These survey monuments are located near the top of slope adjacent to clubhouse and the pool. The following table summarizes the survey results. Survey monument . Cumulative Change During Bi- Cumulative Change Since monthly Monitoring Program (feet) Baseline Readings (feet) 1013 # 0.094 up # indicates cumulative change less than relative error 11 Gerson Bakar & Associates—Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program May 14, 1996 Law/Crandall Project 70131-4.0896.0006 f In this area, both the survey monuments (1012 and 1013) experienced upward and then downward elevation changes during the same consecutive monitoring periods. A positive elevation change was recorded for both survey monuments during the monitoring period of May 1995 through t September 1995 and the negative elevation change was recorded for both survey monuments during the monitoring period of September 1995 through November 1995. This resulted in an insignificant cumulative change for these survey monuments during the bi-monthly monitoring program. �• Additionally, survey monument 1013 had significant upward elevation change during the previous monitoring period of January 1994 through May 1995. These changes in direction of vertical displacement suggest a locally expansive soil condition related to moisture changes causing localized shrinking and swelling of the soil. Both survey monuments are located in drainage swale areas near the top of the slope which would tend to experience changes in moisture conditions related to rainfall and/or local irrigation. Also, the cumulative movement for the 2-year monitoring period is uphill, and landslides don't move uphill. ISlope Below Building 4 Survey monuments 1003 through 1005, 1007, 1009, 1037, 1039, and 1043 through 1047 are included in the bi-monthly monitoring program. These survey monuments are located in the area adjacent to and downslope of Building•4. The following table summarizes the survey results. ' Survey monument Cumulative Change During Bi- Cumulative Change Since monthly Monitoring Program (feet) Baseline Readings (feet) (May 1995—January 1996) (January 1994—January 1996) 1003 # # 1004 # # 1005 # # 1007 0.067 north 0.065 north 1009 # # 1037 # 0.128 north, 0.297 down 1039 # 0.080 west I043 # # 1044 # 0.087 up 1045 0.073 up # 1046 # # 1047 # # # indicates cumulative change less than relative error. In the area of Building 4, only two survey monuments out of twelve monitored in the area showed significant movement. One survey monument (1007) is east or upslope of the previously mapped landslide below Building 4. The other survey monument (1045) is within the limits of the landslide. survey monument 1007 showed lateral movement to the north, parallel to the top of slope. survey monument 1045 showed upward movement. Based on the localized displacements, the absence of significant movements on nearby survey monuments, and the upward (rather than 4 Gerson Bakar & Associates—Bi-Monthly Monitoring Program May 14, 1996 Law/Crandall Project 70131-4-0896.0006 downward) elevation change, these movements are probably related to a localized phenomena such as expansive soils and are not related to gross slope instability. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the lack of significant movement of groups of survey monuments and the lack of an apparent trend developing over time suggesting gross slope instability, we recommend the survey - monuments included in the bi-monthly program be monitored on an annual basis in the future, as part of the ongoing annual monitoring program. Although we recommend the monitoring of the survey monuments to be performed on an annual basis in the future, Park Newport maintenance personnel should perform routine checks of the slope below Buildings 3 and 4, the pool and the spa, and Townhomes 4570 through 4640. The inspections should include appurtenant structures and walkways in these areas as outlined in our previous reports dated August 29, 1994 and August 18, 1995. If new signs of distress to the structures are observed, or if irregularities (such as cracks, ponding water, fences out -of -plumb, etc.) are noted, our office should be notified immediately so that a detailed reconnaissance and evaluation can be performed. The detailed evaluation could include more frequent monitoring of survey monuments in the area of distress on a more frequent basis if necessary. It is a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. �FRED GF �Gfp�oc \S Sincerely, 4% U S PAtll ELLIOTT i SUSAN FRANZEN �� 01433 LAW/CRANDALL a1754 z} CERTIFIED tr CERTMED ENGNIEERING N/. GEOLOGIST ENC3NLERING 9 ,`\ �:• op CALF Susan Franzen Paul Elliott Senior Engineering Geologist enggeo\94-proj\40896R6. DOC/SF:bef (2 copies submitted) U II II Principal Engineering Geologist 0 I JIIIIIIIWU�. 7 ft1_1 + 4 all �4, TN17 .24 24, Boom 4 2+.* 91 3 36/ 17 24 - al 24 L 21 28 10I T;, I26 29 .-A— _35 2 35 40 20 40\ P, 4 45 41 20 41 49 23 40 43 40 I24 132 4� 42 22 53 60 68 44 29 63 sT 93 4470 T D 93' I33 f 3 48W 449C �OLDG BLDG. 3 4W 46M jy 00, 0,6`17 4570 % DIMTC )20 -7 -1 t7 C$ 41 sAf T JJ I _T ND PN sIT ffi QRAC AN, AR'ASSUCIA A kill' & 7 EP EM sAEL I Val IM 6 QLTPJ�MARY -LANDSUDE:: Dq, 9SITS' E A Aj QU AW/CRA A L 1114' N D A01 Erru n I r 200 Citadel Drive, Los Angele3, Calliomfo 940 40, 2113), PI J U "J"i' 4'. �A�4 :w q 'E 6 2& IATf Q�j T-.X I< 04 SC4E* 1" 6Q' Akk PY 7. 41 -4 0M. Q� JE!5 CONTOUR INTE'RVAL 1 and WAM`FR0,5T`�Vi`ASS J, illT"i3l" F W. _11:1_11 I A, ttII �: �� '"4 . 51 .4, t 12 ffi�)k 7 .4' It"' % 7Z ­44. Is 111.If , , s V.- , .. . . 14 1 -) , 1� -.,; '.., I - . . I—, !4; . ;;'N - 1­ 111 ME ;101�4116S CUII II S, TV A _W — 4 " 'I 40WIPLT WA -., Twl "s� '"171M, 17 I II 9�bber't �Beirl, `William 9%- st 6& Associates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS RECEIVED Law/Crandall, Inc. LOS ANGELES OCT 17 I996 October 10, 1995 Mr. Pat Thomas LAW/CRANDELL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024-1554 ISubject: Park Newport Monitoring Survey I Dear Mr. Thomas: JN 32184 I am pleased to submit to you the results of the monitoring survey performed at the Park Newport site during September of 1995 (Epoch 9/29/95). This most recent epoch was the first of a series of bi-monthly monitorings on Stations 1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1013, 1016-1020, 1022, 1023, 1037, 1039, and 1043-1047. Please find enclosed the state plane coordinates and elevations for all of the slope monitorings up to this time and a table which compares the coordinates and elevations from this most recent epoch with those generated from prior epochs. The survey was conducted on September 29 and October 2 using a combination of GPS and conventional survey techniques. All survey measurements were combined into a simultaneous least squares adjustment and constrained to the project control stations, PN-0W1 and PN-0002. The final coordinates are in terms of the California State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, Zone 6. The RMS of the relative standard errors for each station between Epoch 9/29/95 and Epoch 5111195 (i.e. between Station 95S 1003 and 95 1003) is 0.06 feet horizontally and 0.07 feet vertically. Note that the coordinates and elevations from the previous surveys have changed slightly. This is because of a new least squares adjustment software package being used for this project. All of the past survey measurements along with the most recent survey measurements were re -adjusted with this new adjustment package to generate new coordinates. Although the coordinates have changed slightly, the relative differences between stations between epochs have remained essentially the same. ©/essronal .Service 43igpc 1944 14725 ALTON PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 57057 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92619.7057 • (714) 472-3505 • FAX (714) 472-8373 OFFICES LOCATED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA Mr. Pat Thomas Sept. 10, 1995 Page 2 of 2 It was a pleasure to provide these services for you. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Daniel W. Bustamante, P.L.S. Project Surveyor GPS Services vw"N I. cc: Ken Dressell - Gerson, Bakar, and Associates 11 Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 30424 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates,1-06-94 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 1003 N-03 2,176,466.833 6,064,240.081 97.165 1004 N-02 2,176,349.446 6,064,305.765 59.960 1005 N-05 2,176,386.459 6,064,396.021 113.801 1006 N-06 2,176,384.164 6,064,205.908 27.540 1007 N-07 2,176,257.621 6,064,479.466 103.056 1008 N-08 2,176,184.703 6,064,439.322 82.966 1009 N-09 2,176,206.013 6,064,339.965 39.176 1010 N-10 2,176,084.373 6,064,439.307 76.368 1011 N-11 2,176,044.972 6.064,486.912 89.425 1012 N-12 2,175,884.428 6,064,484.174 92.227 1013 N-13 2.175,791.358 6,064,486.602 93.632 1014 N-14 2,175,735.228 6,064,458.097 91.302 1015 N-15 2,175,658.359 6,064,462.735 96.696 1016 N-16 2,175,489.172 6,064,421.360 90.392 1017 N-17 2,175,463.871 6,064,440.741 111.704 1018 N-18 2,175,355.032 6,064,412.267 101.755 1019 N-19 2,175,346.263 6,064,391.035 90.749 1020 N-20 2,175,359.261 6,064,363.099 79.171 1021 N-21 2,175,283.373 6,064,377.326 101.728 1022 N-22 2,175,237.245 6,064,353.112 99.772 1023 N-23 2,175,125.845 6,064,418.458 100.133 1030 M 2,176,479.964 6,064,251.353 103.235 1031 L 2,176,486.343 6,064,256.972 102.760 1032 1M 2,176,441.112 6,064,295.541 96.701 1033 1K 2,176,450.789 6,064,306.221 103.728 1034 2M 2,176,407.531 6,064,333.504 96.146 1035 2K 2,176,418.561 6,064,342.906 103.950 1036 3M 2,176,377.910 6,064,367.244 96.828 1037 3L 2.176,382.874 6,064,374.196 102.438 1038 4N 2,176,339.748 6,064,372.741 86.775 1039 4M 2,176,358.507 6,064,389.264 97.637 1040 4L 2,176,363.923 6,064,395.317 103.435 1041 5P 2,176,302.327 6,064,377.562 81.087 1042 5N 2,176,321.061 6,064,394.100 1043 5M 2,176,339.778 6,064,410.479 99.132 1044 5L 2,176,346.026 6,064,416.221 103.712 1045 6P 2,176,263.509 6,064,423.147 85.954 1046 6N 2,176,281.621 6,064,438.991 93.316 1047 6M 2,176,300.219 6,064,455.436 104.206 1048 6L 2,176,306.824 6,064,460.957 Robert•Bein, William Frost and Associates JN 31858 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates, 5-11-95 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 A. NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. NAME • -U.S. SURVEY FEET ELEV. R 1 PN-0001 2,175,256.266 6,064,604.225 109.494 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 951003 N-03 2,176,466.839 6,064,240.084 97.130 951004 N-02 2,176,349.432 6,064,305.709 59.959 95 1005 N-05 2,176,386.444 6,064,396.018 113.711 95 1006 N-06 2,176,384.172 6,064,205.922 27.480 951007 N-07 2,176,257.656 6,064,479.448 103.015 95 1008 N-08 2,176,184.728 6,064,439.326 82.912 951009 N-09 2,176,206.026 6,064,339.932 39.156 951010 N-10 2,176,084.372 6,064,439.296 76.339 95 1011 N-11 2,176,044.983 6,064,486.906 89.431 951012 N-12 2,175,884.402 6,064,484.150 92.279 951013 N-13 2,175,791.379 6,064,486.589 93.723 95_1014 N-14 2,175,735.253 6,064,468.082 91.329 95 1015 N-15 2,175,658.372 6,064,462.743 96.732 95 1016 N-16 2,175,489.194 6,064,421.363 90.322 95 1017 N-17 2,175,463.873 6,064,440.730 111.661 951018 N-18 2,175,355.058 6,064,412.266 101.746 951019 N-19 2,175,346.292 6,064,391.029 90.634 95 1020 N-20 2,175,359.346 6,064,363.039 79.015 951021 N-21 2,175,283.406 6,064,377.166 101.709 95_1022 N-22 2,175,237.240 6,064,353.093 99.758 951023 N-23 2,175,125.856 6,064,418.466 100.107 957 1030 M 2,176,479.638 6,064,251.338 103.221 951031 L 2,176,486.359 6,064,256.987 102.743 951032 1M 2,176,441.088 6,064,295.522 96.684 951033 I 2,176,450.759 6,064,306.205 103.752 951034 2M 2,176,407.552 6,064,333.531 96.124 951035 2K 2,176,418.546 6,064,342.876 103.956 951036 3M 2,176,377.884 6,064,367.228 96.808 9571037 3L 2,176,382.975 6,064,374.172 102.134 951038 4N 2,176,339.802 6,064.372.788 86.735 951039 4M 2,176,358,405 6,064,389.182 97.610 95 1040 4L 2,176,363,905 6,064,395.313 103.393 951041 5P 2,176,302.325 6,064,377.524 81.060 95 1042 5N 2,176,321.054 6,064,394.075 87.726 95 1043 5M 2,176,339.710 6,064,410.450 99.065 951044 5L 2,176,345.982 6,064,416.188 103.760 951045 6P 2,176,262.786 6,064,422.503 85.894 951046 6N 2,176,281.511 6,064,438.993 93.249 951047 6M 2,176,300.224 6,064,455.435 104.153 951048 6L 2,176,306.865 6,064,460.964 103.776 I I 1 1. Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates, 9-29-95 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 STA.NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. NAME U.S. SURVEY FEET ELEV. ft 1 PN-0001 2,175,255.266 6,054,604.225 109.494 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 95S 1003 N-03 2,176,466.834 6,064,240.084 97.143 95S 1004 N-04 2,176,349.427 6,064,305.745 59.915 95S 1005 N-05 2,176,386.467 6,064,396.030 113.708 95S 1007 N-07 2,176,257.622 6,064,479.442 103.070 95S 1009 N-09 2,176,206.005 6,064,339.949 39,153 95S_1012 N-12 2,176,884.379 6,064,484.180 92.370 95S 1013 N-13 2,175,791.387 6,064,486.633 93.806 95S 1016 N-16 2,175,489.192 6,064,421.324 90.338 95S 1017 N-17 2,175,463.888 6,064,440.798 111.673 95S 1018 N-18 2,175,355.045 6,064,412.314 101.744 95S 1019 N-19 2,175,346.295 6,064,391.033 90.687 95S 1020 N-20 2,175,359.324 6,064,363.044 79.021 95S 1022 N-22 2,175,237.252 6,064,353.175 99.703 95S 1023 N-23 2,175,125.853 6,064,418.496 100.094 95S 1037 3L 2,176,382.967 6,064,374.192 102.111 95S 1039 4M 2,176,358.399 6,064,389.191 97.644 95S -I 043 5M 2,176,339.726 6,064,410.476 99.086 95S 1044 5L 2,176,345.995 6,064,416.217 103.758 95S 1045 6P 2,176,262.789 6,064,422.530 85.905 95S 1046 6N 2,176,281.551 6,064,439.027 93,264 95S 1047 6M 2,176,300.219 6,064,455.431 104.179 7 LJ V Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star "Net Adjustment 32184 Change in Coordinates and Elevations ! Epoch 9129195 vs. Prior Epoch 5111/95 STA NO. NORTHING(Y) EASIING(X) U.S. SURVEY FEET (9/29195) ELEV. (ft) STA. NO. NOR] HINUkT) tAZ3 I ING(X) U.S. SURVEY FEET (5/11/95) ELEV. (ft) CHANGE RELATIVE NORTH TO EAST PRIOR: ELEV G RELATIVE NORTH TO EAST INITIAL ELEV 4. 4 4 4• . 2 2,176.340.414 •6,064,779.485 105.180' 2 2,176.340.414 6,064,779.489 105.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 :�O:000 0.000 - .0.000 95S_1003 2,176,466.834 6,064.240.084 -97.143 .95_1003 2,176,466.839 6,064.240.084 97.130 -0.004 0.000 0.013 01001 0.003 -0.022 95S 1004 2,176,349.427 6,064,305.745 59.915 951004 2,176,349.432 6;p64,305.709 59.959 -0.005 0.036 -0.044 -01019 -0.020 -0.045 95S1005 2,176,3861467 6,064,396.030 113.708 95__1005 2,176,386.444 6,064,396.018 113.711 0.023 0.012 -0.003 0008 0.009 -0.094 95S71007 2,176,257.622 6,064,479.442 103.070 95 1007 2,176,257.656 6,064.479.448 103.015 -0.034 -0.006 .0.054 0:000 -0.024 0.014 95S_1009 2,176,206.005 6,064,339.949 39.153 95_1009 2,176,206.026 6,064.339.932 39.156 -0.022 0.017 -0.004 -0;009 -0.016 -0023 95S7 1012 2,175,884.379 6,064,484.180 92.370 951012 2,175,884.402 6,064,484.150 92.279 -0.022 0.031 '0.091 -0.049 0.006 0:143 95S1013 2,1i75,791.387 6,064,486.633 93.806 95_ 1013 2,175,791.379 6,064.486.589 93.723 0.008 0.044 0.083 0!029 0.031 01174 95S71016 2,175,489.192 6,064,421.324 90.338 95 1016 2,175,489.194 6,064,421.363 90.322 -0.003 -0.039 Q.016 0'020 -0.036 -01053 95S_1017 2.176,463.888 6,064,440.798 111.673 95 1017 2,175,463.873 6.064,440.730 111.661 0.015 0.068 0.012 01017 0.057 -0.61 95S_ 1018 2,175.355.045 6,064,412.314 101.744 95_1018 2,175.355.058 6,064,412.266 101.746 -0.013 0.048 -6.002 01013 0.047 -0.011 95S 1019 2,175,346.295 6,064,391.033 90.687 951019 2.176,346.292 6,064,391.029 90.634 0.003 0.004 0.053 0032 -0.002 -0.061 95S 1020 2,175,359.324 6,064,363.044 79.021 95_1020 2,175,359.346 6,064,363.039 79.015 -0.022 0.006 0.006 01063 -0.054 -0.150 95S1022 2,175,237.252 6,064,353.175 99.703 95_1022 2,175,237.240 6,064,353.093 99.758 0.011 0.082 -0.055 01007 0.063 -0.069 95S__1023 2,175,125.853 6,064,418.496 100.094 95_1023 2,175,125.856 6,064,418.466 100.107 -0.003 0.031 -0.012 0:008 0.038 -0.038 95S 1037 2,176,382.967 6,064,374.192 102.111 95_1037 2,176,382.975 6.064,374.172 102.134 -0.008 0.020 -0.023 O4093 -0.004 -0.327 95S 1039 2,176,358.399 6,064,389.191 97.644 951039 2,176,358.405 6,064,389.182 97.610 -0.006 0.010 0.034 4108 -0.073 0.006 95S 1043 2,176,339.726 6,064,410.476 99.086 95__1043 2,176,339.710 6,064,410450 99.065 0.016 0.026 0.021 -0'052 -0.003 -0.045 95S 1044 2,176,345.995 6,0,416.217 64 103.758 95_1044 2,176,345.982 6,064,416.188 103.760 0.013 0.029 -0.002 -01031 -0.005 O.D46 95S 1045 2,176,262.789 6,064,422.530 85.905 95 1045 2,176,262.786 6,064,422.503 85.894 0.003 0.027 0.012 -0.048 95S1046 2,176,281.551 6,064,439.027 93.264 95_1046 2,176,281.511 6,064,438.993 93.249 0.040 0.033 0.015 0!030 0.035 -0.062 95S7 1047 2,176,300.219 6,064,455.431 104.179 195_1047 2,176,300.224 6.064,455.435 104.153 -0.OD6 -0.004 0.026 -01,001 4005 -0.027 0 �ober't �Heirl,`William `Frost 6&�lssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS RECEIVE O LAWICRANDALL, INC., Los Angetos DEC 1 1 1995 December 6, 1995 Mr. :Pat Thomas LAW/CRANDELL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024-1554 FlIF Subject: Park Newport Monitoring Survey Dear Mr. Thomas: JN 32184 I am pleased to submit to you the results of the monitoring survey performed at the Park Newport site during November of 1995 (Epoch 11/28/95). This most recent epoch was the second of a series of bi-monthly monitorings on Stations 1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1013, 1016-1020, 1022, 1023, 1037, 1039, and 1043-1047. Please find enclosed the state plane coordinates and elevations for all of the slope monitorings up to this time' and a table which compares the coordinates and elevations from this most recent epoch with those generated from prior epochs. The survey was conducted on November 28 through November 30 using a combination of GPS and conventional survey techniques. All survey measurements were combined into a simultaneous least squares adjustment and constrained to the project control stations, PN-0001 and PN-0002. The final coordinates are in terms of the California State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, Zone 6. The RMS of the relative error ellipse for each station between Epoch 11/28/95 and prior Epoch 9/29/95 (i.e. between Station 95N 1003 and 95S_1003) is 6.05 feet horizontally and 0.07 feet vertically. -13 it' slonai �,e.rs-xe =:::p c 14 1.4725 ALTON PARKWAY . P O BOX 57057 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92619-7057 • (714) 472-3505 • FAX (714) 472.8373 nc-1nFC I nCATFn THRM it I-in1 IT nAl IPnONIA 1 It was a pleasure to provide these services for you. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. ' Sincerely, ' Daniel . Bustamante, P,.L.S. Project Surveyor GPS Services cc: Keri Dressell - Gerson, Bakar, and Associates i 1� �1 1 1 �i I Robert eein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates,11-28-95 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 Tq, NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. NAME METERS ELEV.(m) 1 PN-0001 663,019.436 1,848,495.065 33.374 2 PN-0002 663,349.885 1,848,548.484 32.05y 95N 1003 N-03 663,388.417 1,848,384.074 29.610 95N 1004 N-04 663,352,628 1,848,404.077 18.276 95N 1005 N-05 663,361919 1,848,431.598 34.659 95N 1007 N-07 663,324!649 1,848,457.038 31.411 95N 1009 . N-09 663,308.924 1,848,414.511 11.950 95N 1012 N-12 • 663,210,895 1,848,458.471 28.114 95N 1013 N-13 663,182.537 •1,848,459212 28.570 95N 1016 N-16 663,990.432 1,848,439.327 27.528 95N 1017 N-17 663,082.714 1,848,445.239 34.037 95N 1018 N-18 663,049.538 1,848,436.562 31.000 95N 1019 N-19 663,046.884 . 1,848,430.081 27.616 99 1020 N-20 663,050.853 1,848,421.543 24.100 95N_1022 N-22 663,013.633 1,848,418.536 30.398 95N_1023 N-23 662,979.681 :1,848,438.448 30.527 95N_1037 3L, 663,362.857 1,848,424.950 31.137 95N 1039 4M 663,365.360 1,848,429.513 29.756 95N 1043 5M 663,349.672 1,848,435.998 30.208 95N 1044 5L 663,351.592 1,848,437.757 31.622 95N_1045 6P 663;326.228 1,848,439.674 26.206 95N_1046 ` 6N 663,331.936 1,848,444.698 28.436 95N 1047 6M 663,337.641 1,848,449.717 31.747 LJ J II II II II II II II II II Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 State Plane Coordinates, 11-28-95 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 STA. NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO NAME U.S. SURVEY FEET ELEV. (ft) 1 PN-0001 2,175,256:266 6,054,604.226 109.494 2 . PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 95N_1003 N-03 2,176,466.830 6,064,240.083 97.145 95N 1004 N-04 2,176,349.412 6,064,305.708 59.961 95N 1005 N-05 2,176,386.457 6,064,396.002 113.711 95N 1007 N-07 2,176,257.620 6,064,479.465 103.054 95N_1009 N-09 2,176,206.027 6,064,339.942 39.206 95N 1012 N-12 2,175,884.410 6,064,484.166 92.236 95N 1013 N-13 2,175,791.373- 6,064,486.597 93.732 95N 1016 N-16 2,175,489.193 6,064,421.360 90.314 95N_1017 N-17 2,175,463.870 6,064,440.755 111.671 95N_1018 N-18 2,175,355.025 6,064,412.288 101.705 95N_1019 N-19 2,175,346:319 6,064,391.025 90.603 95N 1020 N-20 2,175,359.340 6,064,363.013 79.067 95N 1022 N-22 2,175,237.229 6,064,353.146 99.730 99 1023 N-23 2,175,125.837 6,064,418.474 100.155 95N 1037 3L 2,176,382:974 6,064,374.190 102.154 95N 1039 4M 2,176,358.378 6,064,389.161 97.625 95N 1043 5M 2,176,339.716 6,064,410.435 99.108 9SN 1044 5L 2,176,346.013 6,064,416.208 103.747 95N 1045 6P 2,176,262.798 6,064,422.497 85.978 95N 1046 6N 2,176,281.525 6,064,438.981 93.294 95N 1047 6M 2,176,300.245 6,064,455.448 104.155 'i 1 Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 Change in Coordinates and Elevations Epoch 11/28/95 vs. Prior Epoch 9129195 STA. NO. NUKIrHING(Y) LXSTING(X) U.S. SURVEY FEET (11/28/95) STA.- ELEV. (ft) NO. NORTH114Gfq- EA G(X) U.S. SURVEY FEET (9129/95) ELEV. (ft) HANGE RELATIVE NORTH TO EAST PRIOR: ELEV CHANGE RELATIVE NORTH TO EAST INITIAL ELEV ou 6,064, 4. 4 4 5 6 6,064,604.22 109.494 0. 0.00 0.0 0. 2 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 2 2,176,34tl:414 6,064,779.485 105.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 95N_1003 2,176,466.830 6,064,240.083 97.145 95S_1003 2,176,466.834 6,064,240.084 6,064,305.745 97.143 59.915 -0.004 -0.015 -0.001 -0.037 0.002 0.047 -0.003 -0.034 0.002 -0.057 -0.021 0.001 95N1004 2.176,349.412 6,064,305.708 59.961 95S_1004 113.711 95S_1005 2,176,349.427 2,176,386.467 6,064,396.030 113.708 0.010 -0.028 0.003 0.002 -0.001 -0.00 95N__1005 95N 1007 2,176,386.457 2,176,257.620 6,064,396.002 6,064,479.465 103.054 95S_1007 2.176,257.622 6,064,479.442 103.070 -0.002 0.023 -0.015 0.053 -0.007 0.01p -0.001 02 -0.02 0.030 95N_1009 2,176,206.027 6,064,339.942 39.206 95S_1009 2,176,206.005 2,175,884.379 6,064,339.949 6,064,484.180 39.153 92.370 0.022 0.031 -0.007 .0.015 -0.134 0.01,a' -0.023 -0.009 0.009 95N 1012 2,175,884.410 ,064,484.166 92.236 95S 1012 95S_1013 2,175,791.387 6,064,486.633 93.806 -0.013 -0.036 -0.074 0.01,5 -0.005 0.100 95N_1013 95N_78 1016 2,175,791.373 2,175,489.193 064,486.597 6,064,421.360 93.732 90.314 95S_1016 2,175,489.192 6,064,421.324 90.338 0.001 -0.036 -0.002 0.06 0.014 -0.032 0.032 95N_1017 2,175,463.870 0.75 6,064,440.755 111.671 95S_1017 2,175,463.888 6.064,440.798 6,064,412.314 111.673 101.744 -0.018 -0.020 -0.043 -0.026 -0.002 -0.039 -O.Otl1 -0.0& 0.014 0.021 -0.050 95N_1018 2.175,463.870 6,064,4 6,064,391.025 101.705 95S_1018 90.603 95S_1019 2,175,355.045 2,175,346.295 6,064,391.033 90.667 0.024 - -0.032 -0.046 0.056 -0.086 45 -0.104 95N_1019 95N_1020 2,175,346.319 2,175,359.340 6,064.363.013 79.067 95S_1020 2,175,359.324 61064,363.044 79.021 99.703 0.016 -0.032 -0.029 0.046 0.027 0.079 -0.01'6 -0.086 0.034 -0.104 -0.042 95N_1022 2,175,237.229 6,064,353.146 99.730 95S_1022 2,175,237.262 6,054,353.175 100.094 -0.023 -0.022 0.060 -0.008 0.016 0,022 95N_1023 2,175,125.837 6,064,418.474 100.155 95S_1023 102.154 95S_1037 2,175,125.853 2,176,382.967 6,064,418.496 6,064,374.192 102A11 -0.016 0.007 -0.002 0.043 0.100 -0.006 -0.285 95N_1037 95N_l039 2,176,382.974 2,176,358.378 6,064,374.190 6,064,389.161 97.625 95S_1039 2,176,358.399 6,064,389.191 97.644 -0.021 -0.030 -0.018 -0.129 -0.103 -0.012 95N_1043 2,176,339.716 6,064,410.435 99.108 95S_1043 2,176,339.726 2,176,345.995 6,064,410.476 6-064,416.217 99.086 103.758 -0.010 0.018 -0.040 -0.008 0.021 -0.010 -0.061 -0.013 -0.044 -0.013 -0.024 0.035 95N_1044 2,176,346.013 6,064,416.208 103.747 95S_1044 95S_1045 2,176,262.789 6,064,422.530 85.905 0.009 -0.032 0.073 0.024 95N_1045 95N_1046 2,176,262.798 2,176,281.525 6,064,422.497 6,064,438.981 85.978 93.294 95S_1046 2,176,281.551 6,064,439.027 93.264 -0.026 0.045 0.030 0.004 0.010 -0.021 95N_1047 2,176,300.245 6,064,455.448 104.155 95S_1.047 2,176,300.219 6,064,455.431 104.179 1 0.026 0.017 -0.024 0.026 0.012 -0.051 I 1 • i II `I bbert `Behl,`Wi E= 9i'ost 6.c9,ssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS February 21, 1996 JN 32184 Mr: Pat Thomas , LAW/CRANDELL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024-1554 Subject: Park Newpbrt'Monitoring Survey Dear Mr. Thomas: I am pleased to submit to you the results, of the monitoring survey performed at the Park Newport site during January of 1996 (Epoch 1/19/96). This most recent epoch was the third of a series of bi-monthly monitorings on Stations 1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1013, 1016-1020, 1022, 1023, 1037, 1039, and 1043-1047. Please find enclosed the state plane coordinates and elevations for this most recent epoch and a table which compares the coordinates and elevations from this most recent epoch with those generated from the prior epoch. The survey was conducted from January 19 through January 26 using a combination of GPS and conventional survey techniques. All survey measurements were combined into a simultaneous least squares adjustment and constrained to the project control stations, PN-0001 and PN-0002. The final coordinates are in terms of the California State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, Zone 6. The RMS of the error ellipse for each station for Epoch 1/19/96 is 0.03 feet horizontally and 0.05 feet vertically. The RMS of the relative error ellipse for each station between Epoch 1/19/96 and prior Epoch 11/28/95 (i.e. between Station 96J_1003 and 95N_1003) is 0.05 feet horizontally and 0.07 feet vertically. 1.17?5 ALrON PARKWAY . P O BOX 57057 • 1RVINE. CALIFORNIA 026 19.7057 • (7141 472.3505 • FAX (714) 472.8373 nrFIOFS I OrATED THROUGHOI IT r Al 19nRNIA It was a pleasure to provide these services for you. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. pL LAND Sincerely, v Exp. � Daniel W. Bustamante, OFCAL�F�P�\P Project Surveyor GPS Services DWw w Iw ! cc: Ken Dressell - Gerson, Bakar, and Associates 0 M ' Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 ' Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 ' State Plane Coordinates, 1-19-96 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 STA. NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) ' NO. 1 NAME pN-0001 METERS 663,019.436 1,848,495.065 ELE . (m) 33.314 2 PN-0002 663,349.885 1,848,548.484 32.059 96J 1003 N-03 663,388.424 1,848,384.076 29.620 96J1004 N-04 663,352.641 1,848,404;079 18.270 96J_1005 N-05 663,363.918 1,848,431.609 34.669 9641007 N-07 663,324.669 1,848,457.046 31.409 96J 1009 N-09 663,308.913 1,848,414.509 11.936 98J 1012 N-12 663,210.888 1,848,458.465 28.128 96J 1013 N-13 663,182.540 1,848,459.220 28.568 96J 1016 N-16 663,090.435 1,848,439.334 27.524 96J 1017 N-17 663,082.721 1,848,445.247 34.040 96J 1018 N-18 663,049.541 1,848,436.570 ; 31.012 964_1019 N-19 663,046.879 1,848,430.079 27.627 96J 1020 N-20 663,050.868 1,848,421.545 24.086 96J-1 022 N-22 663,013.637 1,848,418.539 30.407 96J 1023 N-23 662,979.682 1,848,438.444 30.511 96J 1037 3L 663,362.866 1,848,424.958 31.133 96J_1039 4M 663,355.371 1,848,429.520 29.769 96J 1043 5M 663,349.674 1,848,436.004 30.209 96J_1044 5L 663,351.581 1,848,437.755 31.638 ' 96J_1045 6P 663,326.231 1,848,439.677 26.191 96J 1046 6N 663,331.936 1,848,444.706 28.436 96J 1047 6M 663,337.635 1,848,449.717 31.745 Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 321.84 State Plane Coordinates, 1-19-96 Epoch CCS83(1986), Zone 6, NGVD29 STA. NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) NO. NAME U.S. SURVEY FEET ELEV. ft) ' 1 PN-0001 2,175,256.266 6,064,604.226 109.494 2 PN-0002 2,176,340.414 6,064,779.485 105.180 96J 1003 N-03 2,176,466.855 6,064,240.088 97.179 96J 1004 N-04 2,176,349,457 6,064,305.716 59.940 96J 1005 N-05 2,176,386.453 6,064,396.036 113.7.45 96J 1007- N-07 2,176,257.686 6,064,479.493 103,049 9641009 N-09 2,176,205.993 6,064,339.936 39.160 ' 96J 1012 N-12 2,175,884.389 6,064,484.148 92.284 96J 1013 N-13 ::2,175,791.384 6,064,486.625 93.726 9641016 N-16 2,175,489.203 6,064,421.381 90.301 96J 1017 N-17 i 2,175,463.893 6,064,440.780 111.679 96J 1018 N-18 2,175,355.037 6,064,412.312 1101.746 96J 1019 N-19 ' 2,175,346.303 6,064,391.017 90.639 96J-1 020 N-20 ' 2,175,359.388 6,064,363.018 79.023 MCI 022 N-22 2,175,237.241 6,064,353.157 99.760 96J 1023 N-23 2,175,125.841 6,064,418.463 100.101 ' 96J 1037 96J 1039 3L 4M 2,176,383.002 2,176,358.413 6,064,374.215 6,064,389.184 102.141 97.666 96J_1043 5M 2,176,339.722 6,064,410.457 99.110 96J 1044 5L 2,176,345.977 6,064,416.200 103.799 96J 1045 6P 2,176,262.809 6,064,422.506 85.930 96J 1046 6N 2,176,281.525 6,064,439.008 93.295 96J 1047 6M 2,176,300.223 6,064,455.448 104.149 i Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates JN 32184 Gerson, Bakar and Associates Park Newport Monitoring Star *Net Adjustment 32184 Change in Coordinates and Elevations f Enoch 1119196 vs. Prior Epoch 11/28/95 2661.30777.0001 PARK NEWPORT APTS. LAW/CRANDALL, INC. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SLOPE FACING BACKBAY DRIVE PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS ONE PARK PLACE 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CAIMORNU ! Prepared for: ' GERSON BAKAR & ASSOCIATES San Francesco, California ' August 29, 1994 Project 2661.30777.0001 2661.30777.0002 PARK NEWPORT APTS, ALAWXRANDALL, INC. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 0 MONITORING PROGRAM SLOPE FACING BACKBAY DRIVE PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS ONE PARK PLACE • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GERSON BAKAR & ASSOCIATES San Francisco, California September 1, 1994 Project 2661.30777.0002 I I r I n r LAW/CRANDALL; .NC. A \ ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1� November 2, 1994 Mr. Ken Dressell Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, California 94133-3298 Subject: Response to Requests Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backhay Drive Park Newport Apartments Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 Dear Mr. Dressell: As requested, we have further analyzed the survey data given in our report dated September 1, 1994 for the slope facing Backbay Drive. We have also reviewed the recommendations given in our report for the slope monitoring program. The survey data analyses and clarification of our monitoring recommendations are discussed in this letter. The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants prac- ticing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter. The scope of services in our authorized proposal dated July 27, 1993 included several tasks related to the slope facing Backbay Drive.' In Task 4 - Report Preparation, we were to discuss the survey data from Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF). The scope of Task 4 included a discussion of the monument installation, identification of the initial site conditions, and recommendations for additional work. Analysis of the RBF survey data was not included in the scope of our services. However, in our report. we did comment on a limited data analysis performed by RBF. Since the data analysis did not include all the data points, we recommended additional data analysis be performed. A proposal for a survey of the remaining data points and analysis of the survey data generated to date will be mailed to you within two weeks. As part of the monitoring program, we recommended regular reconnaissance and survey of the monuments. Since the failures and observed slope movement in the study area occur primarily during wet winter months, we recommend reconnaissance and survey of the slope between November and April. In general, we recommend a reconnaissance during the latter part of r December to assess slope conditions after onset of precipitation, and one reconnaissance in February to assess the condition of the slope after the peak precipitation period. In general a survey of the monuments would be appropriate after a reconnaissance in February. If distress to r 200 CITADEL DRIVE • LOS ANGELES, CA 9004D (213) 889.5300 • FAX (213) 721.6700 _ ONE OF NE LAW COYCAMES(D Gerson Bakar & Associatt� November 2, 1994 Page 2 the slope or adjacent structures is identified by Park Newport personnel (other than at the prescribed intervals), we recommend a reconnaissance be performed at that time. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, LAAW/CRANDALL, INC. Reinard T. Knur Senior Engineering Geologist r �►yl- _ :. Barry J. Meyer Chief Engineer Ex;..63L-SS 661-2.lt2/klt (2 copies submitted) r—, FFD % t• c T. MNUR CERTIFIED a y ENGMEERING ,a GEDLCGIST c rF�,r 1 1 September 1, 1994 �j LAW/CRANDALL, INC. �\ ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ' Gerson Bakar & Associates 201 Filbert Street San Francisco, California 94133-3298 ' Attention: Mr. Ken Dressel it 1 I 1 Subject: Monitoring Program Slope Facing Backbay Drive Park Newport Apartments Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 Ladies/Gentlemen: Our monitoring program for the slope facing Backbay Drive, Park Newport Apartments, Newport Beach, California is herewith submitted. Our work was authorized by Mr. Ken Dressel of Gerson Bakar & Assoicates. The purpose of our services is to establish a monitoring program which includes determining locations of new survey control points on the slope and adjacent structures and presenting baseline readings. This report is accompanied by a maintenance program for the slope facing Backbay Drive, under a separate cover. The information and recommendations presented in the two reports are complementary. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Respectfully submitted, Z ALL, INC. Reinard T. Knur Senior Engineering Geologist 661/cly (3 copies submitted) Barry J. Meyer Chief Engineer 200 CITADEL DRIVE • LOS ANGELES, CA 90040 (213) 889.530D • FAX (213) 721.6700 ONE OPTHE IOW COMPANIES e MONITORING PROGRAM SLOPE FACING BACKBAY DRIVE PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS ONE PARK PLACE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GERSON BAKAR & ASSOCIATES San Francisco, California Law/Crandall, Inc. Los Angeles, California September 1, 1994 Project 2661.30777.0002• Gerson Baker & Assoaates—Monitoring Program lawlCra ddl Profed 2661.30777.0002 September 1, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Im INTRODUCTION ............................................. iv 1.0 SCOPE ................................................. 1 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................ 1 3.0 BACKGROUND ........................................... 1 4.0 FIELDWORK ............................................. 3 4.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ................................ 3 4.2 SURVEY MONUMENT INSTALLATION ...................... 4 4.3 CRACK MONITOR INSTALLATION AND MEASUREMENT ......... 4 4.4 SURVEYING ........................................ 5 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS .......................................... 5 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 6 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 6 8.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................ 7 9.0 REFERENCES ............................................ 8 TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX A: Survey Data By Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates APPENDIX B: Calibrated Crack Monitor Progress Forms ii Gerson Baker k Auociorel—Monitoring Program Iaw/CModaU Projea 2661.30777.0002 September 1. 1994 Table LIST OF TABLES 1 Exterior Survey Monument Summary 2 Interior Survey Monument Summary (Building 4 - Parking Garage) 3 Crack Monitor Summary (Building 4 - Parking Garage) LIST OF FIGURES Figure I Site Location Map 2 Survey Monument Location Map 3 Sketch of Calibrated Crack Monitor iii I I I I 7 L LI Cenon Bakar A Arrociote+—Monitoring Program September 1, 19W InwlaondaU Project 2661.30Tr1.0002 MI: 0 144MWI This report presents the results of our monitoring program for the slope facing Backbay Drive at the Park Newport Apartments in Newport Beach, California. The monitoring program has been developed for the slope between Big Canyon to the north and San Joaquin Hills Road to the south. This program has been developed in response to evidence of recent as well as pre -historic landslides noted in the study area. Figure 1, Site Location Map, shows the site location relative to surrounding cultural features. A separate report has been prepared addressing slope maintenance issues. This report includes the results of a baseline survey by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) for recently installed and previously existing interior and exterior survey monuments. The previously existing monuments were installed and monitored by RBF. Law/Crandall installed twelve crack monitors and obtained baseline readings. This report also includes recommendations for future periodic monitoring of the survey monuments, crack monitors, and geologic reconnaissance. The data developed from the implementation of the monitoring program will be used by Gerson Bakar & Associates and their consultants as a tool in evaluating slope performance at several locations above the slope and as an aid in developing additional monitoring procedures and future mitigation alternatives. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and'skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for Gerson Bakar & Associates and their design consultants to be used solely in the monitoring of the slope at Park Newport Apartments. This report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses. iv Gerson Bakar d: Assocnares—Momlonng Progmm September 1, 1994 LawlCramdaU Project 2661.307T1.0002 ' 1.0 SCOPE ' The long-term performance of the apartment structures located along the top of the slope facing Backbay Drive is related to the gross and surficial stability of the adjacent slopes. The monitoring program has been developed to provide baseline readings and initiate a regular program for slope ' monitoring adjacent to the structures. ' Our studies included a review of previous geotechnical reports by our firm, published literature review, geologic mapping and reconnaissance. We provided supervision for the installation of the ' interior and exterior survey monuments. A baseline survey of the monuments was performed by RBF. ' 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS The Park Newport Apartments are located on the Promontory Point terrace on the east side of Upper Newport Bay. The study area for this report is bounded by Big Canyon to the north, the Park Newport Apartment buildings to the east, San Joaquin Hills Road to the south, and Backbay Drive to the west. The slopes facing Backbay Drive are up to 90 feet high at gradients of th:1 to 1 th:l (horizontal to vertical), with portions of the slope at near -vertical inclinations. The northern slopes facing Big Canyon are generally flatter with a gradient of U:1 to 31h:1, and the southern slopes facing San Joaquin Hills Road vary from near vertical to 1 1h:1. Existing site improvements include several apartment buildings, townhouses, a clubhouse and a large swimming pool. Asphalt -paved walkways, retaining walls, and water conveyance devices separate the existing buildings from the slope face. 3.0 BACKGROUND Law/Crandall (formerly LeRoy Crandall & Associates) has performed several geotechnical investigations at the Park Newport Apartments. A foundation investigation by LeRoy Crandall and Associates (LCA) dated November 21, 1968, identified several landslides and surficial failures on 1 Genoa Bakar h Arrodater—Monitoring Program September 1, IM lawlCrandaU Project 2661.30TTJ.0002 ' the slopes bordering the site. LCA reported that the landslides were primarily due to adverse bedding conditions and weak bedrock materials. LCA recommended a building setback line located away from the face of the slope around the limits of existing landslides or areas of potential instability. The proposed structures were ' recommended to be built behind the setback line or have their foundations extend below a critical plane defined by the setback line. To reduce water infiltration on the terrace, LCA recommended an impermeable blanket of compacted fill was to be placed adjacent to landslide -prone slopes; in addition, a cut-off trench was recommended. LCA advised that more than usual maintenance of ' the slope would be required. To reduce erosion of the slope, LCA recommended the site be graded so that surface water would drain away from the slope face. Grading for the Park Newport ' Apartments began in September 1969. „ �y ' After a heavy rainfall in 1978, a landslide occurred below the structures occupied by townhomes 4570 to 4830 near the southern end of Park Newport Apartments. LCA reports dated March 10, ' 1978 and July 19, 1978 presented recommendations to support the affected structures. The recommendations were followed, and retaining walls were constructed at the apartments near the ' northeast corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Backbay Drive. ' During the spring of 1978, surface cracks were noticed in an asphalt walkway adjacent to the southwest exterior wall of the Building 4 parking garage and in the garage floor slab, parallel to ' the southwest exterior wall. Structural improvements were made to the southwest wall of the ✓ garage. To monitor movement of the slope and cracks in the southwest wall of the Building 4 parking garage, a survey program was implemented. Thirty exterior and 19 interior survey monuments ' were installed in May 1978. The exterior monuments consisted of 2-inch-diameter pipes filled with concrete and labeled with a brass tag. Interior monuments consisted of a chiseled "X" or a nail ' set into the floor slab, walls, or columns. The monuments were surveyed in both horizontal and vertical directions intermittently from May 1978 to April 1989 by RBF. 1 2 1 September 1, 1994 ' Gerson Bakar & Associates —Monitoring Program lawlOwdaB Project 2661.30777.0002 1 I 1 1 1 II II II II II �I In November 1978, a small landslide occurred within a larger, ancient landslide south of Building 4. A report by LCA dated June 28, 1979 evaluated the stability of the slope south of Building 4 and recommended slope monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce water infiltration and erosive runoff. Asphalt berms and pipe drains to Backbay Drive were constructed. In January 1993, after a period of intense rainfall, a landslide occurred on the southern slope of Promontory Point,120 feet west of Building 4. No buildings were affected but Backbay Drive was covered with landslide deposits. The road was closed until the following May when landslide deposits were removed and the landslide scarp was regraded. 4.0 FIELD WORK 4.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE We performed a site reconnaissance of the slope facing Backbay Drive on May 12, 1994. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to update our geologic map and to identify tensional features that may be indicative of significant downslope movement. A discussion of site geology was addressed in our previous reports. We identified several small landslides and the previously installed survey monuments by RBF during our reconnaissance. Site geology and the survey monuments are shown on Figure 2, Survey Monument Location Map. Some of the landslides encroach near the existing structures. Cracking or distress to structures was noted primarily adjacent to and within the Building 4 parking garage. The asphalt walkway on the southwest side of the building showed indications of water ponding, which is indicative of settlement. Cracks in the southwest wail of the Building 4 parking garage were also noted; however it was not possible to identify when the cracks initially occurred. A small failure was noted near the stairs on the southwest side of Building 4 outside the perimeter fence parking garage southwest wall. A white polyvinyl (PVC) pipe was exposed in the failure scarp. The soils near the pipe were very moist, indicating a leak. Cracks in the soil observed during the rainstorms of January 1993, near the top of the slope between the Spa and Townhouse 4570, near the southern end of the study area, did not appear to I 3 ' Gerson Bakar & Associates —Monitoring Program September 1, 1994 Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 ' have moved appreciably since winter 1993. The hardscape improvements located directly upslope of the cracks did not appear to be affected by movement. ' 4.2 SURVEY MONUMENT INSTALLATION Monuments were installed on the slope south of Building 4 and in the southwest portion of the Building 4 parking garage. Surveys of the monuments were performed by RBF at irregular ' intervals from May 1978 to April 1989. Based on the location of previously trapped landslides and observations of recent slope movements, several additional locations were chosen by LCA for ' monument installation. ' Damaged or missing exterior survey monuments from the previous survey by RBF were replaced and 21 new monuments were installed. A total of 40 exterior monuments are currently located in the study area. Three survey monuments were placed at off -site locations for reference. The locations of the exterior survey monuments relative to known geologic conditions are shown on Figure 2. A description of the exterior survey monuments is included on Table 1, Exterior Survey Monument Summary. The damaged or missing monuments within the Building 4 parking garage were identified and replaced. No new survey monument installations were made in the parking garage. A total of 36 monuments are located near the southwest wall of the Building 4 parking garage interior. The locations of the interior monuments are shown on Figure 3, Interior Survey Monument Location Map. A description of the interior survey monuments is included on Table 2, Interior Survey Monument Summary - Building 4 Parking Garage. Data regarding the measurement of the various survey monuments by RBF is presented in Appendix A. ' 4.3 CRACK MONITOR INSTALLATION AND MEASUREMENT Twelve crack monitors were located and installed by Law/Crandall on the southwest wall of the Building 4 parking garage. The crack monitors were installed across cracks identified during the site reconnaissance. The crack monitors are constructed with overlapping pieces of PVC plastic 4 I Gerson Bakar & Associates —Monitoring Program September 1. 1994 law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 fastened to each side of the crack. The lower portion of the monitor is opaque plastic embossed with a grid pattern. The upper portion of the monitor is translucent, with the exception of embossed cross -hairs. A hinged metal cover was mounted over the crack monitors to protect them from vandalism. A diagram of a typical crack monitor is included as Figure 3, Sketch of Calibrated Crack Monitor. The locations of the calibrated crack monitors are shown on Figure 2. A description of each crack monitor installation is included on Table 3, Crack Monitor Summary, Building 4 Parking Garage - Southwest Wall. The calibrated crack monitors were measured by Law/Crandall personnel on July 13, 1994. Figures identifying the relative positions of the crack monitors are included in Appendix B, Calibrated Crack Monitor Progress Sheet. The progress sheets will be updated with each site reconnaissance. C1,wYiaAli *V Q04 All of the exterior survey monuments were surveyed by RBF to determine both horizontal and vertical positions. The exterior monuments were surveyed on January 6, 1994 by RBF using Global Positioning System Interferometric Surveying Techniques. A copy of the data generated by RBF is presented in Appendix A. The exterior survey monument horizontal positions are reported relative to state plane coordinates and ellipsoidal coordinates; the vertical positions are reported relative to mean sea level. All of the interior monuments were surveyed by RBF on December 5, 1993 using traditional surveying methods. The lateral distances between the interior survey monuments was measured; the vertical positions are reported relative to mean sea level. 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS A comparison of data from the earlier and the current surveys was made by RBF for the intact interior survey monuments. RBF calculated monument elevation displacements between the prior reading in April 1989 and the recent survey in December 1993. These values shown in Appendix A range between -0.009 to 0.038 feet. The differences between readings of May 1978 Gj 1. Gerson Bakar h Associates —Monitoring Program - September 1, 1994 Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 1. 1. 1. 1. II II and December 1993 range from -0.068 to 0.042 feet. The survey data indicates that most of the monuments apparently displaced upwards relative to mean sea level. Monument lateral displacements ranging from 0.0 to 0.015 feet were calculated for the period between April 1989 and December 1993 across the former crack in the Building 4 parking garage floor slab. Total lateral displacement since May 1978 ranges from 0.005 to 0.064 feet. The exterior survey monument horizontal locations were not compared. The precision of the survey is 0.01 feet. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS The comparison of the survey data by RBF indicate that some movement has occurred across the repaired crack in the Building 4 parking garage. The lateral monument displacement is consistent with shape and orientation of the crack. The rise in the monument elevation measured since earlier surveys is possibly associated with settlement of the reference point relative to the surveyed monuments. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our observations and limited analysis of survey data by RBF, displacement of the slope facing Backbay Drive and the Building 4 parking garage southwest wall has occurred. We recommend additional analysis of the enclosed survey data as well as regular reconnaissance and surveys of the monuments. During the next survey to be performed on the site, the reference point elevation for the interior survey monuments should' be verified. Park Newport maintenance personnel should regularly perform routine checks of the slope and performance of Building 4. If irregularities such as cracks, water ponding areas, fences out of plumb, etc., are noted, our office should be notified so that a more detailed site reconnaissance can be performed. In general, a site reconnaissance of the slope and readings of the calibrated crack monitors is suggested on an annual basis, after the rainy winter months, unless slope or building irregularities are noted where more frequent measurements may be necessary. 3 rGerson Dakar d Associates—Madtonng Progmm September 1, 1994 !aw/LYandaU Project 2661.30777.0002 r 1 r r r r 8.0 LIMITATIONS The purpose of the monitoring program is to provide measurements of slope and building movement. Although the monitoring program can provide information concerning slope movement, it is possible that sudden slope movement may occur that does not allow the initiation of a mitigation plan in sufficient time to stop or reduce the amount of slope movement. I Gerron Bakar h Associates —Monitoring Program September 1, 1994 Iawl&amdaG Project 2661.30777.0002 9.0 REFERENCES Brownlee, W.R., Taylor, B.D., 1981, Inland Sediment Movements by Natural Process, Management for Southern California Mountains, Coastal Plains and Shoreline,Environmental Quality Laboratory, California Institute of Technology EQL Report No. 17-B. California Department of Water Resources, 1967, "Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County." Campbell, R.H., 1975, "Soil Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorm in the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California", U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 851. Department of Building and Safety, City of Los Angeles, 1970, "Guide for Erosion and Debris Control in Hillside Areas". Department of Conservation, Resources Agency, 1981, "Erosion of Sediment Control Handbook, State of California". LeRoy Crandall and Associates, April 30, 1991, "Geologic Evaluation of Slope Below Building 4, Newport Beach, California, for Park Newport Apartments", (LCA 09101 LEO). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, June 28, 1979, "Report of Slope Stability Study, West Facing Slope Adjacent to Building 4, Park Newport Apartments, San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, California, for Gerson-Bakar & Associates", (AE-79072). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, July 19, 1978, "Suggestions for Slope Repairs, Existing Slope West of Buildings 32, 35, 3.6 and 37, Park Newport Apartments, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, California", (C-78019). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, July 7, 1970, "Recommendations for Drainage and Erosion Control, Buildings 4, 5, .and 6, Proposed Park Newport Apartments, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, California", (A-68249). LeRoy Crandall and Associates, December 26, 1968, "Report of Soil and Foundation Investigation — Phase I, Proposed Headlands Apartments, Promontory Point Area, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, California, for Gerson-Bakar & Associates", (A- 68249). Mayor's Landslide Committee, 1967, "Landslide and Attendant Problems", City of Los Angeles, ' A Report to the Mayor. Mitchell, J.K., Villet, W.C.B., 1987, "Reinforcement of Earth Slopes and Embankments", Transportation Research Board, Report 290. I Gereon Bakar ! Assodxes—Monitoring Ptvgm September 1. 1994 law/ChmdaU Project 2661.30T1J.0002 Morton, P.K., and Greensfelder, R.W., 1976, "Map Showing Recency of Faulting, Relative Seismic Shaking, Liquefaction Potential and Earthquake Epicenters of Orange County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 79-8LA. Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Fife, D.L., 1973, "Preliminary Geo-environmental Maps of Orange County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. Schuster, R.L., Krizer, R.S., 1978, "Landslides, Analysis and Control", Transportation Research Board, Special Report, 176. Sprotte, E.C., Fuller, O.R., Greenwood, R.B., Mumm, H.A., Real, C.R., Sherbourne, R.W., 1980, "Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits of Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 80-19LA. ' Tan, S.S., and Edgington, W.J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 127. U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Newport Beach Quadrangle, 1965, Photorevised 1981. 1 I 1 I Woodward -McNeill & Associates,1972, "Geologic Seismic Study; Phase I for the City of Newport Beach." Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T,H„ Schoellhamer, J.E., and Vedder, J.G., 1965, "Geology of the Los Angeles Basin - An Introduction," U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 420-A. Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface -Faulting Potential," in Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in Los Angeles Region - an Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360. 9 Gerson Bakar & Assodatts—Moniroring Program September 1, 1990 IawlCra daU Projea 2661.30TI1.0002 I I' G�zIMx1 September 1, 1994 A 2661.30777.0002 Page 1 II I I I I 1! I I I I Table 1 Exterior Survey Monument Summary Station Number Name Monument Description I PN-0001 1.5" bronze disk in concrete walk 2 PN4M 1.5" bronze disk in concrete walk 6249 OCS 6249 2" bronze disk in monument well (off -site control reference) 1003 N-03 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1004 N-02 1.5' bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1005 N-05 1.5" bronze disk in concrete roof of parking garage 1006 N-06 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1007 N-07 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1008 N-08 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1009 N-09 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1010 N-10 1.5" bronze disk in 2" pipe with concrete collar 1011 N-11 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1012 N-12 1.5" bronze disk in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1013 N-13 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1014 N-14 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1015 N-15 1.5' bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1016 N-16 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1017 N-17 1.5" bronze disk in top of block wall 1018 N-18 Punched spike in top if wooden pile 1019 N-19 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1020 N-20 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1021 N-21 Punched spike in top of wooden pile 1022 N-22 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1023 N-23 1.5" bronze disk in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1030 M Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 11 setnom-aruoy Ly I September 1, 1994 2661.30777.0002 Page 2 Table 1 Exterior Survey Monument Summary •� Station Number Name Monument Description 1031 L Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar '- 1032 1M Nail tag in 2" iron and pipe with concrete collar 1033 1K Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete. collar Nail and tag in 2" iron 1034 2M pipe with concrete collar 1035 2K Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1036 3M Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1037 3L Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar ' 1038 4N Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1039 4M Nail and tag in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1040 4L Nail and tag in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1041 SP Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1042 SN Nail and tag in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1043 5M Nail and tag in 2' iron pipe with concrete collar 1044 5L Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1045 6P Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1046 6N Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1047 6M Nail and tag in 2" iron pipe with concrete collar 1048 6L Spike and Washer in Asphalt Walk (Down 0.3 feet) 061/lDrrA2rl/cy . I I I I I I September 1, 1994 2661.30777,0102 Page 1 Table 2 Interior Survey Monument Summary (Building 4 - Parking Garage) Interior Survey Monuments Monument Description IA Lead and tack 1B Lead and tack IC Lead and tack 1D Lead and tack 1DE Lead and tack IE Lead and tack IEF Lead and tack 1F Lead and tack 1FG Lead and tack IG Lead and tack 1H Lead and tack 1I Lead and tack II Lead and tack 2A Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 2C Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 2E Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 2G Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 2H Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 21 Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 27 Concrete nail 1.0', above floor in 12" column 3A Lead and tack 3B Lead and tack 3D Lead and tack 3DE Lead and tack I September 1, 1994 2661.30777.0002 Page 2 Table 2 Interior Survey Monument Summary (Building 4 - Parking Garage) Interior Survey Monuments Monument Description 3E Lead and tack 3EF Lead and tack 3F Lead and tack 3FG Lead and tack ' 3H Lead and tack 4D Lead and tack 4DE Lead and tack 4E Lead and tack 4EF Lead and tack 4F Lead and tack 4FG Lead and tack 4G Lead and tack September 1, 1994 2661.30777.0002 Page 1 Table 3 Crack Monitor Summary (Building 4 - Parking Garage) Crack Monitor Height Monitor Wall Monitor Above Ground Number Crack Orientation Orientation Orientation' (feet) CM -1 Horizontal, in column, at Southwest- Vertical 6.75 bottom of beam line Northeast CM-2 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7.75 grout between wall blocks Southeast CM-3 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7.0 grout between wall blocks Sotuheast CM-4 Dips 300 from horizontal, Northwest- Dip 600 to 6.75 in wail, to northwest across Southeast southwest blocks CM-5 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7 grout between wall blocks Southeast CM-6 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7 grout between wall blocks Southeast CM-7 Horizontal, in column, at Southwest- Vertical 6.5 base of beam across blocks Northeast CM-8 Horizontal, in column, in Northwest- Vertical 6.25 blocks 6 inches below base Southeast of beam CM-9 Dips 45° from horizontal Northwest- Dips 450 to 7 to southeast; across blocks Southeast northwest CM-10 Horizontal, in column, at Southwest- Vertical 6.5 . bottom of beam contact Northeast CM-11 Horizontal, in wall, in Northwest- Vertical 7.6 - grout between blocks Southeast CM-12 Vertical, in column at Southwest- Horizontal 7.0 beans- column connection Northeast Notes: ' Crack monitor vertical and horizontal orientation is in reference to long axis of monitor. 66Inom-2.rx y I pi 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 E 11 t Gerson Bakar & dssociares—Monitoring Program September 1, 1994 Law/Crandall Project 2661.30777.0002 i FIGURES 1 1 ':-•'h;.�"e%' • _ - SPILLWAY POIN WE FMi? Jit IV' jo •• y,t,• J Y I • � .: • •M:,@ • ,s _ `"mow �I T I u •I '" ,}tr „ •.1.� . C !" )e � BMiti."o" ' se. non rr. BM •� ~' wwt IRVINS '1 •• I,K/'b I ''•a••_. '�MIitlee I \) ~o' -�Q�jI I ,u 1I '-mot• � o. \�scp`•.�i� y� � . ?Tffir ` \� • 96 ` 73 -T,- terLigbi_•::,'.'t r q c4 ••- ,V4AYr1.IJt/YbWY11l` 3b`'� - � � '• N1�P �� EYSL' i Wit, HI\I' x ' , �( '.\ "tilt_.. I \ '� . — ! i � ry• 14 R_ F_FF_R_F__NC5F U.S.G.S. 7.5' LAGUNA BEACH, NEWPORT BEACH AND TUSTIN QUADRANGLES 1965, PHOTOREVISED 1981. N SITE LOCATION MAP PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORNIA scale Feat LAW/CRANDALL, INC. FIGURE 1 I e 90RHO 3 DORM 4 79 t2-5 BORING 2 [17 12 16 24.5 25 17 / DORM 6 ' 29 20S }7 to A , 4 72 22l` 32 ✓� BDRMc , � 20 � � 13 ,' 40 24 12 F� 33 5 10 T.D. St' 9� 24.5 12 tS lay 25 T.D.37 20' T 30.5 52y 26 T 30 \ TO St' I 20 a-i•- 27 f 41.5 \ \ I 1� 42 T.D. 31' \ I T 42 \ \ T•0^ 6f' , I \ ` I .018 \ \ i BLDG. 4-\ I ;ell I ! 1 ,,. � � j .1 �� + � ,' � � a ;> •�' \ \ \ 0 26.30 j\ c3150 \ BLDG. 4 \ Also 3180 ., \ oM 3,90 3210 A \ I+k , LAND6LLDE 1/90 1 i i Fp / ` �--_---.. !,. •;• � �" rot ��', / /,,;'l, - � 9 • �. oarsat BORING 7 10a a.`s it ,3- 7 14\ 11.s 14{ 14 TA 21' MCI 1 BORING 7 27t 10 D 12 15 19 10L \n 0 23 {10 30 IF 35 I' 3 40 /i9 48 2 ,so p9 80 ras �a at f 2 93 T.D. 100' DORI140 B h0 '12 19 T 25 h2 29 15 37 is 40.5 T.D. 21' I BORM e 20\ 6 23� 10 Z01 16 2SA 20 224 ,25 271 30 1B/ 35 20j 38 22� 43 2s\ 47 30\ 60 20� d 23\ 60 26\ 62 26\ 70 T.D. 76' SPA BORING S A2 13 //62 to / , 26 6� 28 32 SO �38 41 47" 45 49 40 42- 52 z- .58 66'\`as 1 14"m ' ` V ' • LANDBL.><7E 11i78 \ j / EXPLANATION: e N-aoo2 MONITORING REI=ERENCE STATION --AND NUMBER 01031 RECENTLY INSTALLED MONITORING STATION AND. NUMBER'S • 1046 PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED .MONITORING .STATION AND NUMBER • CRACK MONITOR LObATION .AND NUMBER • . `'ter..!/ '—�—_`\ : •'� 0 PREVIOUSLY DRILLED : BORING (LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES JOB NO. AE.79072 DATED '6/26/79) .4) PREVIOUSLY 'DRILLED BORING (LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES . JOB NO. A68249 DATE 12/26/68) at ARTIFICIAL FILL QUATERNARY;=ALLl1VIUM _-.. :..:�. �>,• -_ _-• : ' ...: - .:_ _. - • :._ 0119 QUATERNARY. LANDSLIDE .DEPOSITS QUATERNARY TERRACE, DEPOSITS . Tm TERTIARY MONitREY .FORMATION GEOLOGIC CONTACT APPROXIMATE . LIf t P LANDSLIDE {1J} ARROW IN AppkOXI�ATE DIRECTION OF' SLIPPAGE ELEVATION ,00NTOUR 0, FEET y STRIKE" AND : DIP` OF � btbDING; : P0iOR LANDSLIDE ; E F E I` N C E: 2k . STRIKE AND �IP., tJF § CKENSibk'.. -TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (DATED 3/16/93) BY ' kOb R REIN, WILLIAM FROST Ric ASSOCIATES GROUNDWATER •SEi`PIGE ; DORM 4 36 17 DOING 3 u 1 21 27/ 24 y 26 2y 29 J- 35 401 33 2b 40 41 41 y 43 43 i 40 4 49 2 y 64 33 22 L_ 60 4e 53 �— as t0. or T.D. 9S .1 BLDG. 3 IVL� SCALE: V = 60' CONTOUR INTERVAL 1 and 5' t •rnx2V ?9'-I L 4640 ki LXgAAND" 200 Citadel 181E Cellg 1 zrs, i�• X7._. CALIBRATED CRACK METAL COVER TO PROTECT MONITOR LONG AXIS OF MONITOR OPAQUE PLASTIC WITH PRINTED GRID PATTERN IN WALL COVER - NICE: EXTRA MOUNTING HOLES NOTES: - GRID PATTERN IN MILLIMETERS - 3 MILLIMETERS CLEARANCE BETWEEN TOP OF DEVICE AND BOTTOM OF METAL COVER MOUNTING SCREW AND WASHER IN OVERSIZED HOLE r- MOUNTING SCREWS CLEAR PLASTIC WITH CROSS HAIRS LOCKING SCREW AND WASHER IN OVERSIZED HOLE LAW/CRANDALL, INC. �I FIGURE 3 Gerion Baiar A Associates —Monitoring Progmm lawlCramdaA Project 2661.30TT1.0002 September 1, 1996 APPENDIX A SURVEY DATA BY ROBERT BEIN, WMLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES 9ober't cBeiil,�Williarn `FYost 6&C,9ssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. PLANNERS & SURVEYORS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ' TO: LAW/CRANDALI, INC. DATE: January 31, 1994 200 Citadel Drive F JOB NO.: 30424 ' Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 REFERENCE: Park Newport DESCRIPTION: Monitoring ATTN: Mr. Reinard Knur TENT TO Mail BMessenger BBlueprinter Overnight Delivery YOU VIA: NFax Modem Your Pick -Up ' NO.OF NO.OF DESCRIPTION COPIES SHEETS ' 1 Sheet 1 of Park Newport Exhibit 1 Coordinate Lists in Ellipsoidal and State Plan Terms t SENT FOR YOUR: Approval Approval Review Comments HInformation Per Your Request 1 XBUse X Released REMARKS: ROBERT XN, WSJ I IAM OST & ASSOCIATES BY: Daniel W. Bustamant.e }� ' Project Surveyor GPS Services COPIES TO: 1472E ALTON PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 19739 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92713.9739 • (714) 472.3505 • FAX (714) 472.8373 OFFICES IN CORONA • DENVER • PALM DESERT . SACRAMENTO • SAN DIEGO • TEMF(")I A L Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 ST l 'NO 1 2 '1003 1004 1005 ' 1006 1007 • 1008 1009 1010 1011 ' 1012 1013 1014 ' 1015 1016 '1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 '1023 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 ' 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 ' 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 '1046 1047 1048 STATE PLANE COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH PN-0002 N-03 N-02 N-05 N-06 N-07 N-08 N-09 N-10 N-11 N-12 N-13 N-14 N-15 N-16 N-17 N-18 N-19 N-20 N-21 N-22 N-23 M L I 1K 2M 2K 3M 3L 4N 4M 4L 5P 5N 5M 5L 6P 6N 6M 6L O WIPIIUTMAF�#14� 2,176,340.414 2,176,466.838 2,176,349.450 2,176,386.464 2,176,384.164 2,176,257.623 2,176,184.706 2,176,206.015 2,176,084.375 2,176,044.972 2,175,884.428 2,175,791.357 2,175,735.229 2,17508.359 2,175,489.169 2,175,463.871 2,175,355.029 2,175,346.263 2,175,359.258 2,175,283.373 2,175,237.241 2,175,125.850 2,176,479.965 2,176,486.346 2,176,441.113 2,176,450.788 2,176,407.534 2,176,418.564 2,176,377.911 2,176,382.878 2,176,339.752 2,176,358.508 2,176,363.928 2,176,302.330 2,176,321.064 2,176,339.781 2,176,346.031 2,176,263.508 2,176,281.523 2,176,300.221 2,176,306.825 6,064,779.485 6,064,240.080 6,064,305.765 6,064,396.021 6,064,205.910 6,064,479.469 6,064,439.321 6,064,339.964 6,064,439.308 6,064,486.913 6,064,484.174 6,064,486.601 6,064,458.097 6,064,462.737 6,064,421.362 6,064,440.735 6,064,412.261 6,064,391.034 6,064,363.098 6,064,377.317 6,064,353.107 6,064,418.458 6,064,251.352 6,064,256.973 6,064,295.542 6,064,306.218 6,064,333.505 6,064,342.907 6,064,367.241 6,064,374.197 6,064,372.740 6,064,389.262 6,064,395.315 6,064,377.563 6,064,394.098 6,064,410.479 6,064,416.221 6,064,423.147 6,064,438.990 6,064,455.437 6,064,460.955 105.180 97.170 59.943 113.788 27.527 103.084 82.961 39.173 76.354 89.414 92.240 93.635 91.304 96.696 90.392 111.680 101.735 90.748 79.171 101.705 99.740 100.119 103.236 102.760 96.698 103.730 96.144 103.957 96.826 102.430 86.773 97.636 103.436 81.077 99.132 103.699 85.953 93.315 104.195 M. M Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 ELLIPSOIDAL COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH GRS80 ELLIPSOID, NAD83(1986) NGVD29 STATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELLIPSE -.GEIOD93 NO _ NAME D M: S D M ' S HGT (rri) ELV (m) HGT (m) 1 PN-0001 33 37 33.19470 117 52 58.55220 -1.510 33.374-34.884 c VN-000z . 33 37 43.94631 117 52 56.68056 -2.813 32.059 -34.872 1003 N-03 33 37 45.11331 117 53 3.08249 -5.278 29.618 -34.896 1004 N-02 33 37 43.96228 117 53 2.28401 -16.613 18.271 -34.884 1005 N-05 33 37 44.34241 117 53 1.22357 -0.200 34.683 -34.883 1006 N-06 33 37 44.29021 117 53 3.47122 -26.496 8.390 -34.886 1007 N-07 33 37 43.08085 117 53 0.21294 -3.473 31.420 -34.893 1008 N-08 33 37 42.35333 117 53 0.67415 -9.596 25.287 -34.883 1009 N-09 33 37 42.54871 117 53 1.85301 -22.944 11.940 -34.884 1010 N-10 33 37 41.36086 117 53 0.65574 -11.610 23.273 -34.883 1011 N-11 33 37 40.97847 117 53 0.08550 -7.629 27.253 -34.883 1012 N-12 33 37 39.38991 117 53 0.08815 -6.768 28.115 -34.883 1013 N-13 33 37 38.46964 117 53 0.04219 -6.343 28.540 -34.884 1014 N-14 33 37 37.90998 117 53 0.36885 -7.055 27.829 -34.884 1015 N-15 33 37 37.15031 117 53 0.29977 -5.411 29.473 -34.884 1016 N-16 33 37 35.47028 117 53 0.75768 -7.334 27.552 -34.886 1017 N-17 33 37 35.22300 117 53 0.52390 -0.846 34.040 -34.885 1018 N-18 33 37 34.14194 117 53 0.84043 -3.877 31.009 -34.886 1019 N-19 33 37 34.05192 117 53' 1.08979 -7.227 27.660 -34.887 1020 N-20 33 37 34.17616 117 53 1.42253 -10.756 24.131 -34.887 1021 N-21 33 37 33.42769 117 53 1.24037 -3.887 31.000 -34.887 1022 N-22 33 37 32.96760 117 53 1.51808 -4.458 30.401 -34.859 1023 N-23 33 37 31.87585 117 53 0.72467 -4.375 30.516 -34.891 1030 M 33 37 45.24492 117 53 2.95162 -3.418 31.466 -34.884 1031 L 33 37 45.30891 117 53 2.88635 -3.563 31.321 -34.884 1032 1M 33 37 44.86744 117 53 2.42188 -5.415 29.474 -34.889 1033 1 K 33 37 44.96481 117 53 2.29741 -3.267 31.617 -34.884 1034 2M 33 37 -44.54114 117 53 1.96675 -5.579 29.305 -34.883' 1035 2K 33 37 44.65171 117 53 1.85761 -3.197 31.686 -34.883 1036 3M 33 37 44.25337 117 53 • 1.56229 -5.370 29.513 -34.883 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 ELLIPSOIDAL COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH GRS80 ELLIPSOID, NAD83 1986 , NGVD29 STATION :. LATITUDE LONGITUDE .:.. ELLIPSE . .:.GEIOD93 NO _ NAME ' D M • S D M 5 HGT. m . . ELV. m ' HGT. in 1037 3L 33 37 44.30356 117 53 1.48098 -3.662 31.221-34.883 1038 4N 33 37 43.87672 117 53 1.49021 -8.434 26.449 -34.883 1039 4M 33 37 44.06484 117 53 1.29830 -5.123 29.760 -34.883 1040 4L 33 37 44.11938 117 53 1.22773 -3.355 31.527 -34.883 1041 5P 33 '37 43.50731 117 53 1.42625 -10.171 24.712 -34.883 1042 5N 33 37 43.69518 117 53 1.23417 1043 5M 33 37 43.88286 117 53 1.04396 -4.667 30.215 -34.882 1044 5L 33 37 43.94558 117 53 0.97722 -3.275 31.607 -34.882 1045 6P 33 37 43.13036 117 53 0.88002 -8.684 26.199 -34.883 1046 6N 33 37 43.31100 117 53 0.69601 -6.440 28.443 -34.882 1047 6M 33 37 43.49851 117 53 0.50501 - -3.124 31.759 -34.883 1048 6L 33 37 43.56470 117 53 0.44095 Robert Hein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 STATE PLANE COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH CCS83 1986 , ZONE 6 STATION NORTHING(Y) EASTING(X) CONVERGENCE_: GRID . HEIGHT.' NO : - NAME METERS METERS D .: M S . - • SCALE SCALE: FACTO 1 PN-0001 663,019.436 1,848,495.065 -0 53 50.37 0.9999671 1.0000002 0.9999673 z rrv-uuuz bb3,J4U.885 1,648,548.484 -0 53 49.34 0.9999673 1.0000004 0.9999678 1003 N-03 663,388.419 1,848,384.073 -0 53 52.86 0.9999674 1.0000008 0.9999682 1004 N-02 663,352.639 1,848,404.094 -0 53 52.42 0.9999673 1.0000026 0.9999700 1005 N-05 663.363.921 1,848,431.604 -0 53 51.84 0.9999674 1.0000000 0.9999674 1006 N-06 663,363.220 1,848,373.658 -0 53 53.07 0.9999674 1.0000042 0.9999715 1007 N-07 663.324.650 1,848,457.039 -0 53 51.28 0.9999673 1.0000005 0.9999679 1008 N-08 663,302.425 1,848,444.802 -0 53 51.53 0.9999673 1.0000015 0.9999688 1009 N-09 663,308.920 1,848,414.518 -0 53 52.18 0.9999673 1:0000036 0.9999709 1010 N-10 663,271.844 1,848,444.798 -0 53 51.52 0.9999673 1.0000018 0.9999691 1011 N-11 663,259.834 1,848,459.308 -0 53 51.21 0.9999673 1.0000012 0.9999685 1012 N-12 663,210.900 1,848,458.473 -0 53 51.21 0.9999672 1.0000011 0.9999683 1013 N-13 663,182.532 1,848,459.213 -0 53 51.19 0.9999672 1.0000010 0.9999682 1014 N-14 663,165.424 1,848,450.525 -0 53 51.37 0.9999672 1.0000011 0.9999683 1015 N-15 663,141.994 1,848,451.939 -0 53 51.33 0.9999672 1.0000008 0.9999680 1016 N-16 663,090.425 1,848,439.328 -0 53 51.58 0.9999671 1.0000012 0.9999683 1017 N-17 663,082.714 1,848,445.233 -0 53 51.45 0.9999671 1.0000001 0.9999673 1018 N-18 663,049.539 1,848,436,554 -0 53 51.63 0.9999671 1.0000006 0.9999677 1019 N-19 663,046.867 1,848,430.084 -0 53 51.76 0.9999671 1.0000011 0.9999682 1020 N-20 663,050.828 1,848,421.569 -0 53 51.95 0.9999671 1.0000017 0.9999688 1021 N-21 663,027.698 1,848,425.903 -0 53 51.84 0.9999671 1.0000006 0.9999677 1022 N-22 663,013.637 1,848,418.524 -0 53 52.00 0.9999671 1.0000007 0.9999678 1023 N-23 662,979.685 1,848,438.443 -0 53 51.56 0.9999670 1.0000007 0.9999677 1030 M 663,392.420 1,848,387.509 -0 53 52.79 0.9999674 1.0000005 0.9999679 1031 L 663,394.365 1,848,389.222 -0 53 52.75 0.9999674 1.0000006 0.9999679 1032 1M 663,380.578 1,848,400.978 -0 53 52.49 0.9999674 1.0000009 0.9999682 1033 1K 663,383.527 1,848,404.232 -0 53 52.43 0.9999674 1.0000005 0.9999679 1034 2M- 663,370.343 1,848,412.549 -0 53 52.24 0.9999674 1.0000009 0.9999682 1035 ' 2K 663,373.705 - 1,848,415.415 -0 53 52.18 0.9999674 1.0000005 0.9999679 1036 3M 663,361.314 1,848,422.832 -0 53 52.02 0.9999674 1.0000008 0.9999682 M. S. M. M. M- t Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 EW E. =- = = I•. ow =_ = w STATE PLANE COORDINATES 01/06/94 EPOCH CCS83(1986), ZONE 6 STATION-. NORTHING(Y) • EASTING(X) CONVERGENCE_: • GRID :: HEIGHT COMBINE[ 40. NAME. METERS METERS D ': M. • IS. SCALE ... SCALE: FACTO[ 1037 3L 663,362.828 1,848,424.952 -0 53 51.98 0.9999674 1.0000006 0.9999679 MOO f1Y oos,14`J.0tS3 1,84s,424.508 -0 53 51.98 0.9999673 1039 4M 663,355.400 1,848,429.544 -0 53 51.88 0.9999673 1040 4L 663,357.052 - 1,848,431.389 -0 53 51.84 0.9999674 1041 5P 663,338.277 1,848,425.978 -0 53 51.95 0.9999673 1042 5N 663,343.987 1,848,431.018 -0 53 51.84 0.9999673 1043 5M 663,349.692 1,846,436.011 -0 53 51.74 0.9999673 1044 5L 663,351.597 1,848,437.761 -0 53 51.70 0.9999673 1045 6P 663,326.444 1,848,439.872 -0 53 51.65 0.9999673 1046 6N 663,331.935 1,848,444.701 -0 53 51.55 0.9999673 1047 6M 663,337.634 1,848,449.714 -0• 53 51.44 0.9999673 1048 6L 663,339.647 1,848,451.396 -0 53 51.41 ' 0.9999673 1.0000013 0.9999687 1.0000008 0.9999682 1.0000005 0.9999679 1.0000016 0.9999689 1.0000007 0.9999681 1.0000005 0.9999679 1.0000014 0.9999687 1.0000010 0.9999683 1.0000005 0.9999678 .r,.!�A`� �...� t'.,. • � ^ � Y+r�rWrr rr�i� + r _ __ _ _ _ _—__ '_ ___ _ n .ar.r-.—...'.....�._ . PARK NEWPORT. _MONIT00, G SURVFY n D..........MONITORING REFERENCE STATIONS • ..........1978—EPOCH MONITORING STATIONS o .,,.......1994—EPOCH MONITORING STATIONS STATION NUMBER NAME MONUMENT DESCRIPTION 1 2 6249 1003 1004 1005 1006 1067 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 f036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 PN-0001 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE WALK PM-0002 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE WALK OCS 6249 2" BRONZE DISK IN MONUMENT WELL. (Off —site Control Refer N-03 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-02 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-05 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE ROOF OF PARKING GARAGE N-06 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-07 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE ' WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-08 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE `WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-09 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR H-10 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-11 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-12 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-13 1.5" BRONZE DISK 1N 2" IRON ;PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-14 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON "PIPE' WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-15 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-16 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-17 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN TOP OF BLOCK WALL r N-18 PUNCHED SPIKE IN TOP OF WOODEN PILE N-19 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-20 1,5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-21 PUNCHED SPIKE IN TOP OF WOODEN PILE N-22 . 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR N-23 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR M NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR L NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1 M NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1 K NAIL & TAG 1N 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 2M NAIL h TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 2K NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 3)4 NAIL k TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 3L NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 4N NAIL do TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 4M NAIL & TAG IN Z" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 4L NAIL '& TAG IN 2" IRON PIP£ WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 5P NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 5N NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 5M NAIL & TAG IN 1" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 5L NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 6P NAIL & TAG 1N 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 6N NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 6M NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 6L SPIKE & WASHER IN ASPHALT WALK (DOWN 0.3 fl) v Nrioot 23.30 /19 ;s �j CPIs` � � - { �• LANDSLIDE 1/90 I� ,. 9ORN0 2 ' /:17 12 � BORING 7 �7 ID t q\ 9.5 BORING 1 BORING 4 It ` 12 20 BORING a DORM 3 - 1e 13-A7 25 ��. F� 33 44 12 19 12 /( 17 14\ I" 13 1'�r 24w 25 52>1 26 1-9D 5�10 � � � 20-5 111 14 s+- 27 T 1 � 15 2� 32 L 24 - /� TAI 21' 42 41.5 T.D. 20• i6 jr' 42 T.O. Si' .40 TA. 51• 9\ 24A . - TA. 51, jf 3" ! 1 ' T.D. 51• I / 1 I ! BLDG. 4 1 1 1 I 12 �{ IS C 19 h0 23 30 35 113 40 f/19' 44 r 2 50 p111 DO r13 DD �B at 112 93 TA 100' BOftlNfi. S` "•r 26 �2 2.6 3i 1 i 115 '40d TA. 21' 15 gipA _ l 20 221 95 27� 30 1e )_ 35 20A w .. . ?2N 43 2D\ 47 30\ 52 23\ ' B0 2D\ 29\ 70 T.D. 71P ' .. BORING 5 X62 t3 16 BORING 4 0/2 3a / 17 /50 26 27/ 24 . -r 32 50 26y 29 38 35 So 41 10 41 A 47 46 43 ° M. 3 40 49 4� 32 42 64T re 4�D 53 so\ Cal 4553 03 Q QUATERNARY TERRACE .DEPOSITS Tlii TERTIARY. MONTEREY FORIUATION GEOLOGIC CONTACT„ APPROXIMATE: LIMITS .OF .LANDSLIDE. ' ARROW IN APPROXIMATE DIRECTION ',PF• SUPPAGE ,,3o---�- ,ELEVATION CdNtbUR IN FEET y/ STRIKE AND DIP OF BEbbING, PRIOk LANDSLIDE' iOPOGRApHIC MAP (DATEb 3/15/93) BY / ROBERT BEIN, WILUAM FROST do ASSOCIATES . 20 STRIKE AND d0: OF' SUCKENSIDE. GROUNDWATER::-SEtPAOt • n .4 -1 �. ... _ _ 1 _. a_ ...--. -..r •1 ... KI r.'S• Si.}. i S.e r p -1. .. ' DORM 3 ?L 21 1 20 D i 35 20 -A- 40 20 1 ,8 i 49 y 54 2iso _.9 BD SCALE: 1" = 60' CONTOUR INTERVAL 1 and 5' 9 200 atedd erhw Lei /u,eetew rmRnrnU 1�1ri 1ri/, •� w. 1, .a .. I;;.V>:x• CAI a'�.•^.,:11U.V's YAM �obert (Beirl,`William ITYbst QP,c54ssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. PLANNERS & SURVEYORS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: LAW/CRANDALL, INC. DATE: 200 Citadel Drive F JOB NO.: Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 REFERENCE: IATTN: Reinard Knur a SENT TO YOU VIA: NO. OF COPIES 1 1 NO. OF SHEETS SENT FOR YOUR: REMARKS: COPIES TO: DESCRIPTION: 0 Mail Messenger Blueprinter Fax 0MGdem OYour Pick -Up DESCRIPTION Monitoring Exhibit, Sheet 2 of 2 May 19, 1994 30424 Park Newport Monitoring Overnight Delivery X 2nd Day Mail Parldng Structure Monitoring Results for December 5, 1993 Comments Hinformation Per Your Request RX BApproval Signature 11Review X Use Released BY: , WII„LIAM�OST &ASSOCIATES Daniel W. Bustamante Project Surveyor GPS Services 14725 ALTON PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 57057 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92619.7057 • (714) 472.3505 • FAX (714) 472.8373 OFFICES LOCATED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA bpatterson®hunsakercom (94p) 450.5429 PIR I HUNSAKER s.33171AL &ASSOCIATES R V I N E. I N C. p ENGINEERING BILL PATTMON S U-R VEYING Assistant PrdJect Manager GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Three Hughes • Irvine, CA 92618.2021 (949) 583.1010 • Fax (949) 503.0759 Iert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 I'Parking Structure Monitoring, Elevations I I it II 11 11 'd I 11 STATION INITIAL ELEVATION 17-May-78 PRIOR ELEVATION 13-Apr 89 CURRENT ELEVATION 05-Dec-93 CHANGE RELATIVE TO: INITIAL I PRIOR 1A 103.946 103.950 103.954 -0.0081 0.004 2A 104.927 104.925 3A WALL 104.947 104.925 104.9631 0.0161 0.038 3A FLOOR 103 9331 103.935 103.9391 0.006 0.004 16 1 103.914 103.925 103.9361 0.0221 0.011 2B 1 104.947 IDESTROYED 3B WALL 1 104.9221 104.895 104.889 -0.033 1 -0.006 3B FLOOR 1 103.9141 103.890 103.896 -0.018 0.006 1 C 103.907 103.9251 103.9391 0.0321 0.014 2C 104.947 104.965 104.969 0.022 0.004 3C WALL 104.931 DESTROYED 3C FLOOR 103.906 t03.850 103.841 -0.065 -0.009 10 103.921 103.940 103.956 0.035 0.016 2D 104.987 DESTROYED 3D WALL 104.897 104.835 104.829 -0.068 -0.006 3D FLOOR 103.908 103.840 103.843 -0.065 0.003 4D I "103.950 103.965 103.9811 103.981 0.016 1DE "103.905 103.930 103.947 103.947 0.017 3DE 0103.825 103.825 4DE "103.950 103.975 103.9811 103.981 0.006 1 E 103.897 103.920 103.936 0:039 0.016 2E 104.947 104.955 104.9641 0.017 0.009 3E WALL 104.877 104.815 104.813 -0.064 -0.002 3E FLOOR 1 103.899 103.855 103.860 -0.039 0.005 4E "103.940 103.965 103.976 0.036 0.011 1 EF 103.910 103.935 103.949 0.039 0.014 3EF "103.885 103.890 103.893 0.008 0.003 4EF "103.920 103.940 103.958 0.038 0.018 1F 103.879 103.905 103.918 0.039 0.013 2F 104.916 104.925 IDESTROYED 3F WALL 1 104.879 104.845 104.845 -0.034 0.000 3F FLOOR '103.932 103.900 103.903 -0.020 0.003 4F " 103.950 103.975 103.992 0.042 0.017 1 FG "103.870 103.895 103.910 0.040 0.015 3FG "103.905 103.915 103.920 0.015 0.005 4FG "103.960 103.985 103.9981 0.038 0.013 1 G 103.913 103.940 103.9551 0.042 0.015 2G 104.957 104.975 104.980 0.023 0.005 3G WALL 104.927 DESTROYED 3G FLOOR 103960 103.945 103.950 -0.0101 0.005 4G 1 "104.945 103.975 103.988 -0.9571 0.013 1H 1 103.865 103,895 103.9101 0.045 0.015 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 IParking Structure Monitoring, Elevations I I i I II J I! II II I� 'll STATION INITIAL ELEVATION 17-May-78 PRIOR ELEVATION 13Apr--89 CURRENT ELEVATION 05•Dec-93 CHANGE RELATIVE TO: INITIAL PRIOR 2H 104.967 104.985 104.987 0.0201 0.002 3H WALL 104.982 DESTROYED 3H FLOOR 103.931 103.925 103.937 0.0061 0.012 11 103.8841 103.915 103.922 0.0381 0.007 21 104.967 104.985 104.990 0.0231 0.005 31 WALL 105.0171 105.015 DESTROYED1 1 31 FLOOR 103.9101 103.915 103.9301 0.0201 0.015, 1.1 103.8841 103.920 103.9291 0.0451 0.009 2.1 1 104.9421 104.965 104.9691 0.0271 0.004 3J WALL 105.032 IDESTROYED1 3J FLOOR 103.9391 103.950 1 DESTROYED Initial i Initial Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates GB - PARK NEWPORT MONITORING JN 30424, Jan 26, 1994 IParking Structure Monitoring, Distances I �I STATION FROM -TO INITIAL DISTANCE 17-Ma -78 PRIOR DISTANCE' 13-A r-89 CURRENT DISTANCE 05-Dec-93 CHANGE RELATIVE TO: INITIAL PRIOR 1A - 3A 33.000 33.005 33.005 0.005 0.000 1 B - 3B 33.000 33.015 33.025 0.025 0.010 1C-3C 33.001 33.040 33.055 0.054 0.015 1D - 3D 33.000 33.045 33.060 0.060 0.015 1 E - 3E 33.001 33.050 33.065 0.064 0.015 1F-3F 32.990 33.025 33.040 0.0501 0.015 1 G - 3G 32.990 33.010 33.015 0.0251 0.005 1 H - 3H 33.005 33.010 33.0101 0.0051 0.000 11- 31 33.000 33.005 33.0101 0.0101 0.005 1J - 3J 33.000 33.010 W DESTROYED 1J - 11 18.280 18.285 0.005 11-1H 18.140 18.150 0.010 1H-1G 18.300 18.310 0.010 1 G - 1 F 16.070 16.075 0.005 1 F - 1 E 1 19.7301 19.735 0.005 1E- 1D 17.9501 17.960 0.010 1 D - 1 C 15.850 15.855 0.005 1 C - 1 B 56.3501 56.360 0.010 1B-1A 54.0701 54.090 0.020 1A-WALL 1 16.8501 16.880 0.030 1 STATION NUMBER NAME MONUMENT DESCRIPTION I PN-000 1 1.50 BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE WALK 2 PN-0002 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN CONCRETE WALK 6249 OCS 6249 2" BRONZE DISK IN MONUMENT WELL (Off -site Control Refer 1003 N-03 1.5m BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1004 N-02 1.5 BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1005 N-05 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN, CONCRETE ROOF OF PARKING GARAGE "�, \ • L ti. \� 1033 ,K •� i , X 9�F X53' roar r0 rl.R7' rDe D.a0.Y rl' rY.9J; 4D ►ff !•9v 4X •10A ,0a• 4r 05L .01043 IF ►Mr rrs asar rc tax, 40 FJ two IN M W ra2r Mw GERSON BAKAR AND ASSOCIATES PARK , NEWPORT MONITORING SURVEY fo r CLIENT, GERSON BAKAR AND ASSOCIATES PROJECT. PREPARED' FOR: PARK, . NEWPOR't. WNITORING SURVEY LAW CRANOALL, INC.' 731 EAST, BALL- ROAD, SUITE 104 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 I SALE: 1" -20' LEGEND .......... MONITORING REFERENCE STATIONS ..........1978-EPOCH MONITORING STATIONS o ..........1994-EPOCH MONITORING STATIONS z .......... CONCRETE NAIL SET 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12" COLUMN p ..........LEAD $c TACK SURVEYED BY O.IIELMER PLOT DATE 2/05/94 SURVEY DATE JAN. 1994 SCALE I'mw DRAW BY B. COR JOB NO. 30424 CNECKED BY P. VAN AMMERS NOTEBOOK RBF-244 1006 N-06 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1007 N-07 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1008 N-08 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1009 N-09 1.50 BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1010 N-10 1.50 BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1011 N-11 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1012 N-12 1.5" BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1013 N-13 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1014 N-14 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1015 N-15 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1016 N-16 1.50 BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1017 N-17 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN TOP OF BLOCK WALL - 1018 N-18 PUNCHED SPIKE IN TOP OF WOODEN PILE 1019 N-19 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1020 N-20 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1021 N-21 PUNCHED SPIKE IN TOP OF WOODEN PILE 7022 N-22 1.5" BRONZE DISK 1N 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1023 N-23 1.5' BRONZE DISK IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1030 M AWL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1031 L NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1032 1M NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1033 1K NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1034 2M NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1035 2K NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR IOJ6 3M NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON -PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1037 3L NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1038 4N NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1039 4M NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1040 4L NNL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1041 5P NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1042 5N NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1043 50 NAIL & TAG IN 2" IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1044 5L NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1045 6P NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1046 6N NAIL & TAG IN 2' IRON PIPE WITH CONCRETE COLLAR 1047 69 NAIL & TAG IN r IPC i PIPE N'f'H CONCRETE COLLAR 1048 6L SPIKE & WASHER IN ASPHALT WALK (DOWN 0.3 ft) lA LEAD & TACK 18 LEAD & TACK 1C LEAD & TACK 1D LEAD & TACK IDE LEAD & TACK 1 E LEAD & TACK 1 EF LEAD & TACK IF LEAD & TACK 1 FG LEAD & TACK 1G LEAD & TACK 1H LEAD & TACK 11 LEAD & TACK i✓ LEAD & TACK - 2A CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12" COLUMN 2C CONCRETE NAIL 1.O' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12' COLUMN 2E CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12' COLUMN 2G CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR w 12" COLUMN 2H CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12' COLUMN 21 CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12" COLUMN 2J CONCRETE NAIL 1.0' ABOVE FLOOR IN 12" COLUMN 3A LEAD & TACK 3B LEAD & TACK 3D LEAD & TACK 3DE LEAD & TACK jr LEAD & TACK 3EF LEAD & TACK 3F LEAD & TACK JFG LEAD & TACK JH LEAD & TACK 4D LEAD & TACK 4DE LEAD & TACK 4E LEAD & TACK 4EF LEAD & TACK 4F LEAD & TACK 4FG LEAD & TACK 4G LEAD & TACK Robert Bein,Williom Frost & Associates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. PLANNERS & SURVEYORS ►A soot H73e 14720 AM" rAWW MWE G "WK #2710 (714) 472-3" SHEET 2OF2 ' Grin Bakar A Assonaet—Monitonng Program September 1, 1994 1aw/CYandaB Project 2661.30T11.0002 1 APPENDIX B CALIBRATED CRACK MONITOR PROGRESS FORMS II ILILIil,1i1�4J DATE OF READING: 7/1394 TIME OF READO : 924 TEMPERATURE: "s IF ay. DATE OF ROOM: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: DATE OF READING: 7/1394 TIME OF READO : 924 TEMPERATURE: "s IF ay. DATE OF ROOM: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: H. DATE OF READNO: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: II IIIIII iI I ti 1!•1111 IL' 111 I I I I I I I I H `LI Illiit'tl DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: g9WuiLi1� ii•i• u.w.w •moo... I 1 1 1 1 w� w DATE OF READING: TIME OF HEADING: TEMPERATURE: BY: ■■�.:'.gl mI = w.w .Y DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: i1 1 1 1 1 oo•vw M.. DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: BY: 20mm TO 0 TO 20 DATE OF READING- DATE OF READING: TIME OF READING: TIME OF READING: TEMPERATURE: TEMPERATURE: BY: BY: CALIBRATED CRACK MONITOR PROGRESS SHEET CM-1 1 �F PARK NEWPORT APARTMENTS DATE OF INSTALLATION wmw BUILDING 4 SOUTHERN GARAGE WALL COEFFICIENT OF THERMAL EXPANSION• 6 Mxt0.1 nvM.YN4pn. C