HomeMy WebLinkAbout1501 JAMBOREE RD*NEW FILE*
01-Mol Iamhnrpp Rd
EET lfv!G DATE
t. �D ITEM
i
i fi`..
LOT SUMMARY:
LOTS LAND USE DESIGNATION
GROSS ACREAGE
1 - 173 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 29.7 AC.
A THU Q PRIVATE STREET
W OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE)
Y OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE)
R OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) 2.8 AC.
S OPEN SPACE (PUBLIC) 12.0 AC.
T OPEN SPACE (PUBLIC) 33.8 AC.
U OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) 2.3 AC.
V OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) 6.4_AC.
X OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) 2.2 AC.
TOTAL 89.2 AC.
TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS:
;AL W'LY E'LY PAL PA PAL PAL
'ILY R 40' R/W 51'-55 67'
ION
25.5' 227.5' 25.5'-27.5' 33.5' 33.5'
20' 20'
9.5' 16'-18' 16'-18' 9.5' I I 1� 5 5 18' 18' 1�5,5'
I 10' 10' 10' 10' I
VAR. I VAR. VAR. WIDTH I I
'T02 0'�02 DRAINDITCH AGE 1.7% " 1.7q 1.7% 1.7%
1 0 2"
[�- r 2
2
4' WIDE 4' WIDE -4' WIDE 4' WIDE
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
BACK BAY DRIVE PRIVATE STREET PRIVATE STREET
(EXISTING) POR. "A","B","C ,"D","E",-F#'eG" ST. "A" STREET-"E" ST. TO "G" ST.
N.T.S. (PROPOSED) (PROPOSED)
W'LY N.T.S. N.T.S. E'LY
68'-78' 66'
.. ... ................ A , 50'-60' 48' 10'
' 8DE
:\
WI
8' WIDE
4 n
..�.."...,......•.....•......... � SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
::::::•. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD
...... .............�::::.:-" :,�r" � � -•,.;\ (EXISTING)
........• � NTS
•
WIDE
�lDEWALK
S'LY
R/W
10' I
NOTES:
1. EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT LAND
ADJACENT LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE
2. 'EXISTING ZONING:
3. DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY
'THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH.
4, ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND AS FOLLOWS:'
ELECTRICAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
GAS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.
TELEPHONE PACIFIC BELL
CABLE TELEVISION DIMENSION
5. FIRE SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT.
6. POLICE SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPT.
7. THE PROPOSED PROJECT LIES WITHIN THE SERVICE BOUNDARIES OF THE
NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
8. EASEMENTS SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHTOR�•-
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON AND OVER ALL PRIVATE
STREETS WITHIN THE TRACT UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACILITIES BY THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH.
9. EASEMENTS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE PURPOSES SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AS SHOWN HEREON AND OVER ALL PRIVATE STREETS
WITHIN THE TRACT.
10. THE SUBDIVIDER INTENDS TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS FOR THIS TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP.
11, GRADED SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN:
12. PRIVATE LANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE LOTS "R" "U", "V%"W" AND "X", TRACT SLOPES
AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
DEVIATIONS FROM CITY STANDARDS:
1. THE FOLLOWING STREETS EXCEED THE 400 FEET MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH
FOR PRIVATE STREETS: STREET "B" = 640 FEET.
ER AND SUBDIVID
THE IRVINE COMPANY
550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(714) 720-2000
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS KNOWLEDGE OF AND
CONSENTS TO THE FILING OF THIS MAP.
DATED THIS DAY OF
THE IRVINE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION
WILLIAM H. MCFARLAND, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
JAMES R. CAVANAUGH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
PREPARED BY:
ri.
FINVAN DELL AND AS
SOCIATES, INC. 65�.:'.c:yw•y
17801 CARTWRIGHT ROAD All, a{."t
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 `�
(714)474-14001 {:_
p OOL-
i
o, °ram.' ` _.
CAWTII.Wr*rZP POCK;
MIL-Y rzvm f tr�rte (NEA fR� �,
-3. c M�
5><T DEYmD
Lill
UNss
E
XfS?iGicp
GITY OF MT F°ACH
rOJC PPiiOVAL I INI CCZ `ri ;:0.
fhis project CC:?V:^is'n nIi 2;,viie"at3
E4t,.C1, �r,
I itust v dns are nm. :,
a dklmg Pet�c +::il to is�.—:, preeai ism _ 1
e Californiaa Ca_s: 1 Cc miss an a
PLf8lt 'IJG OE"rARTGtEiJT i f
,JAM Wi:.:,,PR Direct -
Date:
f
1
I ai Sib o� TAT �IO"I
K>✓�U�. 13'7-G17Y N.P. -
P�iZ- 17E1;t7 R�,GUlZDED IN PXt'7K 5727, ;
- pAGtE- 141 t MAY Iq , Igbl . _
�i
ITE PLAN
t �jwww.�fff Lf '
Q
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY , r V-•0 1 ,���� _. __ PETE WILSON, Gommor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL C gNj@MPAR7MEIVT
SOUTH COAST AREA WPUR T BEACII
245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 CITY of h�Elils
P.O. BOX 1450
LONG BEACH, CA 90802.4416 JIRA — "d i995VA
(310) 590-5071
'AY►�19d0llll�l1l2i3141516
Filed: 5/12/95
49th Day: 7/13/95
180th Day: 11/21/95
Staff: MV-LB
Staff Report: 6/l/95
Hearing Date: 6/13-16/95
Commission Action:
APPLICATION NO.: 5-95-048
APPLICANT: Irvine Company AGENT: Susan Hori
PROJECT LOCATION: 1501 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, Orange County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of an 86.1 acre parcel into 173 residential
lots, six private open space lots, private street lots, and two public open
space lots. Also proposed is construction of 173 single family residences,
private roads and infrastructure to serve the residences, and construction of
a 2.3 acre detention basin. Dedication of 45.8 acres of open space is
proposed which includes a 4 acre public bluff top view park. The proposed
project also includes grading and construction of an 8 foot wide public trail
within the view park. Bluff stabilization and revegetation of coastal sage
scrub within the public open space areas are proposed. Construction of an
emergency access drive, Jamboree Road street and sidewalk improvements,
construction of a bus turnout and shelter are also proposed. Also proposed is
772,900 cubic yards of cut and 772,900 cubic yards of fill to be balanced on
site. A wetland mitigation plan is also proposed on site. The mitigation
plan includes creation of .96 acre of wetland area on site.
Lot area: 86.1 acres
Building coverage:- 6.9 acres
Pavement coverage: 7.3 acres
Landscape coverage: 15.8 acres
Parking spaces: 706 spaces
Zoning: Planned Community District & Open Space
Plan designation: Single Family Attached and Recreational &
Environmental Open Space
Ht abv fin grade: 29 feet
LOCAL APPROVALS RECEIVED: Approval in Concept, City of Newport Beach;
Approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 15011; and Site Plan Review No. 70.
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: Circulation Improvement and Open Space
Development Agreement, D5-93-1, City of Newport Beach and Irvine Company,
approved by Coastal Commission on June 10, 1993; Circulation Improvement and
Open Space Agreement EIR; CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-010-95;
Coastal Development Permit No. 5-94-182, (Irvine Company).
Newporter North
8-95-048
Page 2
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant proposes to subdivide and construct 173 single family homes on
an 86.1 acre site. The total development area is 26,5 acres, 13.6 acres will
be private open space. 45.8 acres are to be dedicated to the City in fee as
open space. The open space will include a 4 acre public bluff top view park.
The subject site is adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
The site, commonly called Newporter North, was among the sites subject to a
development agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the applicant, the
Irvine Company. The development agreement was approved by the Commission on
6/10/93. The development agreement provided the Irvine Company with
entitlement for 212 residential units at the site, subject to site specific
biologic and geologic information. The City was provided with public
improvements and increased public open space.
The site currently supports a total of 9 acres of wetland in three areas, one
7.3 acre area, one 1.62 acre area, and one 0.08 acre area. The proposed
project would result in fill of .24 acres within the 1.62 acre wetland area.
The applicant proposes to mitigate the wetland loss on site at a 4:1 ratio,
resulting in 0.96 acre of wetland creation. Staff is recommending an open
space deed restriction over the wetland mitigation site. The wetland impacts
are created by proposed bluff stabilization (0.11 acre), road construction
(0.10 acre) and stormdraih pipe replacement (0.03 acre). 7.38 acres of
wetland area are located within the area to be dedicated to the City as open
space.
The proposed project will also remove 3.4 acres of coastal sage scrub, an
environmentally sensitive habitat, due to the proposed bluff stabilization.
Indirect cumulative impacts will also occur because of the increased
disturbance due to the proposed residential development. The applicant has
proposed revegetation of the bluff areas and the 12 acre Newporter Knoll
area. The revegetatioh is expected to substantially offset the project's
adverse impacts on sensitive habitat.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the project subject to special
conditions regarding environmentally sensitive habitat, wetlands, geology and
the dedications of property which have been proposed by the applicant
consistent with an approved development agreement.
Staff Recommendation:
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution:
I. Approval with Conditions.
The Commission hereby grants a permit, subject to the conditions below, for
the proposed development on the grounds that the development will be in
conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of
1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having
jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to
the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any
significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 3
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. if development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date this permit is reported to the Commission. Development
shalt be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of
time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the
expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special
conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be
reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any
condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site
and the project during its development, subject to 24—hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to
bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and
conditions.
III. Special Conditions:
,•M, GIWTAXITIM1,• .. �•, .�
Upon the effective date of the CIOSA development agreement, the applicant
shalt submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, evidence
in the form of a grant deed that the 12.0 acres (more specifically described
below and in Exhibit J), has been dedicated in fee to the City of Newport
Beach consistent with the approved Circulation Improvement and Open Space
development agreement and consistent with the proposed project. The fee
dedication shall be dedicated for the uses delineated below and subject only
to those covenants and reservations identified on Exhibit F to the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement approved by the Coastal Commission on
June 10, 1993. The 12.0 acres shall include the following areas and provide
for the following uses:
itte Am 1L.
Lot S 12 acres habitat restoration, habitat maintenance, open
space, and habitat protection
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 4
2.
Upon issuance of the first building permit by the City of Newport Beach, the
applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director,
evidence in the form of a grant deed that the 33.8 acres (more specifically
described below and in Exhibit J), has been dedicated in fee to the City of
Newport Beach consistent with the approved Circulation Improvement and Open
Space development agreement and consistent with the proposed project. The fee
dedication shalt be dedicated for the uses delineated below and subject only
to those covenants and reservations identified on Exhibit F to the Circulation
Improvement and Open Space Agreement approved by the Coastal Commission on
June 10, 1993. The 33.8 acres shall include the following areas and provide
for the following uses:
ltf& Area um
Lot T 4 acres public passive open space, public view park
Lot T 29.8 acres habitat restoration, habitat maintenance, open
space and habitat protection.
The deed restricted area shall be described in metes and bounds. The deed
restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and
shall be recorded free and clear of prior liens and encumbrances the Executive
Director determines to affect said interest.
3. Mitigation Plan Annual Reports
The annual mitigation monitoring reports prepared pursuant to the Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Newporter North Development prepared by
John M. Tettemer 6 Associates dated May 1995, shalt be submitted to the
Executive Director within 30 days of the date the report is completed.
4. Wetland Mitigation 'liming
Construction/implementation of the mitigation plan shall occur prior to or
concurrent with the proposed residential development.
5. Protective Fencing
All wetlands shalt be surrounded by protective fencing prior to initiation of
and during any grading or construction.
6. Lots V and X Open $race Deed Restriction
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit the applicant as landowner
shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable
to the Executive Director, which shall limit development in Lots V and X to
the following uses:
Lot V Wetland mitigation as described in the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan for the Newporter North Development prepared by
John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd., dated May 1995;
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 5
Habitat restoration, habitat maintenance, open space, and
habitat protection;
Non—invaisive landscaping and contour grading for buffer berm as
depicted on Tentative Tract No. 15011, limited to those areas of
Lot V not a part of the wetland mitigation described above.
Lot X Non—invaisive landscaping and contour grading for buffer berm as
depicted on Tentative Tract No. 15011.
The deed restriction shall cover Lots V and X as identified on Tentative Tract
No. 15011. The deed restriction shall run with the land, binding all
successors and assigns and shall be recorded free and clear of prior liens and
encumbrances which the Executive Director determines to affect said interest.
7. Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration and Revegetation Plan
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit the applicant shall
submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a coastal sage
scrub revegetation and restoration plan. At a minimum the coastal sage scrub
revegetation and restoration• plan shall include:
— The mitigation measures identified in the letter from the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service letter dated March 9, 1995;
— The mitigation measures identified in the letter from the biological
consultant, Michael Brandman Associates, dated November 10, 1994;
— A mitigation monitoring program;
— The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
The coastal sage scrub restoration and revegetation shall occur consistent
with the approved plan.
B. Geologic Recommendations
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shalt
submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, grading plans
that have been reviewed, approved and signed by the geologic consultant,
indicating that the geologic recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Geotechnicat Investigation prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. dated
February 4, 1991 and the Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by
Leighton and Associates dated October 26, 1994, and, updated in letters dated
September 30, 1994, revised 10/10/94 and May 9, 1995, have been incorporated
into the design of the proposed project.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit,
for the review and approval of the Executive Director, foundation plans that
have been reviewed, approved and signed by the geologic consultant, indicating
that the geologic recommendations contained in the above described
Geotechnicat Reports prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. have been
incorporated into the design of the proposed project.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 6
The Commission finds and declares as follows:
The applicant proposes to subdivide an 86.1 acre parcel into 173 residential
lots, six private open space lots, private street lots, and two public open
space lots. Also proposed is construction of 173 single family residences,
private roads and infrastructure to serve the residences, and construction of
a 2.3 acres detention basin. Dedication of 45.8 acres of open space is
proposed which includes construction of a 4 acre public bluff top view park,
bluff stabilization, and revegetation of coastal sage scrub within the public
open space areas. Construction of an emergency access drive, Jamboree Road
and sidewalk improvements, construction of a bus turnout and shelter are also
proposed. Also proposed is 772,900 cubic yards of cut and 772,900 cubic yards
of fill to be balanced on site. A wetland mitigation plan is also proposed on
site. The mitigation plan includes creation of .96 acre of wetland area.
On June 10, 1993 the Commission approved a Development Agreement between the
City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company (D5-93-1). The Development
Agreement is commonly referred to as the Circulation Improvement and Open
Space Agreement (CIOSA). The Development Agreement provided the City with
certain traffic improvements and increased open space area and the Irvine
Company with certain development entitlements. The Development Agreement
affects a total of eleven sites, of which nine are located in the Newport
Beach coastal zone. The subject site includes two of the nine coastal zone
sites subject to the Development Agreement. These two sites are commonly
known as Newporter North and Newporter Knoll. Under the terms of the
Development Agreement, the 77.2 acre Newporter North site would be allowed up
to 212 residential units on 30 acres and 47.2 acres of open space, subject to
site specific geologic and biologic information supporting proposed
development at the coastal development permit stage. Of the 47.2 acres of
open space, a minimum of 4 acres was allocated for a view park. In addition,
the Development Agreement provided that the entire 12 acre Newporter Knoll
site would be dedicated for public open space.
Due to the broad scale of mapping done for the Circulation and Open Space
development agreement, the total acreage figure used was not precisely
accurate. As a part of the proposed permit application, the applicant has
conducted more finite levels of digitized mapping and calculated the acreage
more accurately. The total site area of both Newporter Knoll and Newporter
North is 86.1 acres (Newporter Knoll still accounts for 12 acres).
The subject site is located on a bluff top lot adjacent to Upper Newport Bay.
However, the site is not located between the sea and the first public road
paralleling the sea because Back Bay Drive runs along the base of the bluff
between the subject property and Upper Newport Bay. Back Bay Drive is a
public road.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 7
The subject site is located along the bluff to the east of Upper Newport Bay.
At the base of the bluff is Back Bay Drive. To the north, across San Joaquin
Hills Road is a condominium community. To the east is Jamboree Road and
Newport Center beyond. To the South is the Newporter Resort, a hotel and
tennis club complex. To the west, across Back Bay Drive is the Upper Newport
Bay Ecological Reserve.
The site is currently vacant. The majority of the flat bluff top area
supports introduced annual grassland. However, a 1.06 acre wetland area
exists at the subject site just south of the proposed extension of Santa
Barbara Drive. In addition, the area between Newporter North to the north and
Newporter Knoll and Newporter Resort to the south, a 7.3 acre wetland area
know as John Wayne gulch exists. The bluff face supports primarily coastal
sage scrub.
Residential Development
The proposed project includes construction 173 detached single family
residences. The project is proposed as a private card entry gated community.
The streets will be private. The average lot size is proposed to be
approximately 4,000 square feet. The average maximum height of the proposed
residences will be 29 feet from finished grade. The two story residential
units will range in size from 2,100 to 2,600 square feet. Each residential
unit will include an attached two —car garage. Also proposed is perimeter
landscaping, landscaping for interior streets, and entrance area landscaping.
The proposed infrastructure will include a subsurface storm drain system, and
water and sewer lines.
A 6 foot wrought iron fence is proposed around the perimeter of the project.
To minimize noise impacts, for the portion of the fence running parallel to
John Wayne Gulch, the lower half of the fence is proposed to be constructed of
solid masonry material and wrought iron on top.
Bluff Stabilization
The bluff area on the north edge of the project site, above San Joaquin Hills
road, is unstable, with a factor of safety of less than I.S. The area of
bluff instability is located within the area to be dedicated to the City for
public open space. The City has required the applicant to stabilize the bluff
before it accepts the dedication.
The method of stabilization proposed includes the construction of a shear key
and subdrain. The shear key is proposed to give gross stability to the slope
by excavating a particular area of the slope until competent material is
reached, installing a subdrain system to collect and conduct groundwater away
from the slope, then recompacting the soil with lifts to achieve 90% relative
compaction. Once the shear key work is completed, the slope will be returned
to its original- contours and revegetated. Construction of the shear key will
require excavation of approximately 246,000 cubic yards, which, after
recompaction, will be replaced in place.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 8
45.8 acres are proposed to be dedicated to the City in fee for public open
space, public park, pedestrian and habitat purposes. 33.8 acres are proposed
to be dedicated as one parcel, identified as Lot T on the tentative map. Lot
T would include a 4 acre public, bluff top view park and 8 foot wide public
trail and 29.8 acres for habitat restoration, maintenance and protection,
Another 12 acres, identified as Lot S on the tentative map, would also be
dedicated in fee for habitat restoration , maintenance and protection
purposes. Lot S is comprised of the area commonly known as Newporter Knoll.
The area of proposed open space dedication includes the area known as John
Wayne Gulch. John Wayne Gulch supports a 6.23 acre freshwater marsh and 1.07
acre area of willow/mulefat scrub, both considered wetland habitat. In
addition, a 0.8 acre pocket of freshwater marsh exists in the southern corner
of Newporter Knoll. The bluff face above Backbay Drive supports primarily
coastal sage scrub. All of these sensitive habitat areas are located within
the parcels to be dedicated as public open space.
A change in the amount of public open space to be dedicated to the City in fee
as identified in the approved CIOSA is proposed under this coastal development
permit application. The area between the proposed residential development and
Jamboree Road was to be dedicated to the City for public open space under the
development agreement. The City however does not wish to accept this
dedication. Therefore the applicant is proposing the area as private open
space. The area in question is identified on the Tentative Map as Lots V and
X. Lot V is comprised of 6.3 acres and Lot X of 2.2 acres.
As proposed the project would result in the elimination of .24 acres of
wetlands on -site. In order to mitigate this loss, the applicant proposes to
create 0.96 new acres of wetlands. This represents a mitigation ratio of 4:1
(wetlands created to wetlands lost). The mitigation site has been designed
around the existing wetland area located near the proposed project entrance
near the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive.
The existing wetland includes willow, baccharis, and cattails. The vegetation
proposed to be planted includes arroyo willow, black willow, western
cottonwood, and mulefat. The proposed mitigation is designed to expand the
existing wetland habitat.
The mitigation site is expected to take two to five years to mature. The site
will be monitored for a minimum of five years. Success criterion based on
plantings' height and percent site coverage are included in the mitigation
plan. If the success criterion are not met, certain remedial actions will be
taken, including additional planting and monitoring. Chances for the success
of the proposed wetland mitigation are expected to be increased because it
will expand an existing wetland area, it will continue to receive a long term
water source in the form of urban runoff via the City's storm drain system,
and public access to the site will be limited.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 9
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has reviewed and approved
the proposed mitigation plan. In addition, the CDFG has entered into a
Streambed Alteration Agreement with the applicant to address impacts to the
existing wetlands.
The proposed project includes 772,900 cubic yards of cut and 772,900 cubic
yards of fill, to be balanced on site. Of the total grading figure, 285,000
cubic yards of cut and 285,100 cubic yards of fill are proposed for remedial
in tract grading. In addition, 10,100 cubic yards of cut and 100 cubic yards
of fill are proposed for the bluff top trail; 246,000 cubic yards of cut and
246,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed for the buttress and shear key;
45,900 cubic yards of cut and 1,900 cubic yards of fill are proposed for the
detention basin; proposed in tract grading will consist of 185,.900 cubic yards
of cut and 239,900 cubic yards of fill.
Grading construction access to the project is proposed from San Joaquin Hills
Road. The last 100 feet of the haul road adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road
will be paved with asphalt with another 100 feet of aggregate adjacent to the
asphalt to clean truck tires. Construction access is also proposed from
Jamboree Road once roadway improvements along Jamboree are completed.
Also proposed as part of the project are a number of public improvements
including:
1. construction of a 16 foot wide emergency vehicle access drive at the
terminus of the interior private street identified as Lot G on the
tentative tract map for maintenance, emergency rescue and police patrol
access to the bluff top area;
2. the sidewalk along San Joaquin Hills Road will be reconstructed to a
12 foot width between Jamboree Road and the bluff top trail connection at
San Joaquin Hilts Road;
3. Jamboree Road will be widened to provide a minimum roadway width of 48
feet between the double left turn lane at Santa Barbara Avenue and the
westerly curb;
4. the sidewalk along the Jamboree Road frontage will be reconstructed to
a 12 foot width, and street lights will be installed along the Jamboree
Road frontage;
5. the median island on Jamboree Road will be modified to provide a 200
foot long northbound left turn pocket;
6. Jamboree Road will be restriped to provide clear ingress and egress to
the site;
7. a bus turnout and shelter pad will be constructed on Jamboree Road
just south of Santa Barbara Drive.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 10
B. Wetlands
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits fill in wetlands. In addition to
being an allowable use, any fill in wetlands must be the least environmentally
damaging feasible alternative and provide adequate mitigation to off set the
loss. The proposed project would result in the fill of 0.24 acres of
wetlands. Of that figure, 0.03 acres of impact will be due to replacement of
a storm drain within the wetlands; 0.11 acre of impact will be due to
construction of a road to serve the proposed residential development; and 0.10
will be due to bluff stabilization work.
Allowable Use
As a requirement of the City's approval, the applicant is to replace an
existing corrugated metal storm drain pipe with reinforced concrete pipe.
This replacement will result in 0.03 acre of adverse impact to the wetland.
The pipe replacement represents an incidental public service use. It is
incidental to the existing drainage pipe use and a public service in that it
serves the public drainage system. Replacing corrugated metal with concrete
pipe represents an upgrade to the system and will extend the life of the
public drainage facility. The proposed pipeline replacement constitutes an
incidental public service use and, therefore, is an allowable use consistent
under Section 30233(a)(5) of the Coastal Act.
The City has also required the applicant to stabilize the bluff area above San
Joaquin Hilts road. The geotechnicat consultant has indicated that the
proposed bluff stabilization is not required to protect the proposed
residential development, but rather is necessary to rectify the existing slope
weakness. As it currently exists, the bluff has a factor of safety of less
than I.S. The proposed bluff stabilization would result in elimination of
0.10 acre of wetland habitat. 3.4 acres of coastal sage scrub will also be
impacted as a result of bluff stabilization proposed as part of the subject
project. The remaining 0.11 acre of wetland fill would be caused by the
proposed construction of a road to serve the private residential development.
In both cases, bluff stabilization and road construction, the proposed
development does not constitute an allowable use as described in Section
30233(a)(1-8). Bluff stabilization is also not a resource dependent use under
30240(a). The applicant states that the wetlands impacts resulting from the
proposed project are incidental public service uses and so allowable uses
under Section 30233(a)(1-8) of the Coastal Act. However, neither the bluff
stabilization nor the road construction can be considered incidental public
services. The bluff stabilization is not incidental to any existing public
use, nor will it be performed by a public agency in support of their public
mission. The proposed road construction will serve a private gated community
with private streets. Consequently, the road cannot be considered public in
any sense. No development currently exists at the site, so the road
construction is not incidental to any existing use. The proposed bluff
stabilization and road construction do not qualify as any of the other
allowable uses identified in Section 30233(a)(1-8) of the Coastal Act.
However, the proposed bluff stabilization will eliminate the hazard which
exists due to the existing unstable bluff. A public road (San Joaquin Hills
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 11
Road) exists at the base of the unstable bluff. If the current unstable
condition is not remedied users of the public road may be in jeopardy. Or
continued use of the road may be interrupted. San Joaquin Hits Road connects
to Back Bay Drive which is used by many members of the public to take
advantage of scenic natural areas of Upper Newport Bay. In addition, the
proposed project includes dedication of the bluff top area for use as a public
bluff top view park. If the bluff fails, the area of the public park could be
reduced or eliminated. In any case, failure to act perpetuates an existing
hazard.
Section 302530) of the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize
risks to life and property in areas of high geologic hazard. Section 30253(2)
requires that new development assure stability and structural integrity, and
neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability,
or destruction of the site or surrounding area. Leaving the bluff in its
current unstable, hazardous condition is inconsistent with the requirements of
Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. Consequently, the proposed project presents
a conflict between two Chapter 3 Coastal Act policies: the wetlands and ESHA
protection policies of Section 30233 and 30240 and the hazard minimization
policies of Section 30253.
For reasons of traffic safety and continuation of optimum traffic flow, access
to the site must be taken from the existing signalized intersection at Santa
Barbara Drive. Access taken from anywhere else on the site would adversely
impact traffic on Jamboree Road. Jamboree Road is a major arterial that
intersects with Coast Highway approximately one half mile south of the subject
site. Jamboree Road provides a major connection between the San Diego freeway
and much of the Newport Beach coastal zone area. Jamobree Road provides the
most direct access from the freeway to Back Bay Drive, which is a scenic drive
adjacent to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Back Bay Drive provides
access to CDFG public programs at the Shellmaker Island amphitheater.
Additionally, Jamboree Road connects directly to the bridge to Balboa Island,
a major visitor destination. From Balboa Island, one can take the ferry to
the Balboa Peninsula, also a major visitor destination. In short, Jamboree
Road is a major visitor access route.
Traffic impacts that would result from unavailability of the proposed access
into the subject site would adversely impact the continued safe flow of
traffic along Jamboree Road. Impacts to Jamboree Road impact public access by
limiting public use of the arterial to access many various visitor destination
sites. Adverse impacts to public access is inconsistent with Section 30210 of
the Coastal Act which requires that new development provide maximum public
access. Once again, the proposed project presents a conflict between two
Chapter 3 Coastal Act policies: the wetlands protection policies of Section
30233 and the public access policies of Section 30210.
The proposed project presents a conflict between the hazard polices and public
access policies of the Coastal Act and the wetland and ESHA protection
policies of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act envisions situations such as
this where ther may b a conflict between conflicting Chapter 3 policies and
provides specific guidance on how these conflicts should be resolved. Section
30007.5 states:
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 12
The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may occur
between one or more policies of the division. The Legislature therefore
declares that in carrying out the provisions of this division such
conflicts be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective
of significant coastal resources. In this context, the Legislature
declares that broader policies which, for example, serve to concentrate
development in close proximity to urban and employment centers may be more
protective, overall, than specific wildlife habitat and other similar
resource policies.
Echoing the concern about such conflicts, Section 30200(b), the first section
in Chapter 3, the chapter containing the substantive policies of the Act,
declares:
(b) Where the commission or any local government in implementing the
provisions of this division identifies a conflict between the policies of
this chapter, Section 30007.5 shalt be utilized to resolve the conflict
and the resolution of such conflicts shalt be supported by appropriate
findings setting forth the basis for the resolution of identified policy
conflicts.
The proposed project presents a conflict between competing policies of the
Coastal Act that require resolution in conformity with the provisions of
Section 30007.5 and 30200. The proposed project will minimize risks due to
hazard and will maintain public access along a major access route. The
wetland impacts are minimal in size (0.10 acres due to road construction and
0.11 acres due to bluff stabilization). Further, the wetland area that will
be impacted was created when drainage from the surrounding area was directed
onto the site. It is hot a naturally occurring wetland habitat. The drainage
system minimizes adverse impacts due to stormwater runoff such as erosion and
flooding. In addition, the wetland that will be impacted is not contiguous to
the overact Upper Newport Bay wetland system and the minimal wetland impacts
that will occur will not effect the Bay.
Moreover, the applicants have proposed a mitigation plan that includes
creation of 0.96 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to the on -site impacted
wetland. This represents a 4:1 ratio of wetlands created versus wetlands
lost. The mitigation site will be monitored for a minimum of five years.
Success criterion based on plantings` height and percent site coverage are
included in the mitigation plan. If the success criterion are not met,
certain remedial actions will be taken, including additional planting and
monitoring. Chances for the success of the proposed wetland mitigation are
expected to be increased because it will expand an existing wetland area, it
will continue to receive a long term water source in the form of urban runoff
via the City's storm drain system, and public access to the site will be
limited. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has reviewed and
approved the proposed mitigation plan. In addition, as a condition of
approval, a conservation easement will be placed on the mitigation site.
The proposed project will maintain public access opportunities and will
minimize hazards consistent with Sections 30210 and 30253 of the Coastal Act.
In addition, the wetland loss is offset by wetland creation proposed by the
applicant pursuant to the mitigation plan. These benefits will be lost if the
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 13
project is not approved. Balanced against these beneficial aspects of the
project is the competing fact that the project also will fill 0.24 acre of
wetland for a use that is not allowed by Section 30233. The reality of the
situation, however, is that even the impacts of this fill will be mitigated by
the wetland replacement program that will replace this lost wetland area at a
4:1 ratio. The Commission also notes that, as demonstrated below, the
placement,of this fill is the least damaging feasible alternative.
For these reasons the Commission finds, pursuant to Sections 30007.5 and 3.200
of the Coastal Act, that on balance it is more protective of coastal resources
to resolve this conflict by approving the project and allowing the proposed
wetland fill. Not only will this project alleviate impacts on access and
minimize hazards in accordance with the public access and hazard policies of
the Coastal Act, it will also provide replacement wetland acreage at a 4:1
ratio to mitigate for the fill of 0.24 acres of wetland. Conversely,
disallowing this project to preserve this one quarter of an acre is not
necessary to protect coastal resources in this situation and more
significantly would defeat the implementation of the public access and hazard
policies of the Coastal Act. The Commission therefore finds the project, in
terms of an allowable use for fit'] of wetlands, consistent with the Coastal
Act reliance on the conflict resolution provisions of Section 30007.5 and
30200.
2. Alternatives
In addition to the question of allowable use, the proposed project must be the
least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. The proposed pipe
replacement represents the least amount of work necessary to replace and
upgrade the existing drainage pipe. The wetland area was created by the
drainage that is collected from the adjacent area and directed to this area of
Newporter North via the City's storm drain system. Redirecting the drainage
pipe to avoid disturbance due to replacing the pipe within the wetlands is not
desirable because redirection of the drainage would eliminate the source of
water to the wetlands, which would result in greater adverse impacts to the
wetlands. Consequently, the drainage pipe replacement proposed constitutes
the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.
The proposed bluff stabilization would be accomplished by construction of a
shear key, buttress and subdrain. Regarding the history of the bluff, the
geologic consultant, Leighton and Associates, Inc., states in a letter dated
May 9, 1995:
"The subject slope is a manufactured slope cut for construction of San
Joaquin Hills Road. At the time of its construction, groundwater levels,
if any existed, were probably significantly lower than at present. As
surface water was directed and ponded above the slope from across Jamboree
Road, it infiltrated into the subsurface and has built up the groundwater
table as we have it today. That high groundwater results in seepage of
water out of the slope face and accumulation of the seepage along the toe
of the slope. A drain pipe was added at some point to drain surface water
from the mesa at the top of the slope to the toe. Additional saturation
of the slope around the pipe resulted in failure of the slope at that
location. In addition to the slope failure around the pipe, erosion of
the slope and shallow sloughing have occurred. The existing condition,
taking into account the composition and structure of the slope is one of
slope instability, which should be addressed."
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 14
The geologic consultant also addressed the issue of whether the proposed shear
key and buttress was the least environmentally damaging alternative. In the
letter dated May 90 1995, the consultant states:
"In order to stabilize the slope, the groundwater needs to be removed from
the blocks and slabs and the blocks and stabs need to be held up. The
proposed shear key is the most effective means of achieving stability
which also minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, the impact to
surrounding habitat. Caissons do not control the ground water. Caissons
are not effective on holding up shallow blocks and slabs. To have a
positive effect on the slope stability, they would have to be drifted and
constructed in a grid pattern of similar aerial extent to the recommended
shear key and would not be less environmentally damaging."
Another. method often used to stabilize bluffs is reconfiguring the slope.
Because it would involve grading of the entire area, this alternative would
also cause greater adverse impacts than the proposed method. Additionally,
regrading the slope would not address the ground water condition which causes
the instability. Geologic setbacks for development are also used in areas of
bluff instability. In this case a bluff top setback is proposed. The setback
is consistent with that recommended by the geologic consultant and with the
requirements outlined in the development agreement. The bluff top setback is
expected to provide adequate protection to the residential development.
However, the bluff stabilization is not necessary to protect the proposed
private residential development. Rather, the bluff stabilization is necessary
to rectify an existing unstable and unsafe condition. The proposed bluff
stabilization will protect the area of the future public view park. for these
reasons, the proposed shear key, subdrain and buttress are considered to be
the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.
The proposed road construction minimizes the amount of wetland impact to the
greatest extent feasible. The proposed road would cross the wetland area in
the location of an existing retention berm. The berm was created as a
retention basin as part of the drainage system. The wetlands area was formed
due to the local drainage collector retention basin. The berm also serves as
a maintenance road. The proposed location of the road takes advantage of the
pre-existing wetland crossing. However, the existing berm cannot accommodate
the proposed road without creating some adverse impacts to the wetlands.
Alternatives to the location of the road that were considered include taking
entrance to the site further south along Jamboree Road. This option still
requires a road in the location of the proposed road in order to access the
entire development area. If two separate entrys into the site are created, a
number of traffic safety issues arise. Entry from San Joaquin Hills Road or
from Back Bay Drive is not feasible due to the steep grade between the roads
and the developable portion of the site. In addition, entry off San Joaquin
Hills Road or Back Bay Drive would adversely impact coastal sage scrub, an
environmentally sensitive habitat area.
The location of the site entry road is proposed because it is at an existing
signalized intersection. Currently Santa Barbara Drive forms a "T"
intersection with Jamboree Road. The proposed project would extend Santa
Barbara Drive across Jamboree Road into the project site. The City's traffic
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 15
engineer commented on the proposed project in a letter dated May 2, 1995.
Regarding possible entry south of Santa Barbara Drive the letter states:
"Vertical and horizontal curves on Jamboree Road would impair sight
distance and make it difficult for vehicles to safely enter and exit an
access point southerly of Santa Barbara Drive."
The City's letter also points out that Jamboree is one of four arterial roads
in NAwport Beach and that traffic volumes along this arterial vary from 40 to
60,000 trips per day. The posted speed limit along Jamboree Road is 50 mph.
The City has indicated that installation of a new traffic signal on Jamboree
Road would not maintain an'acceptable level of service for an arterial. In
addition, a new signal would not eliminate the sight distance impairment. The
City has indicated that "it is very important that the City maintain the level
of traffic service and safety of Jamboree Road."
An entry/exit point on Jamboree south of Santa Barbara could raise safety
concerns as exiting traffic would have to deal with both reduced sight
distance caused by the hill, curve and the speed of oncoming traffic. Also,
cars exiting from this point could only turn right onto Jamboree (due to the
raised median, lack of an existing signal, and the City's reluctance to
install a new signal for the reasons stated above). Any cars wishing to go
north on Jamboree would have to turn south and then go to the next
intersection to make a U-turn. Likewise, cars wishing to enter from
northbound Jamboree would have to make a U-turn at San Joaquin Hills Road. A
significant increase in the numbers of U-turns would adversely impact traffic
flow and safety.
Bridging the wetlands was also considered as an alternative. The applicant's
engineering consultant, Van Dell and Associates, addressed this alternative in
a letter dated May 9, 1995. The consultant states that the existing berm is a
non -engineered berm and that it "will have to be removed and replaced by an
engineered fill to serve as both the road crossing and the berm for the
new/replacement retention basin." The consultant states that replacement of
the berm is necessary with any of the bridge alternatives considered.
The first bridge alternative evaluated an at -grade bridge. The at -grade
alternative involves a bridge elevated just 5 to 6 feet to clear the detention
basin berm. The consultant determined that this alternative would "breach the
berm and potentially drain the basin that creates the wetland." If the berm
was replaced upstream or downstream of the bridge, greater adverse impacts to
the wetlands from the berm relocation would occur. The consultant's May 9,
1995 letter states: "In order to construct an at -grade bridge adjacent to the
existing berm and in a location nearer to Jamboree Road, the area of impact to
the wetlands would also be greater than the 0.11 acres for the proposed road.
Wetlands would be impacted by the placement of piers and piling foundations
and wing watts for bridge approach support in this location.
The second bridge alternative considered is an above grade span that is higher
and longer than the first bridge alternative. This alternative would span the
entire wetlands. This option would still require a center pier support,
resulting in some wetland impact. However, the consultant questions the
feasibility of this option:
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 16
"Whether you can create safe roadway geometrics to include this bridge and
fit it on the site is another question. The higher the bridge the harder
to fit it within the constraints of the site. This bridge would have to
have longer approaches to allow for appropriate vertical curves and the
horizontal curve approaching the bridge from the entry would have to be
lengthened compared to the existing road design. This longer radius curve
would move the easterly bridge abutment and road into the wetlands unless
a curved bridge were built much closer to the beginning at Jamboree. This
would not allow access to the easterly pod of residential housing. A
higher profile bridge would also result in longer approach fills and
aesthetic impacts. The non —engineered berm would still have to be either
strengthened 1n place or replaced as noted in Alternate 1. Therefore, a
higher bridge is likely to impact existing habitat more than a fill
crossing or a lower profile bridge."
"Although this alternative would have the effect of avoiding some filling
of wetlands and can be constructed from a technical perspective, we have
considerable doubts as to whether it is indeed feasible and less
environmentally damaging than the [proposed3 road alternative."
The engineering consultant's May 90 1995 letter concludes:
"In conclusion, white the proposed Santa Barbara Drive extension would
result in the fitting of wetlands, it is economically and technically
feasible and has less environmental impacts overall than either
Alternative 1 or 2 and is therefore, in our opinion, the preferred access
alternative. Neither of the bridge alternatives can be shown to be a
feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative as compared to the
proposed access road."
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed roadway alternative is the least
environmentally damaging feasible alternative.
3. Mitigation
Finally, in addition to the question of allowable use and alternatives, the
proposed project must provide adequate mitigation to offset the loss of
wetland habitat. In order to mitigate this loss, the applicant proposes to
create 0.96 new acres of wetlands, pursuant to the Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan for the Newporter North Development, prepared by John M.
Tettemer & Associates, dated May 1995, This represents a mitigation ratio of
4:1 (wetlands created to wetlands lost). The mitigation site has been
designed around the existing wetland area located near the proposed project
entrance near the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive.
The existing wetland includes willow, baccharis, and cattails. The vegetation
proposed to be planted includes arroyo willow, black willow, western
cottonwood, and mulefat. The proposed mitigation is designed to expand the
existing wetland habitat.
The mitigation site is expected to take two to five years to mature. The site
will be monitored for a Minimum of five years. Success criterion based on
plantings' height and percent site coverage are included in the mitigation
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 17
plan. If the success criterion are not met, certain remedial actions will be
taken, including additional planting and monitoring. Chances for the success
of the proposed wetland mitigation are expected to be increased because it
will expand an existing wetland area, it will continue to receive a long term
water source in the form of urban runoff via the City's storm drain system,
and public access to the site will be limited.
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has reviewed and approved
the proposed mitigation plan. In addition, the CDFG has entered into a
Streambed Alteration Agreement with the applicant to address impacts to the
existing wetlands.
However, the proposed mitigation site is identified on the proposed tentative
map as private open space (Lot V). Consequently, no assurance exists that the
mitigation site will be preserved in perpetuity. If the mitigation site is
not protected from the possibility of future -development, including
landscaping with non —wetland species, a net loss of wetland area could
result. The loss of wetland area resulting from the proposed project could
not be found to be offset. In order to prevent loss of the wetland area to be
created as mitigation for the proposed project, an open space deed restriction
must be placed on the .96 acre site. The deed restriction would limit all
future development at the mitigation site to habitat restoration, habitat
maintenance, open space, and habitat protection. As a condition of approval
the applicant shall record an open space deed restriction, subject to the
review and approval of the Executive Director, over the entire mitigation site
which limits all future development to the uses described above.
The proposed mitigation plan requires that an annual report which presents the
overall monitoring results be submitted to the CDFG and USACE. In order to
insure that the mitigation plan is carried out as proposed and as described in
the referenced plan and to insure consistency with the approved coastal
development permit, the annual reports should also be submitted to the Coastal
Commission. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit to the
Executive Director, the annual mitigation monitoring report described in the
Mitigation Plan.
Finally, interim loss of wetlands must be minimized to the greatest extent
possible. In order to minimize interim wetlands loss, the amount of time
between the wetland impact and new creation must be limited. The mitigation
must be implemented prior to or concurrent with the development that impacts
the wetlands. As a condition of approval, the wetland mitigation plan shalt
be implemented prior to or concurrent with the residential development.
Therefore, as conditioned, the Commission finds the proposed project
consistent with the Coastal Act policies regarding fill of wetlands.
John Wayne.Gulch Wetlands
In addition to the wetland area adjacent to the proposed project entry area, a
7.3 acre wetland'area exists on Lot T southwest of the proposed development
area (6.23 acres of freshwater marsh and 1.07 acres of willow/mulefat scrub).
Also a 0.08 acre pocket wetland exists southwest of that on the site.
Proposed development will be setback a minimum of 150 feet from these
wetlands. The entire area of these wetlands are located within the area
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 18
proposed to be dedicated by the applicant in fee as open space, In order to
assure the protection and continuation of these wetland areas, uses within the
wetland area must be restricted to conservation uses only. In addition, to
assure maximum protection of the wetlands during project construction,
protective fencing should be placed at the limits of grading. The limits of
grading are shown at the 60 foot contour interval.
As a condition of approval, the applicant shall deed restrict the uses within
Lot T (except the 4 acre public bluff top view park area) to allow only
conservation uses. In addition, as a condition of approval, the applicant
shall install protective fencing along the 60 foot contour line and around all
the on -site wetlands for the duration of construction. Therefore, as
conditioned, the Commission finds the proposed project is consistent with
habitat protection policies of the Coastal Act.
4ERMUMneMAIM i ,..
1. Coastal sage scrub
Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shalt be protected against any
significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those
resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat
areas and parks and recreation areas shalt be sited and designed to
prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall
be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
The Newporter North site supports significant coastal sage scrub habitat.
Most of the coastal sage scrub is located on the bluff faces. Coastal sage
scrub is considered to be a sensitive habitat primarily due to its limited
distribution and its importance to wildlife. This vegetative community
supports a wide diversity of wildlife because the large diversity of plant
species provides ample cover and foraging opportunities. Many species of
birds, reptiles, and small mammals utilize the coastal sage scrub both for
foraging and for shelter. In addition to supporting a number of more common
wildlife species, many areas of coastal sage scrub, including that found at
Newporter North, are habitat for the California gnatcatcher.
Coastal sage scrub is found on coastal hills and tow elevation mountain sides
in Orange and adjacent counties in coastal southern California. Because of
rapid development in this region, the coastal sage scrub community which eight
to ten years ago was still widespread is today considered threatened according
to many biologists. United States Fish and Wildlife research indicates that
70-90% of the coastal sage scrub habitat in Orange County has been fragmented
and destroyed. Certain of its obligate species, most notably the California
gnatcatcher, are also being evaluated for listing status as threatened or
endangered. Because of its limited distribution and importance to wildlife
coastal sage scrub is environmentally sensitive habitat.
The Biological Assessment prepared by S. Gregory Nelson, dated May 131 1992,
for the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement development agreement
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 19
Identified four pairs of gnatcatchers and two individual males on the
Newporter North site. An update of the Biological Assessment was prepared by
Michael Brandman Associates, dated November 10, 1995. On October 18 and
November 4, 1994, Michael Brandman Associates confirmed the presence of
gnatcatchers on site.
3.4 acres of coastal sage scrub will be impacted as a result of the bluff
stabilization proposed as part of the subject project. According to the
Biological Assessment prepared for the CIOSA development agreement, in
addition to the direct loss of habitat, the proposed development will likely
have indirect adverse impacts. Causal factors generated during human
activities resulting from the construction and inhabitation of residential
areas are collectively termed "harassment". Harassment is defined as those
activities of humans and their associated domestic animals which increase
physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful
reproduction in wildlife populations. The most common forms of harassment
expected to accompany development of the site include excessive
construction —related noise, background noise, light and glare and the
introduction of feral cats, dogs and children which are unnatural predators
and competitors for wildlife.
The biological assessment further states that potentially significant indirect
adverse impacts associated with the proposed project include "spillover",
through harassment, into areas of coastal sage scrub habitat; the permanent
loss of less tolerant wildlife species from open space and natural areas that
remain adjacent to the development area; and potentially adverse interruptions
and alterations to predator —prey relations and food chains now in balance
within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve as a result of the loss of
predatory birds, mammals and reptiles from the upland habitat.
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has reviewed the proposed
project's impacts to coastal sage scrub and made the following comment: "It
is the position of the DFG that a Federal interim habitat loss permit,
pursuant to the Special 4(d) Rule is appropriate for this project and we will
concur with its issuance." In addition to concurring with the Federal agency
responsible for issuance of the interim habitat loss permit, CDFG also noted
in its comments that implementation of specific mitigation measures including
the revegetation of coastal sage scrub, will occur as part of the project.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has also reviewed the
project, and provided the following comments in a letter dated March 9, 1995:
In recent years, the Newporter North site has supported three to four
pairs of gnatcatchers on the slopes, and is therefore an important site
within the Bay. The territories on this site are compressed, relative to
the majority of other sites in the subregion because this habitat is
optimal for the gnatcatcher, in that it is low elevation CSS adjacent to
the coast. The revegetation described above, particularly on the knoll
area, will compensate for the increased disturbance due to the proposed
residential development. Gnatcatchers were using a revegetated area on
the Unocal HCP site only 18 months after its initiation, so the Service is
confident that restored sites will support this species. Ultimately the
12 acre knoll may support four to six pairs, provided that it receives
adequate protection from human intrusion.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 20
CDFG, USFWS, and the biological consultant have determined that adverse
impacts can be substantially offset by implementing certain mitigation
measures. The mitigation measures referred to above and recommended by USFWS
are listed below:
- Revegetation of the slopes, where needed, above Back Bay Drive and San
Joaquin Hills Rd. with coastal sage scrub (CSS). Pampass grass will be
removed where it occurs.
- Revegetation of the 12 acre knoll area on the opposite side of the Gulch
with CSS.
- Conservation easements will be placed on areas supporting existing
habitat, and on revegetated areas.
The USFWS comments conclude that if the project is conditioned as recommended
in its letter cited above "the project satisfies the concerns of the
Service." In addition to the comments of CDFG and USFWS, the biological
consultant, Michael Brandman Associates, in a letter dated November 10, 19940
provided mitigation measures necessary to offset adverse impacts the proposed
project would have on coastal sage scrub habitat. The biological consultant's
November 10, 1994 letter states:
"The following mitigation measures apply to the loss of coastal sage scrub.
- Prior to the removal of coastal sage scrub, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and County of Orange
should be notified. All removal of coastal sage scrub should be done in
accordance with Natural Communities Conservation Plan guidelines.
- Vegetation should be removed from coastal sage scrub outside of the
breeding season of the California gnatcatcher. The California gnatcatcher
breeds from late February through July. Grading of coastal sage scrub
should be conducted from August 15 though February 10. Other birds that
are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act during the breeding
season will also be protected by grading during the non -breeding season of
the California gnatcatcher.
- Coastal sage scrub that is not in the area of impact should be protected
with orange snow fencing. Silt fencing should be installed in places
where construction occurs within 10 feet of the edge of the bluff.
- A biological monitor should be present when work is being done in or
within 200 feet of coastal sage scrub.
- After slope stabilization measures are completed, coastal sage scrub
revegetation should be implemented following resource agency guidelines.
A conceptual restoration plan should be designed prior to grading. The
coastal sage scrub that is removed should be crushed and used for
revegetation to ensure species composition integrity on the site. Any
supplemental seed mixture that may be used in the revegetation should
contain seeds of coastal sage scrub species found on the site.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 21
Any shrubs that may be planted on the site should be of the same species
and planted in the same ratio as shrubs found on the site. The coastal
sage scrub should be replaced at the same location from which it is being
removed, both on manufactured slope and flat bluff edge near the
footpath. Revegetation should take place on the manufactured slope from
Lot 34 to 38 and on the bluff below the manufactured slope from a point
150 feet west of Lot 28 to Lot 38.
It has also been recommended that coastal sage scrub removal occur from east
to west to allow the gnatcatcher to disperse to CSS habitat that will remain.
If all of the above described mitigation measures are incorporated into the
project, no permanent significant adverse impacts to sensitive CSS habitat
will occur. Revegetation is expected to result in a net increase in coastal
sage scrub habitat. The USFWS has indicated that past revegetation projects
have been successful. The applicant has proposed the revegetation as part of
the project. M
However, the applicant would like to use the revegetation of Newporter Knoll
as "mitigation credits" to offset impacts of a future project. Coastal sage
scrub is considered to be very sensitive habitat. The presence of four pairs
of gnatcatchers on —site makes the subject site extremely significant. The
proposed project can be accomplished without significant impacts to the
sensitive CSS as determined by both CDFG and USFWS, but only if the mitigation
measures described above are incorporated into the project. Without all of
revegetation described above, adverse impacts to the CSS habitat are not
assured of being insignificant. Therefore, the Commission finds that the
proposed CSS revegetation cannot be applied against future adverse impacts but
is necessary to offset impacts created by the subject project.
Although the applicant has included CSS revegetation as part of the proposed
project, no restoration plan has been submitted. The method of revegetation
is critical to its success and in assuring that no significant adverse impacts
will occur to the sensitive coastal sage scrub habitat. There must be an
assurance that the proposed revegetation will include all of the aspects and
mitigation measures described above.
The revegetation restoration plan should be reviewed and approved by CDFG to
assure that mitigation measures outlined above have been considered and
incorporated into the project. Only then can the adverse impacts to the
coastal sage scrub resulting from the proposed project be found to be
insignificant. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires that no significant
adverse impacts to coastal sage scrub be allowed. Therefore, as a condition
of approval the applicant shalt comply with the above described mitigation
measures and shall submit a coastal sage scrub revegetation restoration plan
which has received approval from CDFG, and shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Executive Director. Only as conditioned to include the above
described mitigation measures and revegetation restoration plan can the
proposed project be found consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act.
In addition, to assure that the revegetated areas necessary to offset the
adverse impacts arising from the proposed project continue to support the
sensitive habitat and species which would otherwise be impacted by the
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 22
project, only specified conservation uses should be allowed in the
revegetation area of the dedicated open space. Restricting uses to only
conservation uses was identified as a necessary component of the project
mitigation by USFWS. The area to be revegetated is identified on the
tentative map as Lots T and S, except for the 4 acre area identified for the
public bluff top view park. Only those uses compatible with the continuation
of the sensitive habitat shall be allowed in the area proposed to be dedicated
In fee by the applicant. As a condition of approval the applicant shall
specify the allowable uses within the dedicated open space areas within the
areas which currently support or will be revegetated with, coastal sage scrub
habitat.
2. Coyote den
An occupied coyote den is located on the Newporter North project site.
Although the coyote is not considered an endangered species, in the vicinity
of Upper Newport Bay Ecological reserve it plays a vital role in the overall
ecosystem. In the 1992 Biological Assessment prepared by S. Gregory Nelson
for the CIOSA development agreement EIR, the role of the coyote in the Upper
Newport Bay ecosystem was addressed. The biological assessment states that
there is apparently a relationship between coyotes, mesopredators and
sensitive bird breeding success, and that the loss of coyotes and subsequent
increase in smaller predators can cause decreases in sensitive bird species
populations. Coyotes are apparently critical in controlling "mesopredator"
(e.g. the introduced red fox, feral cats, opossums) populations. In reviewing
the proposed project the USFWS also addressed the issue of impacts of the
proposed project on the coyote. In its letter dated March 9, 1995, USFWS
states:
The Newporter North location has also been important to the coyote in the
recent past. Consequently, the Service has solicited the advice of a
coyote expert from animal damage control. We received the following
information. The denning site is on the slope, and the pups remain there
for approximately one month. When the pups are weaned, they have a
requirement for fresh water. The mother was taking her pups to the
wetland on the northern end of the project, where they were sheltering
under the CSS until old enough to travel. Once the residential project
has been built, it is highly unlikely that the coyote would continue to
use this wetland as a freshwater source. However, there is a good
probability that the coyote would use the knoll site once it is
revegetated, provided it is adequately protected from human intrusion.
John Wayne Gulch would provide the freshwater source. Thus, the knoll
would provide the requirements of shelter, water, and foraging habitat.
It appears clear that while the coyote itself is not considered a sensitive
species, adverse impacts that would eliminate the presence of the coyote in
the Upper Newport Bay vicinity would adversely impact breeding success of the
sensitive bird species known to inhabit the bay area. Sensitive bird species
known to exist within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve include the
Light-footed clapper rail, Least Bell's vireo, and California gnatcatcher.
The California gnatcatcher and the Light-footed clapper rail are both USFWS
and CDFG endangered species.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 23
If the proposed revegetation of Newporter Knott does not occur, the coyote den
on —site is expected to be abandoned and the coyote family group currently
occupying it to relocate outside the UNBER, probably to the San Joaquin Hills
area. The loss of the coyote would have serious adverse impacts on the
sensitive bird species due to the increase in mesopredators such as the red
fox and others. Such impacts are inconsistent with Coastal Act Section
30240's requirement that no significant adverse impacts on environmentally
sensitive habitat occur.
In addition to the need for the proposed revegetation to occur to assure no
adverse impacts to the coastal sage scrub habitat itself, the revegetation is
also necessary to preserve sensitive bird species in the UNBER by maintaining
the existence of the coyote. For these reasons the proposed revegetation must
be considered mitigation necessary for the proposed project and cannot be used
as mitigation credit in the future.
D. Open Space Dedications
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states:
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the
California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously
posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the
people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect
public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural
resource areas from overuse.
In addition, Section 30240 requires that environmentally sensitive habitat
areas be protected against any significant disruption. The proposed project
includes the fee dedication of 45.8 acres of public open space. Of that
figure, 4.0 acres will is to be dedicated as a public bluff top view park.
The view park includes a public trail. The remaining dedication area contains
significant habitat values. As discussed previously, these area have been
conditioned to allow only conservation uses. In accordance with the approved
CIOSA development agreement, dedication of the Newporter North open space land
will occur upon issuance of the first building permit. Also in accordance
with the approved development agreement, dedication of the Newporter North
parcel will occur upon the effective date of the CIOSA development agreement.
Under the terms and conditions of the approved CIOSA development agreement, an
additional 8.5 acres were to be dedicated to the City as public open space.
This 8.5 acre area is identified on the tentative map as Lots V and X. The
City has indicated, however, that they do not wish to accept dedication of the
area. The area in question is the area between the proposed residential
development and Jamboree Road. It will essentially serve as a buffer between
the residential development and the arterial roadway. Because the City has
indicated that it is not willing to accept the dedication, the applicant has
identified the area as private open space on the proposed tentative map.
Whether the area is dedicated to the City for public open space or is
identified as private open space, the use is expected to be the same, a buffer
between proposed the residential development and the adjacent roadway. The
area is not wide enough nor appropriately located to be used as public area.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 24
The area is not proposed to be developed, except that a berm is proposed to be
created and landscaped for aesthetic reasons. This will protect views from
Jamboree Road as well as from the residential development. The use of the
area is not proposed to change if it is not dedicated to the City. However,
to assure that the development does not occur within the area in the future an
open space deed restriction should be placed on the two lots.
In considering and approving the CIOSA development agreement, the Commission
weighed the amount of development entitlement against the public benefits such
as the dedication of open space. Overall, the Commission found the
significant amount of open space land a significant public benefit consistent
with Section 30210's requirement of the provision of maximum public access and
recreation. The Commission finds that the proposed project is still
consistent with Section 30210 even if the two tots, V and X are not dedicated
dedicated to the City, provided an open space deed restriction is placed upon
them to assure no development will occur. An open space deed restriction will
have the same effect on the two lots as if the dedication to the City had
occurred.
As a condition of approval, the applicant shalt execute and record an open
space deed restriction, for the review and approval of the Executive Director
upon the two lots identified on the proposed tentative map as V and X.
Therefore, as conditioned, the Commission finds the proposed project
consistent with Section 30210 of the Coastal Act.
Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states, in pertinent part:
New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood,
and fire hazard.
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor
contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction
of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of
protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along
bluffs and cliffs.
The subject site is a bluff top parcelThe proposed development includes
772,900 cubic yards each of cut and flit. Grading of this magnitude could
create certain risks including instability and erosion, especially on bluff
top parcels.
In conjunction with the development agreement, an earth resources report was
prepared for the development agreement's Environmental Impact Report and
addressed all eleven of the development agreement sites. The EIR earth
resources report is dated February 18, 1992. In addition, a site specific
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. (dated
February 4, 1991). The 1991 report was updated by Leighton and Associates on
October 26, 1994 to specifically address design of the proposed bluff
stabilization. In addition, the geology report was updated via letters dated
September 30, 1994 and revised October 10, 1994 and May 9, 1995.
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 25
The geology reports prepared for the site identify certain unfavorable
conditions at the site. These unfavorable conditions include tow bluff and
slope stability; compressible/collapsible soils, ground water seepage, and
saturated diatomaceous soils. The geologic update letter dated 9/30/94 and
revised 10/10/94 states:
These issues can be addressed by remedial design, including structural
setbacks above the bluff and adjacent slope, construction of slope
buttresses, removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils, which will also
serve to minimize permeability, mixing or drying of site soils and
subdrainage to control ground water levels. The bluff top park design
will direct surface drainage away from the bluff face to minimize future
erosion.
The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation contains recommendations to address
and mitigate the unfavorable conditions at the site. The geologic update
letter report dated 9/30/94 and revised 10/10/94 states:
"The proposed development is geotechnically feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided the specific recommendations and remedial earthwork
measures developed during design of grading plan are implemented during
grading and construction.
The proposed project includes bluff stabilization for the portion of the bluff
above San Joaquin Hills Road. The geological consultant's letter dated 5/9/95
describes the unstable bluff area:
The subject slope is a manufactured slope cut for construction of San
Joaquin Hilts Road. At the time of its construction, ground water levels,
if any existed, were probably significantly lower than at present. As
surface water was directed and ponded above the slope from across Jamboree
Road, it infiltrated into the subsurface and has built up the groundwater
table as we have it today. That high groundwater results in seepage of
water out of the slope face and accumulation of the seepage along the toe
of the'slope. A drain pipe was added at some point to drain surface water
from the mesa at the top of the slope to the toe.
The bluff is proposed to be stabilized by construction of a shear key,
buttress and subdrain. The shear key design and construction is intended to
provide for both slope stability and groundwater subdrainage. The shear is
proposed to give gross stability to the slope by excavating a portion of the
slope until competent material is reached, installing a subdrain system to
collect and conduct groundwater away from the slope, then recompacting the
soil with lifts to achieve 90% relative compaction. Once the shear key work
is completed the slope will be returned to its original contours and
revegetated.
The proposed shear key, subdrain and buttress system is expected to remedy the
existing instability and will collect the ground water and direct to the storm
drain system within San Joaquin Hills Road at the base of the bluff.
Collecting and redirecting the ground water away from the face of the bluff
will eliminate the major, cause of the bluff instability. The geotechnical
reports include recommendations for construction of the shear key, subdrain
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 26
system. In order to assure bluff stability these recommendations must be
incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
The recommendations contained in the geology reports prepared for the proposed
development must be incorporated into the design and construction of the
project in order to assure the geologic stability of the site. As a condition
of approval the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the
Executive Director, grading and foundation plans, signed by the geotechnical
consultant, indicating that the recommendations contained in the referenced
reports have been incorporated into the design of the project. Therefore, as
conditioned, the Commission finds the proposed development is consistent with
Section 30253 of the Coastal Act which requires that risks be minimized.
F. Prejudice to LCP
Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act provides that a coastal development permit
shall be issued only if the proposed development would not prejudice the
ability of the local government having jurisdiction to prepare a local coastal
program (LCP) which conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the Chapter
Three policies of the Coastal Act.
The Newport Beach LUP was certified on May 19, 1982. The proposed
development, as conditioned, is consistent with the certified Land Use Plan
land use designation for the site. The proposed development has been
conditioned to assure protection of environmentally sensitive habitat and
wetlands, minimize geologic risk and assure the dedications of property
consistent with an approved development agreement.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed development, as conditioned,
would not prejudice the ability of the City of Newport Beach to prepare a
local coastal program consistent with the Chapter Three policies of the
Coastal Act.
51,
Section 13096 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations requires
Commission approval of Coastal Development Permits to be supported by a
finding showing the permit, as conditioned, to be consistent with any
applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being
approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact
which the activity may have on the environment.
The proposed project has been conditioned in order to be found consistent with
the public access and recreation, environmentally sensitive habitat, hazard
and wetland policies of the Coastal Act. Mitigation measures including
dedication of open space, creation of wetland acreage, coastal sage scrub
revegetation, monitoring of the wetlands mitigation, incorporation of the
geologic consultant's recommendations into the design of the project will
minimize all adverse impacts. As conditioned, there are no feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
Newporter North
5-95-048
Page 27
substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may
have -on the environment. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed
project can be found consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to
conform to CEQA.
4474F
1-405 FREEWAY
SANTA BARBARA DR.
NEWPORT CENTER DR.
........ "44 RD.
F,
�rb
Ny,
N
NOT TO SCALE
-�/5 -c'�/o
NEWPORTER NORTH
LOCATION MAP
DATE
5-95
W51
1
..w
Gt`c�F
47 C��y�i .�� ��[a�t�v s�"Y.i•_ tT�a•
1C•.��: �C�IC%i'L �tf�r �l, tcfrt •• �:C�^
�1'//�=..���� �� CCU �'\!j •f�'r�'.
Ila]i �^rt 1 '��.f %i(.}ram.. �^'; ..................
U
�qP
S
h�
URESIDENTIAL
PARK
OPEN SPACE/NATURAL AREAS
C IC5A bey, Aql
LAND USE PLAN
Q NEWPORTER NORTH
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTR
Q+
H
�O
JOA01itU
5=15c��1a
IT
.A
I.
i 5 �Srr
�a�J._. h♦
Or
!!1S
LEGEND
Prom= MOIIMVw / r .
ocvmvl rrr AMEA
®
�wwnm&xrxr OCWA <Il�rl rr
MPO M TC AMMM CIMML + '+isjf! MASI ! cd'•
1rITE11M O
SUMMARY
EUS" JOMSOTCTIONAL WATERS
WKLCWM@KWXT MCI U !AM AC
9`.
fMNIMMrd MAM OM AC
y TOTAL M." AC
/!ACTS TO AIMSOICTIOMAL WATERS
.• L ..
IOOIL• 9.24 AC
F ► OW.
� AA.3MCTO MlE
United States Department of the Interior
�F�g°��n
FISH AND \X'ILDLIFE SERVICE MAR 13 1995
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Field Office CALIFORNIA
230 :162d. er Avenue Ves200 COASTAL COMMISSION
Carlsbad. California 920U9 '
SOUTH COAST DISTRIC)
March 9, 1995
Mr. Chuck Daum
California Coastal Commission
245 West Broadway, Suite 380
P.O. Box 1450
Long Beach, California 90802-4416
Dear Mr. Daum:
The intention of this correspondence is to express the Fish and Wildlife
Services, (Service) position regarding your project and its related avoidance,
minimization, and restoration measures. As you are aware, The Irvine Company,
the Coastal Commission, local conservation groups, and the Service have spent an
extraordinary amount of time resolving the difficult biological issues on this
site in relation to its development potential. The mitigation measures outlined
below are sufficient to maintain, and possibly enhance the biological value of
this property.
This 89 acre parcel, which is immediately adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve, supports two federally listed species: the light-footed
clapper rail (Ralius longirostris levioes), and the California gnatcatcher
(Poliootila californica californics). Additionally, it contains a recent denning
site for the coyote (Canis latrans), whose continued presence in the Bay is very
important to its biological integrity.
The following measures will offset the loss of open space due to the residential
development onsite:
1. Avoidance of the two wetlands onsite. The development has been pulled back
from John Wayne Gulch and some native shrub cover should be established between
it and the development. The Service accepts the small incursion into the wetland
on the upland portion of the project as insignificant, especially as it has been
replaced at a four to one ratio.
2. Revegetation of the slopes, where needed, above Back Bay Drive and San Joaquin
Hills Rd. with coastal sage scrub (CSS). Pampas grass will be removed where it
occurs.
3. Revegetation of the 12 acre knoll area on the opposite side of the Gulch with
CSS.
4. Conservation easements will be,placed on areas supporting existing habitat,
and on revegetated areas.
cy
u 5 F W 5 cams de:
Mr. Chuck Daum 2
In recent years, the Newporter North site has supported three to four pairs of
gnatcatchers on the slopes, and is therefore an important site within the Bay.
The terrvitories on this site are compressed, relative to the majority of other
sites in the subregion because this habitat is optimal for the gnatcatcher, in
that it is low elevation CSS adjacent to the coast. The revegetation described
above, particularly on the knoll area, will compensate for the increased
disturbance due to the proposed residential development. Gnatcatchers were using
a revegetated area on the Unocal HCp site only 18 months after its initiation,
so the Service is confident that restored sites will support this species.
Ultimately the 12 sere knoll may support four to six pairs, provided that it
receives adequate protection from human intrusion.
It is important to maximize the number of pairs of gnatcatchers in the Bay area,
as several projects in the near term will remove gnatcatcher habitat, weaken
wildlife corridors, and increase the level of human activity which has impacts
on the gnatcatchers (and many other species) use of existing habitat. These
projects include the residential project on San Diego Creek South which is
removing 5.6 acres of occupied gnatcatcher habitat, a Mercedes Benz dealership
and road extension which is removing occupied habitat on the San Diego Creek
North site, the interpretive center and parking lot, and of course, the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. While all of these projects are
associated with mitigation measures which partially offset impacts, numerous
biologists are concerned about the biological integrity of this area.
The Newporter North location has also been important to the coyote in the recent
past. Consequently, the Service has solicited the advise of a coyote expert from
animal damage control. We received the following information. The donning site
is on the slope, and the pups remain there for approximately one month. When the
pups are weaned, they have a requirement for fresh water. The mother was taking
her pups to the wetland on the Northern and of the project, where they were
sheltering under the CSS until old enough to travel. Once the residential
project has been built, it is highly unlikely that the coyote would continue to
use this wetland as a freshwater source. However, there is a good probability
that the coyote would use the knoll site ones it is revegetated, provided it is
adequately protected from human intrusion. John Wayne Gulch would provide the
freshwater source. Thus, the knoll would provide the requirements of shelter,
water, and foraging habitat.
However, the Service has learned of recent conditions required on the project
site by the City of Newport Beach which would largely negate the value of these
mitigation measures. Initially, the City proposed a circular 16 foot road with
an emergency turnaround for a fire truck on the bluff face. This road was
immediately adjacent to all habitat areas on the site. Additionally, there was
a link which passed through the wetland area and bisected a gnatcatcher territory
to connect it with Back Bay Dr. There is also a proposed picnic area and
associated trail on the knoll. These features have been scaled down such that
the road is narrower, and the link to Back Bay Dr. has been eliminated.
However, the Service has major concerns concerning these requirements. A picnic
area on the knoll area would eliminate its use to the coyote as described above,
and would reduce its value to the gnatcatcher. The road around the project site
would encourage large numbers of people to use areas next to habitat, thereby
5•�tS��l�
I:-
Mr. Chuck Daum 3
eliminating any buffer. The six known locations for gnatcatcher nests have all
been in the upper 1/3 of the slope, and four have been within the upper 20 feet
of the bluff top. Presumably, this is due to the level of disturbance occurring
at the bottom of the slopes. There will also be impacts due to night lighting
of the trail system. These slopes are not very wide and if we introduce
disturbance at the top of the slope there will be little habitat left to be used
for nesting. Also, the City evidently feels that the trail along the bluff will
encourage people to go down over the bluff edge to such an extent that they feel
an emergency turnaround for a fire truck is necessary. This will result in
additional habitat loss and disturbance, which we can ill afford, as well as
create a public safety problem.
For these reasons the Service recommends against a road along John Wayne Gulch,
and any facilities on the knoll. We further recommend that a pedestrian trail
composed of decomposed granite track along the bluff face. paralleling San Joaquin
Hill Dr. out to the viewpoint without continuing on to John Wayne Gulch.
Lighting from this trail should not impact adjacent habitat. However, if this
trail constitutes as much of a public safety threat as the City believes, it
should not be constructed at all. In view of the extremely sensitive biological
issues on this site, people need to use these areas respectfully, or they should
not be used at all.• Does the City intend to commit resources adequate to enforce
proper use of these areas?
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve supports seven federally listed species, and
is a resource of regional significance. It is regarded as one of the major
binding locations in the western United States, primarily because of its
unparalleled access. If we are not careful, and do not more carefully balance
human utilization with preservation, we will eliminate those wildlife resources
which people are coming to see. The Coastal Act, which places priority on
access, subordinates access to resource protection (Section 30240) for just this
reason. The Service questions the need for access on this site given the
existing biological resources, and the extensive access already provided in the
Bay.
The project, as conditioned by the comments in this -letter, satisfies the
requirements of the Service. We commend The Irvine Company for its efforts to
accommodate biological concerns on this site. If you have any questions
concerning this correspondence, please contact Linda Dawes at (619) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
Gail C. Kobetich
�C Field Supervisor
cc: Patricia Temple, NB
Larry Eng, DFG
Tim Neely, OCEMA
Rod Meade, RJM Con.
�- 95-- (-)(l Co-
4 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Ocwmr
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1416 NINTH STREET
P.O. #OX 944209
SACRAMENTO, CA 94241.2M
(916) 653-9767
IrD - ��1
April 21, 1995
Mr. Norman E. Witt, Jr. CAL.•.;;.•: ,
Vice President
Coastal Community Builders
550 Newport Center Drive
P.O. Box 6370
Newport Beach, CA 92658-6370
Prop0264 Mitigation Piaa-Newporter North
Dear Mr. Witt:
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the
proposed mitigation plan for the Newporter North project which is
located in the City of Newport Beach, to the east of the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and outside of the proposed
Natural Communities Conservation Program Reserve Design for the
Orange County Central/Coastal Subregion.
Development of the Newporter North project was addressed in
the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement
Environmental Impact Report (certified 8/92) and approved by the
California Coastal Commission in June 1993. The City of Newport
Beach has used the certified Program EIR to provide the basis of
an initial study. Through the initial study process, the City
has reviewed all the necessary information and has concluded that
in addition to the determinations set forth under the program
EIR, the fifteen new mitigation measures resulting from the
initial study will appropriately mitigate the project -related
impacts to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project will remove approximately 3.4 acres of
occupied coastal California gnatcatcher (PoliOptiln californica
californica) coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat. In addition to
the fifteen mitigation measures proposed, project implementation
will result in the replacement of approximately 5.5 acres of CSS
habitat.
It is the position of the DFG that a Federal interim habitat
loss permit, pursuant to the Special 4(d) Rule is appropriate for
this project and we will concur with its issuance. The project
applicant is also pursuing the necessary agreement and permit
actions for impacts to the wetland habitats with the DFG and Army
Corps of Engineers. No additional permits or actions will be
required of the project applicant.
.5- 95- ny t)
C Df L? Ccn)nu-f:J
Mr. Norman E. Witt, Jr.
April 21, 1995
Page Two
Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence
please contact Ms. Cheryl Heffley; Wildlife Biologist at (310)
694-3578 or Mr. Bill Tippets, NCCP Supervisor at (619) 467-4212.
Sincerel ,
Larry L. ng, .D.
NCCP Program Manager
cc: Department of Fish and Game:
Ms. Patty Wolf
Ms. Cheryl Heffley
Mr. Troy Kelly
Long Beach
Mr. Banky Curtis
Sacramento
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Mr. Gail Kobetich
Ms. Nancy Gilbert
Ms. Linda Dawes
California Coastal Commission:
Ms. Meg Vaughan ✓
Long Beach
E
P.02
:�`�;._
�Gchad Rriintimxn a?ssor'arrs
November 10, 19%
Ms. Patricia Temple
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92659
SUBJECT. Supplemental Biological Assessment for the Newporter North Site, City of Newport
Beach, California.
Dar Ms. Temple:
This letter report describes the findings of a supplemental biological cent to
adjacent assessment conducted on the
Newporter North site, In the City of Newport Beach. The Newporter North site is locoed aa
the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and is bounded by Back Bay Drive, San Joaquin dRoad,
and Jamboree Road,
DrMODUCTIO.Y
Changes in the development plan for the Newporter North site will create additional impacts and magnify
Other imparts to the natural resources existing on the site, Additional Impacts to biological resources will
be created by moving the development closer to John Rayne Gulch and by the construction of slope
stabilization features. Thu document also addresses impacts to the jurisdictioaW wetlands and water
quality issues, and plain palettes to be used for landscaping manufaaured slopes. Mitigation measures
that are designed to lessen impacts to biological resources are suggested.
KV13001W •
A biologist from Michael Brandman Associates surveyed the Newporter North site ort October I B and
November 4, 1994 to determine additional Impacts to biological resources that may result from changes
made in the Newporwr North grading plans, The analysis included a review of biological studies
conducted for the IM OEM, a wetland delineation conducted by John M. Tutemer & Associates in
1994, a geological report prepared by Leighton and Associates in 1994, 1994 grading plans for the
Newporter North site, and aerial photographs.
V PACTS TO J039N WAYNE GULCH
John Wayne Gulch is a drainage located on the western portion of the Newporter North site. The
vegetation in John Wayne Gulch consists of 6.73 acres of freshwater marsh and 1.04 acre of willow
woodlaad/mulefat scrub. The light-footed clapper rail (UIUJ 10119frosrrfaWpes), a federal and state
d i l l U tl'p lit ui Ii.11I . illy: I'Inir •: � ;I"�•;
l U•, 1 IIe ,I'1'i:. 'illl"n yi. .;,
5- i 5^• oil �
'',6to ' C'c�,kt.t.11�.n�•
Ct�»/�w S
X /u
P.03
Ms. Patricia Temple
November 10, 1994
Page 2
listed endangered species, is reported to use John Wayne Gulch as part of its habitat. This species is a
resident south of the saltwater marsh of Upper Newport Bay.
Wildlifi Habitat Igmes
As Originally Planned, the development was to extend approximately along the 100•foot contour whieh
would place the edge of development at a minimum of 300 feet from John Wayne Gulch. In order to
reduce potential imp&= to the bluffs, the development is planned to be shifted away from the bluffs and
moved closer to John Wayne Gulch. The new limit of development near John Wayne Gulch will be at
the 60-foot contour and a minimum distance of approximately 150 feet from John Wayne Gulch.
Moving the development to the location closer to John Wayne Gulch will neither add new direct impacts
to John Wayne Gulch nor require changes to the adopted midgarion measures. Adopted mitigation
treasure 18 states that construction activity shall not occur below the 60-foot contour above John Wayne
Gulch.
The development will be approximately 150 feet closer to John Wayne Gulch than stated in previous
Plans- This may create new additional impacts by increasing the visual impact of the development on
wildlife species and increasing noise levels at John Wayne Gulch. The increased visual and noise impaca
may inhibit use of Johr Wayne Gulch by wildlife, including the light-footed clapper rail.
The following mitigation measures will lessen the impacts of moving the development closer to John
Ways Gulch.
• To prevent construction activities from inadvertently impacting John Wayne Gulch,
a temporary barrier that will function as both a visible warning to construction crew
and a physical barrier against construction activities should be installed along the 60-
foot comour.
Increase the cover between John Wayne Gulch and the development by planting
native vegetation between the development and John Wayne Gulch. The vegetation
Should act as a visual barrier for wildlife using John Wayne Gulch. A strip of
vegetation between 50 and 60 feet wide will be planted on the tnanufacrured slope
below the development. 77t1s vegetation should provide the recommended visual
barrier.
• The design proposed 6-foot wrought iron fence described in the construction
blueprint should be changed to provide a noise barrier between John Wayne Gulch
and the development. The lower half of the fence should be constructed of a solid
material, such as cinder block, that will decrease the amount of noise from the
development. The top of the fence may be made -of wrought iron or other materials
that will not impair the view of the residents.
-`iS-CUB
Ms. Patricia Temple
November 10, 1"4
Page 3
1:�?'t•:t•'Ri:'1
The wetlands located on the bluff top above S&a Joaquin Hills Road receive urban runoff from Newport
Center through &drainage pipe the crones beneath Jamboree Road. A dual basin retention system will
de used to drain wear from the site. Runoff will pass through an existing detention basin and a new
detention basin to be built on the south end of the development. From the second detention basin, runoff Will drain into John Wayne Gulch. A Swale will be constructed parallel and adjacent to Jamboree Road
to contain water from 1001W flood events.
The water quality of John Wayne Gulch and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, may be
degraded by urban runoff being released Into John Wayne Gulch. The following mitigation wiil lessen
water quality impacts to John Wayne Gulch by cleaning the wane before it Is released into John Wayne
Gulch.
• The detamion basin should be created with a soft bottom to permit percolation, thus
lemming the need to direct warn Into John Wayne Gulch. The detention basin
should be divided Into Cells, and each cells should be planted with freshwater
emergent vegetation. Running the runoff through vegetation will be effective in
cleaning the water before it is released Inm John Wayne Gulch. The ells should
be maintained and cleaned periodically.
A manual detailing maintenance guidelines for the detention basin cells should be
asuod.
The wetland habitat created in the detention basins should not be construed as mitigation for impacts to
jurisdictional wetlaods because periodic cleaning of the cells will be necessary to keep them functioning as designed.
DWACTS RELATED TO SLOPE STABII.IUMoN
In order to stabilize the bluff above San Joaquin HIM Rout, a shear key and a cutoff trench will be
constructed as specified by Leighton and Ataociates (1994). Impacts to vegetation related to these
Stabillzadon measures were estimated from bued on geotechnloal mops and matari&1 identifying bluff Stabilization he a and esed to of neesary grading and tiering provided by the geotschndcal
tronsultaat. The tees estimated to be Itttpaaed by the shear key is 140 feet wide aced begins at & point
100 feet east of the bluff edge closest to Back Bay Drive on the northwestern corner of the bluff top.
The shear key impact area exteods along the edge of the bluff top and runs east -Rest, parelleling Seca
Joaquin Hills Road for 440 feet. The cutofY'trench Ifipaet era Is 90 feet wide and extends from the
Ott= end of the shear key to a point opposite the driveway to the Park Newport Apartments. The
cutoff trench runs east -west, parallels San Joaquin NUIs Road and extends to the edge of the bluff. More
precite impacts can be measured'after the Impacted area is staked. Estimated impacts include 1.9.scres of non -naive grassland, 1.5 acres of coast&[ Sege scrub. 0.13 acre of jurisdictional wetlands, and 0.2 acre
of trail. Impacts to the non•aatdve grassland and trail would not be considered sigttifdoant.
5-
5
P.05
Ms. Patricia Temple
November 10, 1994
t Page 4
Mitigation measures for the loss of the estimated 0.43 acre of wedands are discussed below in the
"Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands" section.
An estimated 1.5 acres of coastal sage scrub will be removed during the construction of the shear key
and cutoff trench. The coastal sage scrub in the impact area is dominated by California sagebrush
(Arlemfsla caUfornica), ubastal goideabush (bocoma rre=esh), and California sunflower (Encelia
caltfornica). The coastal sage scrub that is to be impacted is occupied by the California gnateatcher
(FoUgpn/a mUfornica caUfornica), according to the 1992 DER. During surveys conducted on October
IS and November 4, 1994, Michael Brandman Associates found California goamatchers in this area.
The following mitigation measures apply to the loss of coastal sage scrub.
• Prior to the removal of coastal sage scrub, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Department of Fish and Game, and County of Orange should be ootified.
All removal of coastal sage scrub should be done in accordance with Natural
Communities Conservation Plan guidelines.
• Vegetation should be removed from costal sage scrub outside of the breading
season of the California goawatcher. The California gastcatcher breeds from late
February through July. Grading of coastal sage scrub should be conducted from
August 15 through February 10. Other birds that are protected under the Migrarory
Bird Treaty Act during the breeding season will also be protoaed by grading during
the non -breeding season of the California gnateamher.
• Coastal sage scrub that is not In the area of impact should be protected with orange
snow fencing. Silt fencing should be installed in places where construction occurs
Within 10 feet of the edge of the bluff.
• A biological monitor should be present when work is being done in or within 200
fat of coastal sage scrub.
• During removal of coastal sage scrub, the vegetation should be removed from east
to west to allow the California gnatcatchers to disperse into other arcs of coastal
sage scrub.
• After slope stabilization measures are completed, coastal sage scrub revegetarion
should be implemented following resource agency guidelines. A conceptual
restoration plan should be designed prior to grading. The coastal sage scrub that is
removed should be crushed and used for ievegetation to ensure species composition
integrity on the site. Any supplemental seed mixture that may be used in the
revegetation should contain seeds of coastal sage scrub species found on the site.
Sys-i,,y`
Ms. Patricia Temple
November 10, 1994
Page 5
Any shrubt that may be planted on the site sbouid be of the same species and
placued in the same ratio as shrubs found on the site. The coastal save scrub should
be replaced at the same loation from which it is being removed, both on the
manufactured slope and flat bluff edge near the footpath. Revegeation should take
place on the slope from Lot 34 to Lot 38 Ind on the bluff below the
manufactured slope from I point 150 feet west of Lot 28 to Lot 38.
U61PACM TO JLTmIL-noNAL WEPLANIDS
A total of 9.42 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were located on the Newporter North site by John M.
Tettetner dz Associates in 1994. John Wayne Gulch comprises 7.77 acres of the Jurisdictional wetlands
and the remaining 1.65 acre lies on the bluff opposite Santa Barbara Drive. The wetlands oflobn Wayne
Gulch will not be directly impacted by development.
The Jurisdictional wetlands on the Newponer North site obtain water from a pipe that crosses beneath
Jamboree Road, from surface runoff, and possibly from groundwater sources. The developmem may
decrease the amount of surface runoff available to the wedands due to a loss of natural surface area near
the wetlands. However, many of the surfaces such Is roads and driveways will be constructed from
iniiw viout Materials. Runoff from impervious materials may increase the amount of surface runoff in
certain areas near the wetlands. Additionally, the footpath should be graded to allow surface runoff w
flow imn the wetlands, water from the pipe that crosses beneath Jamboree Road will continue to now
into the wetlands. Without a detailed study of the hydrology of the Newporter North wetlands, it is
difficult to predict the extent of indirect impacts to the wetlands, However, it is anticipated this the
indirect Impacts to the wetlands will be minimal and that the wetlands will not be adversely affected by
indirect impacts.
The vegetation of the 1.65 tare wtalst $ on the bluff top consists of willow woodland/mulefat scrub.
Dominsat species in this babitat are arroyo willow (Soar lortolepft), mule
fat (Becdterit ralfct�b!!a), and
broad-leaved cattail (?ypho kutjblfa). impacts to that wetland will be minimal. Of the 1.65 acres of willow woodlAsd/mulefat scrub, 0,07 acre will be impacted by the completion of the main access road
to the development. An additional 0.04 acre of jurisdiction*! wetlands will be imputed by the
construction of the 100•yeer flood Swale. An estimated 0.13 Are of wetlands will be impacted by slope
stabilisation meatus.
The recent juAsdictionai wetland delineation is more specific than previous wodAtd scudiu conduaW on
the property and, therefore, impacts to the wetlands can be measured with Bremer accuracy once the eonstmed0c plans sets flnalizsd. The wetland delineation was done pursuant to mitigation measures
rulred by the Project Eat. in addition, the Project EM also states that the California Dep*ranent of
Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be notified on any streambed alterations prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
It is preferable that impacts to jurisdictional wetlands be kept to a minimum. Unavoidable impacts to the
0.24 acre of jutisdietional wetlands can be lessened with the following mitigation measures.
. I .
W. Patricia Temple
November 10, 1994
Pace 6
• The footpath in the view park should be designed along the path of the existing trail
that paralIeIs San Joaquin Hills Road. The existing trail does not pass through
wetlands.
• _All losses of wetland habitat should be replaced with in -kW wetlands, consistent
with CDFG and California Coastal Commission (CCC) policies. Wetlands should
be replaced onsite, if possible. If no onsite replat-cment is possible, than wetlands
should be replaced at a location as near as possible to the Newpotter North site.
The site should preferably he located in the Upper Newport Bay ecosystem.
• Buffers used to protect the wetlands Aould be consistent with CDFG and CCC
guidelines.
• The removal of vegetation from the wetlands should be conducted between August
15 and February 10 to avoid impacts to breeding birds.
MAhVFACTLMM SLOPE PLAN-T PALETTE
Lstds¢aping on the mamfachued slopes that overlook the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve -and
John Wayne Gulch should contain species which will not promote degradation of the natural habitats by
the invasion of non-native species. Many of the plant species listed on Sheet 6 of the Landscape Concept
Plan for the Newporter North site are natives and may provide habitat for wildlife species that use the
coastal sage scrub of the reserve. However, some of the non-native plants listed on the planting plans
are invasive and could spread into the reserve. These non-native plants should be replaced with native
Plants that may increase the value of the manufacnrred slopes to wildlife, pose little or no threat to the
flora of the reserve, and are of high aesthetic value. The following recommendations should apply to
manufactured slopes behind Lots 20 to 53 including the north slope of the access road, Lots 151 to 168,
and the western slope of the detention basin.
• Ground salthush, or Australian saltbush (Atripiea seWbotcara) is non•native and
highly invasive. It should be replsced with quail brush (AMPles lentifonnis) or four.
wing saltbush (AftPlex coneseens). Bah of these species are native to Newport
Bay.
• -Eucalyptus trees (EUC41YPtu: sP•) tend to be involve and produce allelopathic
chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plants. Eucalyptua trees on these slopes
should be replaced with Mexican elderberry (Sambucur met3cana) or tout live oak
(Quercus agriXa). Both of these species are native and have a high aesthetic
value.
• Myoporum (MyoPorum laMM) and amia (Acacia sp.), both Don -natives and
invasive, should be replaced with Mexican elderberry, California flannelbush
(Jt}tmonrodendron caUfornicunt ssp. californicum), or lemonadeberry (Rhar
hVegrifolia).
Ft,
W Psuicia Temple
November 10, 1994
Page 7
Broom bacehuis (Baccharis serothroides) is a native species this is common in San
Diego County but is not found At Newport Back Bay. It sbould be replaced with
coyote brush (Macchads piWaris) or Emory bacchiris i,Bocchatis entoryn as broom
baccharIs may invade wetlands in the reserve.
e Roekrose (Carus sp.), laatam Vartsarta sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Inca), sad pride of Madeira (Echlwn fosruoSwn) should be replaced. with natives
such As bladderpod (Isomeris arborea), monkeyflower (Mpnulus
M"llija Poppy (Romneya coukeri), Cslifornia fuchsia ou gn), royal
penstemon (Penneman curb (£pllobfunr canon), royal
� ), and Silva lupins (Lupines 400�0&),
e Other groundcover species that would be Appropriate include miniature lupine
(Lup&w bicolor), blue-eyed•grass (SiryrinddumbeRum), blue dicks (Dicheklteftw
capitarum) And purple needlegrAss (Nasseila putehra).
If (714 YOU
bgVe 250-5555 questiotu about the fladtags of this report, please oonsact either of the undeniped at
Slacaely,
MJCHAEL BRA�N/D%MAN ASSQCiATfiS
Qkv*),i •'-�
;*?to .
Steven G. Nelson
Director, Resources Muugement
Cynthia A. Jong
Staff Ecologist
SON/caj
IN 00640012
FR w
/�
MTAL P.08
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
17801 Cartwright Road
Irvine, California 92714 mulk
714;474.1400
Engineers
FAX 7141261.8482 Planners
Surveyors
May 9, 1995
Mr. Norm Witt
Vice President, Land Development
Coastal Community Builders
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
NEWPORTER NORTH ENTRY DRIVE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RELATED TO WETLANDS AREAS
Dear Norm:
The entry drive alignment set for the Newporter North project was selected to minimize impacts on
existing wetlands. Van Deli and Associates, Inc. (VA), considered two bridge alternatives for the
extension of Santa Barbara Drive to avoid wetland habitat areas. We assessed both an at -grade
bridge alternative and an above -grade bridge alternative that would "span" the wetlands. Both were
analyzed to determine whether a bridge structure would provide a feasible less environmentally
damaging alternative to the proposed Santa Barbara Drive extension that will impact approximately
0.11 acres of wetlands.
We understand that the Coastal Act limits the filling of wetlands for certain specified activities. The
Coastal Act also requires that there are no feasible less environmentally damaging alternatives to
the proposed activity, and the provision of adequate mitigation. The Coastal Act defines
"feasibility" to mean: "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." We
applied this definition of "feasibility" in our assessment of access drive design alternatives that
include a bridge.
The Proposed Entry Drive/Santa Barbara Drive Extension
The Newporter North project is an extension of Santa Barbara Drive from its intersection with
Jamboree Road. This is the main access road into the project and has a fixed point of beginning.
This road as currently designed will result in the filling of approximately 0,11 acres of wetlands,
Information on the existing wetlands and proposed road construction may assist in comparison of
alternate plans on the bridge concepts. There is an existing non -engineered berm that acts as a
retarding basin "dam" located where the road crossing is proposed. This berm which created the
drainage backwater and existing wetlands area will have to be removed and replaced by an
engineered fill to serve as both the road crossing and the berm for the new/replacement retention
basin.
Replacement of the berm is recommended now because the possibility of it breaching is high. The
result of a breach could cause significant erosion damage to the cut slope above San Joaquin Hills
Road and draining directly into the back bay. Replacement of the berm should occur with any of
the three alternatives outlined in this letter.
5- `7 S- c. C/ T
���� a rtie clvc.r� s << x.irc..� i�r•.,�{
04s,c: �jSrS
CL.0 4 e.: It cz f v- 1
i=nf f aj rr C='1
Mr. Norm Witt
Coastal Community Builders
May 9, 1995
Pape 2
►��TI��:TT�
K
Alternative 1 to the proposed road is the construction of a bridge about 100 feet in length which
would traverse the wetlands at generally the some grade and alignment as the proposed road fill
(the so called "at -grade bridge"), This bridge would actually have to be elevated (i.e., roadway
elevation raised about 5 to 6 feet higher than proposed road to accommodate a 4-foot thick bridge
structure) to clear the detention basin berm. Construction of an st-grade bridge would breach the
berm and potentially drain the basin that creates the wetland, if built in the same location as the
proposed road. A berm could be built upstream or downstream from the bridge, but either of these
new berm locations would impact more wetlands than would be avoided by the bridge. A bridge
would not eliminate the need to construct a stable replacement berm. in order to construct an at -
grade bridge adjacent to the existing berm and in a location nearer to Jamboree Road, the area of
impact to the wetlands would also be greater than the 0.11 acres for the proposed road. Wetlands
would be Impacted by the placement of piers and piling foundations and wing walls for bridge
approach support in this location.
In addition, it should be noted that Coastal Community Builders' wetlands consultants have
commented that even though some filling of wetlands could be avoided by a bridge alternative, an
at -grade bridge would result in a permanent covering and shading of the wetlands habitat which will
adversely impact the quality and long-term viability of the habitat that Is spanned,
From an economic perspective, this alternative would cost substantially more than the road to
construct. The additional construction cost over and above that of the proposed road with retaining
walls (to limit impact area) is estimated at about $350,000 to $400,000 for a reinforced concrete
structure, A curved single span bridge would cost 25 to 30% more. Design, plan processing, and
permit fees would be added to the total construction cost.
Because this alternative (1) could not avoid wetlands impacts altogether; (2) would require the
disturbance of more area of wetlands for bridge construction; (3) would result in potential long-term
adverse impacts to the quality of the habitat by shading; and (4) would cost more than the
proposed road, this alternative is neither more feasible nor less environmentally damaging than the
proposed road.
Alternative 2 is a higher and longer span bridge alternative that as conceptualized would span the
entire wetlands area avoiding wetlands impacts altogether, including minimizing shading impacts to
the wetlands habitat. A long span bridge about 200 feet in length could be designed that totally
avoided the habitat area. A reinforced concrete bridge of this length would usually be built with a
center pier support, which of course would require a footprint for foundation area; i.e., a fill in the
wetlands.
Whether you can create safe roadway geometrics to include this bridge and fit it on the site is
another question. The higher the bridge the harder to fit it within the constraints of the site. This
bridge would have to have longer approaches to allow for appropriate vertical curves and the
horizontal curve approaching the bridge from the entry would have to be lengthened compared
�a
Mr. Norm- Witt
Coastal Community Builders
May 9, 1995
Page 3
WE
to the existing road design. This longer radius curve would move the easterly bridge abutment and
road into the wetlands unless a curved bridge were built much closer to the beginning at Jamboree.
This would not allow access to the easterly pod of residential housing. A higher profile bridge
would -also result in longer approach fills and aesthetic impacts. The non -engineered berm would
still have to be either strengthened in place or replaced as noted in Alternate 1. Therefore, a higher
bridge is likely to impact existing habitat more than a fill crossing or a lower profile bridge,
Although this alternative would have the effect of avoiding some filling of wetlands and can be
constructed from a technical perspective, we have considerable doubts as to whether it is indeed
feasible and less environmentally damaging than the road alternative.
Although the wetlands could be avoided in some areas, minimal fill would still be required for the
center pier support. Additionally, there would be tradeoff areas of adverse environmental impacts
that could result from the construction of this alternative due to the alignment shift and larger
abutment and longer wing wall structures. There is also considerable question as to the impact
such a structural feature would have on the value of the housing that is proposed to be constructed
in the Newporter North project. Would the adverse aesthetic impact of having this dominant
structure in the view plane of Newport Center and Jamboree Road be in balance with wetland
preservation? Finally, the cost of constructing this alternative would be substantially more than the
other alternatives and could adversely impact the overall economic feasibility of the project. This
bridge is estimated to cost from $400,000 to $500,000 more than an at -grade bridge, or from
$750,000 to possibly $1 million more than the proposed road. Again, selecting a curved structure
design would add another 25 to 30% to costs. Design, plan processing, and permit fees would be
added to the total construction cost.
While economic infeasibility alone may not support the rejection of an alternative, taken together
with the increased environmental impacts that would result from this project, we do not believe that
it would be reasonable to conclude that Alternative 2 is a "feasible less environmentally damaging
alternative".
In conclusion, while the proposed Santa Barbara Drive extension would result in the filling of
wetlands, it is economically and technically feasible and has less environmental impacts overall than
either Alternative 1 or 2 and is therefore, in our opinion, the preferred access alternative. Neither of
the bridge alternatives can be shown to be a feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative as
compared to the proposed access road.
Sincerely,
VAN DELL �ELZa
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Terry J
man, P.E.
Executive Vice President
TJH:bt
cc: Susan Hori
Paone, Callahan McHolm & Winton
177.0200
C_i3
uw,- a-vo web Ir:36 H b PUDLIC Wokke 7146443310
P.e2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
P.O, BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92639.1769
(714)644.3311
May 2,1995
Ms. Meg Vaughn G!AY 4 W55
California Coastal Commission
246 West Broadway, Suite 380 CALIFORNIA
Long Beach, CA 80802 COASTA 1. e:nM'+1. '1
Subject: Tract No, 15011, Newporter North 'OUTH CCA.;
Dear Ms. Vaughn,
In your review of The Irvine Company's Newporter North Coastal development permit
application, it Is my understanding that you had some questions regarding the location
of the development access point opposite Santa Barbara Drive on Jamboree Road.
The City Is not a co•appilcant since the work Is being conducted on what is presently
private property by the developers in order to satisfy the City's Conditons of Approval.
During the development review process for this project, The Irvine Company and the
City reviewed a number of site layouts, types of residential uses and access points to
the site. The current plan that has been submitted for a coastal development permit
provides for the sob site access to be opposite Santa Barbara Drive. The City required
that Santa Barbara be extended at this point to provide site access. Extending Santa
Barbara Drive into the development will allow the residents and visitors (about 3,600 to
41000 trips per day) the safety and convenience of a traffic signal. The signal is already
in place, and our traffic analysis indicated that adding a fourth kg would not Impact the
intersection level of service. if the tract entrance was placed southerly of Santa
Barbara Drive, the volume of traffic would not warrant a traffic signal and the entrance
would be restricted to right turns In and out, This would not be satisfactory access for a
development of this type. In addition, If a signal was warranted it would not fit into the
City's signal system for Jamboree Road. Vertical and horizontal curves on Jamboree
Road would impair sight distance and make it d)ffioult for vehicles to safely enter and
exit an access point southerly of Santa Barbara Drive.
.f - `t5=nv ?
(2 L:2G/LIL"tiiS III
CtMI)v-t4l,
3300 N Ex lu b1 �4
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Jamboree Road is one of 4 arterial roads in Newport Beach that provide Inland access
to the coast. It is the first arterial east of the 3.5 mile long Upper Newport Bay. The
City has made a conscious effort to limit traffic signals and street intersections along
Jamboree Road so that a smooth flow of traffic can be maintained. Traffic volumes
vary from 40 to 60,000 trips per day along this arterial.
It is very Important that the City maintain the level of traffic service and safety of
Jamboree Road since it not only provides direct access to Coast Highway, but is also
the primary access to Balboa Island, which is a significant visitor serving area in the
City.
In the City's review of all of the various aspects of the project, It was determined that
there should be one access to Newport North. That access should be 4 lanes that line
up with Santa Barbara Drive to provide the least interruption of traffic on Jamboree
Road and also provide the safest Ingress and egress to the site. This is also the best
location to provide police and fire service as well as the other public utility services.
The proposed site will have a minimal impact on the drainage ditch that has been
classified as a "wetlands". The various mitigations that will be provided, both on this
site and on other sites by The Irvine company under the Circulation Improvement and
Open Space Agreement, will result in no net loss of wetlands and will help to improve
the overall quality of wetlands on site.
Please give me a call If you would like to discuss the site access and public
Improvements the City has required for Newporter North. I can be reached at (714)
644.3311.
Very truly yours,
Con Webb
Public Works Director
DW.so
5- 95-- cq $"
kl�2'
>r c
Ctit- C
w
d" :' '�L • Acreage Summary:
"W +
� p r r 1'Int1111„d Ou1h•r a
'�'-•�.�.,' !4,r ��� Total Welland Vegetaton tmpacls. 0.24 acte(s)
.�_�- So ».• �'RR`"-� N= t i { 7- r_ Total mitigation Acreage NeedeU:' 0.96 acte(s)
r.< J-"_—�'�, • . �, 1 i Proposed
posNewponANorth creage:
Site; 1.31 acre(s)
Pngmn•d Rrtaunnq W,dl � Surplus Mitigation racaga: 0.35 acre(sl
t•+ % �' ' - CIOSA requires a 4 to 1 multiplier on unpacts
pip. `r4 + Y "^•s _
. • R1y �" . ' ���/// �'�. Ptani Paletn Informaiion_
Avera
1 1 Comm
on Name Scientific Name Acreage Spacing Quantity-
, y LLLJJJ y Arroyo Willow — SakK jaside` — pis 0.24 15 126
• � � ,,. ,, Black Willow Salix 9ooddogli 0.24 15 46
+. = { • 7• _ _ Western Cottonwood Populus frememU 0.32 20 35
• / Muletai harrsglu0.10 10 44
• —�..:a Total -.. 08cctxosa 1.31 251
/+'�y (� rr a General Information:
Utilizes a dnp irrigation system
lf2 k .rt• , gallon per hour emitters; one per free
• Irrigated with potable water
%' ( WOW • Site presently receives storm runolf
• Additional storm runolf wiflbe routed through site
N � o...r...e � i.F•11� r Legend; .. -
// F +
•r 1 r rrrr Existing riparian wenand vegetation
/ .••' •• r.ye Wr. ••• +",/ (-- -� Proposed riparian wettand vegetation
v; ~'» �'e j �iiie , : + +r ' •'�� Proposed PVC drip irrigation system 1112- to 314- dla. PVCI
♦ - t S'
�+ - ••• • • • • • ...... • �'\ ` ; • • -- • • • Proposed Planting Area Boundary
S•��• `rL a eo
'.o JAMBOREE ROAOLyExlsung for
ra ,j Man Infel
OIze I..r
iZ
+._
r it SANTA BAR6ARA�yI n NEWPORTER NORTH011i
• _____a_AVENUEj /•'�`�//^�^jy, 1-95
Conceptual Mitigation Plan sw.•
l / 4Vtiw �r VIiN M1vn�r�9RY 3
0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL
SOUTH COAST AREA
245 W, BROADWAY, STE. 380
P.O. BOX 1450
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416
(310) 590-5071
VAMISSION
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPAIRMEIVT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DEC 121994
AM PM
71819,10111112111213141516
APPLICATION NCr: 5-94-182
PETE WILSON, Gowrnor
kFiled: 10/21/9
49th Day: 12/9/94
180th Day: 4/19/9
Staff: MV—LB
Staff Report: 11/30/94
.Hearing Date: 12/13-16/94
Commission Action:
APPLICANT: Coastal Community Builders, a Division of the Irvine Company
AGENT: Norman Witt, Jr., Vice President
PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree and Santa
Barbara Streets at the site'commonly known as Newporter-
North, Newport Beach, Orange County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Program to preserve seven prehistoric sites and conduct
archaeological data recovery (Phase III) salvage
excavations at one site, to mitigate impacts from future
residential development. The excavations will be supported
by two construction trailers and four storage sheds.
Approximately 6,500 cubic meters will be excavated.
LOCAL APPROVALS RECEIVED:
None required
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS:
California Coastal Commission Statewide Interpretive
Guidelines adopted December 16, 1981; City of Newport Beach
certified Local Coastal Program.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed project subject to special
conditions requiring: 1) artifacts collected at the site will be curated in
facilities that meet State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines; 2)
Native American monitoring during excavation activities and that the monitors
meet the Native American Heritage Commission's guidelines; and 3) protection
of environmentally sensitive areas including fencing of sensitive areas and
possible realignment of a water access line. The special conditions are
necessary to bring the project into conformance with the archaeological
(Section 30244), environmentally sensitive habitat (30240), and wetland
policies (Section 30233) of the Coastal Act.
5-94-182
Page 2
Staff Recommendation:
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution:
I. ADroya-Lwith-Condi_tions.
The Commission hereby grants a permit, subject to the conditions below, for
the proposed development on the grounds that the development will be in
conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of
1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having
jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to
the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and will not have any
significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
II. Standard Conditions,
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date this permit is reported to the Commission. Development
shall be pursued In a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of
time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the
expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special
conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be
reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any
condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
S. Inspections. The Commission staff shalt be allowed to inspect the site
and the project during its development, subject to 24-hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to
bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and
conditions.
5-94-182
Page 3
III. Special Conditions:
1. Curation Facility
a) Artifacts collected as a result of this project at the Newporter North site
shall be curated at a qualified curation facility, which at this time would
likely be the Archaeology/Paleontology Curation Facility of the County of
Orange. A qualified curation facility is one that meets the State Office of
Historic Preservation Guidelines for Curation of Archaeological Collections.
b) Prior to completion of archaeological work at the site the applicant shall
submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, evidence that:
i) the curation facility meets the State Office of Historic Preservation
Guidelines for Curation of Archaeological Collections; and
ii) evidence of the facility's willingness to accept the collection.
c) If no qualified curation facility
complete, an amendment to this permit
appropriate curation process.
Native American Monitor
is available at the time the project is
shall be required to determine the
A Native American monitor shall be present on -site during all excavation
activities to monitor the work. The monitors shall meet the requirements set
forth in the Native American Heritage Commission Guidelines for
Monitors/Consultants of Native American Cultural, Religious, and Burial Sites.
Avoidance of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
a) No portion of the project shall result in any adverse impacts to the
on -site sensitive habitats including coastal sage scrub or fresh water marsh.
b) All sensitive habitat areas, including coastal sage scrub and fresh water
marsh shall be fenced for the duration of the project. Fencing desing shall
not obstruct the movement of small animals.
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a site plan
indicating the location of construction fencing in relation to the on -site
sensitive habitat.
c) Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a site plan
which depicts the existing access road and proposed water access line
alignment in relation to the on -site sensitive habitat including coastal sage
scrub and fresh water marsh.
If the site plan indicates that the proposed alignment will create adverse
impacts to the on -site sensitive habitat, the water access line shall be
realigned to fall within the existing access road or other alignment that will
not result in adverse impacts to the on -site sensitive habitat. Plans
indicating the realigned water line must be submitted prior to issuance of the
coastal development permit.
5-94-182
Page 4
IV. Findinas and Declarations
The Commission finds and declares as follows:
A.
The applicant is proposing a program to preserve seven prehistoric sites and
conduct archaeological data recovery (Phase III) salvage excavations at one
site, to mitigate impacts from future residential development. The
excavations will be supported by two construction trailers and four storage
sheds. Approximately 6,500 cubic meters will be excavated. The outline for
the proposed work is contained in the Master Archaeological Operation Plan and
Research Design (Research Design).
The Newporter North site includes five prehistoric archaeological sites,
CA-ORA-51, -52, -64, -100, and -518, All sites except ORA-64 are to be
preserved in dedicated open space. ORA-64 will be the subject of data
recovery excavations. South of the Newporter North site is Newporter Knoll
which contains three archaeological sites: CA-ORA-50, -99A, and 99B. The
Newporter Knoll site is to be dedicated open space and so all sites on
Newporter Knoll will be preserved.
Previous archaeological studies at Newporter North (ARI 1977; Drover et at.
1983) indicate that the area is highly significant for archaeological research
and heritage preservation. In 1977 the site was dated as the oldest site in
Orange County and contained the earliest known ceramic objects in North
America. In addition to the data -recovery excavations at ORA-64, some minimal
work is proposed at the sites being preserved. The minimal work includes
surface collection, limited testing, and construction monitoring.
The Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach have previously entered into
a Development Agreement, known as the Circulation and Open Space Agreement,
which was approved by the Coastal Commission on June 10, 1993. Under the
terms of the Development Agreement, residential development, subject to future
discretionary review, is anticipated to occur at the Newporter North site.
The proposed archaeological work is intended to meet the mitigation
requirements necessary to offset impacts due to future development of the site.
B. Cultural Resources
Section 30244 of the Coastal Act states:
Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological
resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer,
reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.
Regarding Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Resources the City
of Newport Beach's certified Land Use Plan states:
Archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the
Coastal Zone shalt be investigated in accordance with acceptable
scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including
testing, salvage, or preservation) shall be adopted on a case -by -case
basis in accordance with regular City policy.
I
5-94-182
Page 5
Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic
resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A
City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established,
following adequately noticed public hearings.
Both the Coastal Act and the City's certified Land Use Plan require mitigation
measures for development areas which contain significant cultural resources.
The proposed project is intended to provide such mitigation measures. The
Commission adopted Statewide Guidelines provide guidance for preferable
mitigation measures. These range from complete avoidance of the site to a
full scale excavation and analysis of the archaeological materials.
The Guidelines recommend a three step process to develop an appropriate
archaeological mitigation program. The first step includes archaeological
reconnaissance which typically is designed to locate archaeological sites
based on a literature review/archival search and possibly a surface
reconnaissance. This step has already been completed for all the subject
archaeological sites.
The second step includes testing and determination of significance. This step
includes defining the boundaries of the site, and evaluation of its
composition and significance. This step would likely include some subsurface
testing. A site's significance is determined on the basis of site integrity,
research potential, ethic and historical value and the potential for public
appreciation. This step has been completed for sites ORA-64 and -100. No
data is available to determine the significance of sites ORA-50, -51, -52, or
-518. Site ORA-50, located on the Newporter Knoll site, will be completely
preserved and will not be subject to any testing. Sites ORA-51, -100, and
-518 will be the subject of.surface collections and excavations of less than
two square meters of site area.
The third step requires the preparation of a Mitigation Plan, taking into
consideration the information obtained in steps one and two. In this case the
proposed mitigation is to preserve all but one site, ORA-64. ORA-64 is
proposed to be the subject of data -recovery excavations.
The Commission's Statewide Interpretive Guidelines provide guidance for
archaeological excavations. Included in the guidelines is the requirement
that such work be conducted by a qualified professional. Members of the
Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) are considered to meet these
qualifications. The proposed project will be led by Michael Macko, a member
of the Society of Professional Archaeologists. In addition, Paul Langenwalter
II, will be a member of the project. He is also a member of SOPA. Additional
members of the project are David Earle and Mark Peterson. The principal
personnel are Orange County certified archaeologists.
The Guidelines also recommend that archaeological work involving excavation of
more than two meters of surface area provide a written research design. The
research design should be an explicit statement of research objectives and a
program for carrying out these objectives. Under the three broad headings of
Realms of Human Behavior, Factors Affecting Human Behavior and Studies Devoted
to the Refinement of Archaeological Measures, the proposed research design
5-94-182
Page 6
contains specific theoretical problems, working hypotheses and a statement of
the data required to confirm or reject the hypotheses. The proposed Research
Design also includes detailed field and laboratory methods.
A peer review team has been assembled to review and provide input on the
proposed Research Design and the project generally. Each of the peer
reviewers are university affiliated, professional archaeologists. Two of the
three are affiliated with the Fowler Museum at UCLA. And two of the three are
members of the Society of American Archaeologists. The proposed Research
Design has been reviewed and accepted by the three members of the peer review
team (see exhibit D). Additionally, a copy of the Research Design has been
submitted to the County of Orange Cultural and Historical Programs Department.
In addition, the proposed Research Design has been reviewed by Jim Velasques,
Tribal Chairman of the Coastal Gabrielinos and David Belardes, a member of the
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. Both have indicated approval of the proposal
(see exhibits F). Additionally, the proposed Research Design has been
reviewed by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (see exhibit E).
NAHC provided comments which are incorporated into the proposal.
Furthermore, with the high significance of ORA-64 having already been
established, monitoring of the site by a qualified Native American monitor is
necessary to assure appropriate handling of artifacts of cultural and
religious significance to the affected Native American groups. Also, the
presence of a Native American monitor on -site would be useful should Native
American grave goods be discovered. The Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) has established Guidelines for Monitors/Consultants of Native American
Cultural and Burial Sites. To assure that the proposed project remains
sensitive to the concerns of the affected Native American groups, a Native
American monitor should be present at the site during excavation work. The
monitor should meet the qualifications set forth in the NAHC's guidelines. As
a condition of approval, an on -site Native American monitor that meets the
qualifications of the NAHC's guidelines, shall be required during all
excavation activities. Therefore, as conditioned, the proposed project is
consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act which requires reasonable
mitigation measures be provided to offset impacts to archaeological resources.
The Research Design identifies a specific project member who will be
responsible for coordinating communication among various groups of Native
Californians and the archaeological community. David Earle will be the
liaison with the Native American groups and will be responsible for conducting
any mission register studies necessary. Mr. Earle had this same
responsibility with the previously conducted Newport Coast Archaeological
Project.
In the event that grave goods are discovered, the Research Design provides
that "immediately upon the discovery of human remains, the Orange County
Sheriff -Coroner will be notified, and they in turn will request the Native
American Heritage Commission to identify the Most -Likely Descendant. MAC [the
applicant's archaeological consultant] will establish procedures satisfactory
to the Orange County Sheriff -Coroner for reporting discovery of remains. It
is understood that documenting human remains and associated grave goods and
5-94-182
Page 7
analysis of such material is the decision of the Most -Likely Descendant." The
applicant's archaeological consultant has further agreed, in a document dated
September 26, 1994, that "there shall be no further excavation or disturbance
of the site or any nearby" in the event human remains are discovered. The
concerns raised in the NAHC comment letter of September 16, 1994 have been
addressed in the project design.
The Commission's Archaeological Guidelines also recommend that the research
design include arrangements for curation of collections when appropriate, and
dissemination of the research findings. This is especially important in this
case because the site significance has already been determined to be very
high. Regarding curation, .the proposed Research Design states, in part:
"All cultural material both sorted and unsorted, will be prepared for
permanent curation using currently accepted curatorial standards. The
Irvine Company will maintain ownership of the collections. Copies of the
field records, catalogs, box inventories, all other data pertinent to the
archaeological record, and reports will also be curated with the
material. The Irvine Company will work to find a suitable repository for
the materials in Orange County."
Ideally, the curation facility that would house the collections resulting from
excavations of ORA-64 would be identified prior to commencement of
excavations. However, discussions with the Chief of Cultural Historical
Programs in Orange County indicate there is a dearth of acceptable facilities
available. The lack of acceptable curation facilities is not unique to Orange
County, but is a problem nationally. Laws that have required archaeological
mitigation of sites prior to allowing any development have generated a vast
amount of artifacts that need to be curated. Unfortunately, largely due to
lack of adequate funding, very few facilities meet the criteria established by
federal and state agencies. Additionally, many of the facilities that do meet
the criteria are full and cannot accept more material. This makes identifying
an appropriate curation facility difficult at this time.
The County of Orange Historical Cultural Programs department anticipates
receiving a substantial grant which will be used to make capitol improvements
to its existing facility (the Archaeo/Paleo Warehouse) and provide for paid
staffing of the facility. It is anticipated that the grant money would allow
the County to meet the State Office of Historic Preservation's (SHPO)
Guidelines for Curation of Archaeological Collections. The improvements are
anticipated to be completed by approximately the end of 1996. The proposed
archaeological work is expected to be complete and ready to be curated by late
1996 also. The improved County facility would be the ideal location for
curation of ORA-64 artifacts.
There must be some assurance that the collection and related field records,
catalogs and reports, etc. resulting from the proposed work at ORA-64 will be
properly curated. Without proper curation there is no assurance that the
value of information obtained will be retained in perpetuity. An acceptable
curation facility for the proposed project would be the County of Orange's
Archaeo/Paleo Warehouse once it is upgraded to meet the standards of the State
Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for Curation of Archaeological
5-94-182
Page 8
Collections. However, at this time there is no guarantee that the Orange
County facility improvements will be complete or that, even if they are, that
the collections could be accepted there. Consequently, if another facility is
available that meets SHPO's guidelines, it would also be appropriate to allow
curation to occur there. In any case, curation of the ORA-64 collection must
be assured in order to find that the proposed project meets Section 30244 of
the Coastal Act's requirement for reasonable mitigation. Therefore, as a
condition of approval, artifacts collected as a result of this project at the
Newporter North site shall be curated at a qualified curation facility, which
at this time would likely be the Archaeology/Paleontology Curation Facility of
the County of Orange. A qualified curation facility is one that meets the
State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. If no qualified curation
facility is available at the time the project is complete (expected to be late
1996), an amendment to this permit shall be required to determine the
appropriate curation process. Therefore, as conditioned, the Commission finds
the proposed project is consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act.
C. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act states:
Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any
significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those
resources shall be allowed within those areas.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in conjunction with the
Circulation and Open Space Agreement development agreement approved by the
Commission on June 10, 1993. The EIR included a biological assessment of the
Newporter North site. The Biological Assessment identified coastal sage scrub
habitat and fresh water marsh at the site. Coastal Sage Scrub is considered
to be environmentally sensitive habitat. Consequently, the Coastal Act
requires that it be protected.
Additionally, Section 30233 specifically limits development within wetlands.
The Coastal Act definition of wetland includes fresh water marsh. Section
30233 allows development in wetlands only where there is no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures
have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and when limited
to one of the uses specifically enumerated in 30233(a) (1)-(8).
The Archaeological Site Operation Plan contained in the Research Design
depicts an access road off San Joaquin Hills Road which borders the site to
the northeast. Also depicted is a water access line to serve the site which
generally runs alongside the access road (see exhibit B). Because the access
road is adjacent to sensitive coastal sage scrub habitat, care must be taken
that use of road does not exceed its existing width, which could adversely
impact sensitive habitat. Additionally, there must be assurance that the
proposed pipeline alignment will not adversely affect sensitive habitat. It
appears that placement of the water access line will not interfere with
existing sensitive habitat. Because sensitive habitat is not depicted on the
Archaeological Site Operation Plan it is not definitive. Therefore, as a
condition of approval, the applicant shalt submit a site plan showing the
5-94-182
Page 9
existing access road and proposed water access line in relation to the on -site
sensitive habitat. If the water line alignment would result in adverse
impacts to either the coastal sage scrub habitat or the fresh water marsh
habitat, it shall be realigned within the existing access road or other
alignment that will not result in adverse impacts to the on -site sensitive
habitats. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised
Archaeological Site Operations Plan, indicating the water line has been
realigned to fall within the existing road, if the currently proposed
alignment would create adverse impacts on the on -site sensitive habitats.
In addition to the coastal sage scrub adjacent to the northeast side of the
project, the northwest side of the proposed project is adjacent to the edge of
the bluff which the EIR identifies as supporting coastal sage scrub. In order
to protect the coastal sage scrub, the applicant shall install construction
fencing along all sides of the project which are adjacent to coastal sage
scrub habitat; including along the access road and the northwest bluff edge.
Additionally, the on -site freshwater marsh should be fenced as well to protect
against construction impacts. Fencing design should not obstruct the movement
of small animals. Placement of construction fencing along sensitive habitat
would prevent equipment, debris and personnel from entering the sensitive
habitat areas. As a condition of approval the applicant shall provide fencing
around the on -site fresh water marsh and adjacent to coastal sage scrub.
Therefore the Commission finds that as conditioned, the proposed project is
consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal regarding protection of sensitive
habitats and with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act regarding wetlands.
D. Local Coastal Program
Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act provides that a coastal development permit
shall be issued only if the proposed development would not prejudice the
ability of the local government having jurisdiction to prepare a local coastal
program (LCP) which conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the Chapter
Three policies of the Coastal Act.
The City of Newport Beach was originally certified by the Commission in 1982.
The proposed development has been conditioned to provide adequate
archaeological mitigation, and to protect environmentally sensitive resources
including coastal sage scrub and fresh water marsh. Therefore, the Commission
finds that approval of the proposed development, as conditioned, would not
prejudice the ability of the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local coastal
program that is consistent'with the Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act.
E. Consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA).
Section 13096 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations requires
Commission approval of Coastal Development Permits to be supported by a
finding showing the permit, as conditioned, to be consistent with any
applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 21080.5(d)(2)(1) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being
approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact
which the activity may have on the environment.
5-94-182
Page 10
The proposed project has been conditioned in order to be found consistent with
the archaeological and environmentally sensitive habitat policies of the
Coastal Act. Mitigation measures include conditioning the project to provide
qualified Native American monitoring of the work, to provide provisions for
curation of the collection at an acceptable facility, and to protect sensitive
habitat, including coastal sage scrub and fresh water marsh. As conditioned,
there are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the
activity may have on the environment. Therefore, the Commission finds that
the proposed project, as conditioned, can be found consistent with the
requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA.
3322E
San
FIGURE I --PROJECT LOCATION
Q
w
e
p
(:3
C.:.; L- c
;F� .� ,— yL• San
Diego
MIN,
Countv
®RANGE COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
F.
k
0
t_.
scat Sita onarations F
z:
-'
< <'
I : :.:::...::: .........:... .
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
INTRODUCED ANNUAL,(JIIASSLAND .! '
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ''� • ~'
® FRESHWATER MARSH
ORNAMENTAL
AREA
NOTE: Deveippnterfarea denoteathaponlonof
the site Identified for development of
residential uses In the proposed PC
Text. Grading related to devsbp e t of
residential uses could Mtend beyond
the developrrart area boundaty. Gtad.
i� Ing could also occur for roads, open
space uses, trays. and duff rastc{at7an
t�• outside of are" deaWwodl for dr ok)c,
`t.� Illant. arts+
,t,\
Lj
.;_feu.: •, `: •..; � `• � ¢-+
1 Jl1 )l
• rf • F ' f I �I�, II i i r, . d
BIOLOGICAL -RESOURCES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
NEWPORTER NORTH/NEWPORTER KNOLL
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT &
OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT
City of Newport Beach
Source: Steven Nelson
AREAS P
f inc.
no scale
63
JonM. Erlandson, Ph.D.
492 East 53rd Avenue, Eugene, OR 97405
(503) 34¢ ff 6A C I 0 d�5
OCT 2 1 t994
Mr. Norm Witt CALIFORNIA
Coastal Community Builders P.O. Box 6370 COASTAL COMMISSION
Newport Beach, CA 92658-6370 SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
October 15, 1994
Re: Master Archaeological Operation Plan and Research Design for the Proposed Newporter
North Residential Development.
Dear Mr. Witt,
I have reviewed the draft and final Operation Plan and Research Design prepared by Macko
Archaeological Consulting (MAC) for data recovery at ORA-64 and nearby archaeological sites.
ORA 64 is a large and complex site that contains information of the highest significance for
understanding the prehistory of Orange County and coastal California. Any plans to destroy that
site should be preceded by thoughtful and thorough archaeological study of the materials it
contains. In my opinion, the MAC plan meets or exceeds all professional standards and guidelines
for Cultural Resource Management projects in the State of California. The plan, revised after the
review of three independent archaeologists, incorporates many of the methods used in the
Newport Coast Archaeological Project, which provided a wealth of new and significant data on
the Orange County archaeology. Data recovery at ORA-64 will provide equally important data.
I have also been asked to comment on the adequacy of stated curation plans, particularly the
rights of the Irvine Company to maintain ownership of the collection. To my knowledge, there is
no legal mechanism by which a property owner can be compelled to relinquish ownership of an
archaeological collection (excluding human burials or burial -related items) found on their land.
Moreover, many curation facilities accept archaeological collections over which a landowner
retains ownership. There is also a crisis in southern California curation facilities, with very few
adequately staffed or funded institutions willing to accept major collections. It would clearly not
be in the interest of the Irvine Company, with long-term commitments to development in Orange
County, to have the controversy and public relations nightmare that would accompany the
destruction or degradation of the extremely significant ORA-64 collection. I recommend that the
Irvine Company commit to working out a mutually agreeable curation agreement by the time of
some significant regulatory hurdle -- the granting of a grading or construction permit for instance.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this excellent plan, if you have any questions or I can be of
further service, please don't hesitate to contact me.
J M. Erlandson, Ph.D.
CIO _A
50 9�. / tB 2
p;eA Arz V I & K/
E.. . ...
F:.':....a.__ - ..'5'...
UNIVERSITY OF: CALIFORNIA. LOS ANGELP UCLA
�t.•>ra
SwCy
•-••••••••^ r r uy "o
YKKKXLKY 17AYIX WINK' LOY dNf:E:,KB IIIVEnRi11Y SAN pl l:r;u � 1AN PRAMN<aYttn� XANTAnAnnAnA . SANT.ACKI� ? Sy �• a
October 20,, 1994
TIM INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Mr. Norm .Witt, vice President OCT 2 1 1994 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 00024
Coastal Community Builders
P.O. Box .6,370' ' CALIFORNIA
550 Newport Center Drive' OASTAL COMMISSION
Newport Beach, California 92658:-637 UTH COAST DISTRICT
Mr.. Witt,
I have carefully revipwed the
Consulting firm..ti have found the proposed research plan to be well
thought out, well organized, and adheres to a high standard of
professional• archaeological,pxaetice. I have no reservations in
recommending that this research design be approved and the
archaeological.field wbrk and analysis commence.
Mackols review of the relevant literature is thorough,
including - his discussion .of ethnohistory, ethnography,
paleoclimate, and previous,arch•eologicai research. His discussion
of. proposed-excav,•ation.techniqu6s' sampling, and data recovery are
also gerierally solid.. I' find the coordination with Native
Americans,especially;in„regard ta.encountered human remains, to be
appropriate.'i_am.espec.ially.impxessed by the scale of the proposed
.excavations. such large scale;;, excavations can yield exciting
archaeological -data and are; altogether too infrequently carried out
in r>outhern. California, archaeology. Given the uniqueness and
importance; of oRA64, the opportunity to conduct large-scale
excavations is ihde'ed..exciting�{' especially considering what the
site can :tell us: about '•cultur.aI evolution and past life ways of
early inhabitants of orange County.
I would like,to -make several comments about particular aspects
of• the prcposal.:These are not'major criticisms of the proposed
research, which as I -stated above, is well thought out. These
comments instead refer'to issues'of•concern that should be kept in
mind -and acted upon as,the.pro'jact advances.
'On page to it is stated that. the Irvine Company will find a
suitlibie 'repository for .curatian of the collected materials. I
trust.that!this rill' be :acted•iipon. The long-term maintenance and
storage otlarchaeological•collec�tions is a significant and costly
issue, and'the-responsibility should be clearly understood at the
outset.
on page 63 Macko states that a sample of stone tool debitage
will be curated. I would suggest -that all debitage be curated
unless this represents an onerous ouration burden. In general, I
feel: that. all ' artifacts, including debitage, be curated. Future
v�
analyses of :the recovered material may want to sample the debitage
d'ifferently'or record` different attributes. in addition, given the
fact that simple: unmoAtfied flake, tools are common in southern
California isnemblages apd,are difficult to identify, discarding
debitage.may•result in the loss of flake tools,
pages.1•2-54.detail research orientation and the relevance of
particular data, sets :to, specific research topics. I find this
discussion -to be useful and interesting. His discussion identifies
important research questions and the data that are relevant to such
questions., 'it is clear that Macko•knows what data are most
important tp. recover and analy2e. However, I find his use of
hypotheses: and test implications to be somewhat problematic. As
Currently, stated,, mast nre not adtually hypotheses and test
implications. They. are simply statements of the importance of
particular.rgsearch questions, relevant data sets, and the analysis
necessary to address• the question. Although this does not
negatively . affedt the''•proposed research, the use of the
hypothesis/test implication structure within the research plan is
probably unnecessary. .
The proposed research is ambitious and the importance of the
sites to be* studied is without question. I trust that Mr. Macko
will do a thorough and professional job, based on my knowledge of
his, professional archaeological experience and my evaluation of the
research design.
Sincerely;
Dr. Glenn S.
Director
Lithics Analysis and obsidian
Hydration Laboratory
5-9y- raz
October 10, 1994
Roger Colten
10966 Roebling Avenue Apt. 6B
Los Angeles, California 90024
Mr. Norm Witt, Vic
Coastal Commission
P.O. Box 6370
550 Newport Center
Newport Beach, CA
Dear Mr. Witt:
e President
Builders
Drive
92658-6370
RECZ°'JEn
OCT 2 11994
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Macko
Archaeological Consulting's "Master Archaeological Operation Plan
and Research Design for the Proposed Newporter North Residential
Development." I have reviewed the revised research design and am
sending written comments. My comments are limited to an
evaluation of the proposed archaeological operations and data
recovery as described in the plan and do not address other issues
regarding the proposed development.
My overall impression of this research design is that it is
very well thought out and presented. I am particularly pleased
with the presentation of general research topics pertaining to
Native Californians and prehistoric archaeology in the southern
California area. All too often cultural resource management
projects are not designed in a manner that produces data relevant
to broad regional issues. This plan is designed to address
important anthropological questions and will yield a large body
of archaeological data. The Palaeo-Coastal Period and
Millingstone Horizon are poorly documented in Orange County, and
any additional data will be of interest. I am also pleased to
see the analysis of existing collections, another neglected area
of California archaeology. I have two general concerns about the
research design.
Pirst, a repository has not been identified for curating the
collections resulting from excavations of ORA-64. I believe it
is important to arrange for curation of the collections in a
suitable repository BEFORE the excavations begin. If this cannot
be done, the developer should make some sort of formal commitment
to proper curation of the resulting collections in a suitable
repository. A suitable curation facility is one that is
professionally staffed, provides access for collections research,
and is likely to exist in perpetuity. The Federal curation
guidelines may or may not apply to this project, but they do
provide useful information for evaluating repositories. The
"curation problem" is not unique to this project, however, and
neither the developers or the archaeologists should be blamed for
a lack of repositories in southern California. If regulatory
agencies require archaeological data recovery, they should assist
in identifying suitable repositories for the resulting collections.
5-q41 1 7z
Second, the research design does not contain a plan for
collecting and processing radiocarbon samples. As is noted in
the research design, chronological control is a critical part of
archaeological analysis, particularly In the case of ORA-64 which
may prove to be of some antiquity. The approximate number of
radiocarbon samples that will be processed and how they will be
selected should be spelled -out in the research design. A site of
this size and complexity should probably be dated with several
dozen radiocarbon dates.
In addition to these two problems, there are a few minor
editorial problems with the manuscript, but these do not affect
the overall research design. My evaluation is based on the
thqualifications of
eindividuals
awho are
pinnin
eprojectr andthenatureofthemethodsinvolved. Thhenfour
principal individuals (Macko, Earle, Langenwalter, and Peterson)
have many years of archaeological experience and are certainly
qualified to conduct this type of investigation. The types of
methods they have selected are consistent with professional
archaeological methods for coastal southern California and are
suitable for recovering data from the type of site they have
described. Every effort should be made to present the resulting
data in a manner that allows other archaeologists to compare the
analytical results to those from other excavations. The use of
remote sensing techniques is relatively innovative in California
and my prove to be enlightening and pave the way for use of these
techniques in other contexts.
I hope these comments are useful. If you have any
questions, please call me either at the Fowler Museum (310-825-
1864) or at home (310-824-2095).
a
Sin erely,
R ger o ten, Ph.D.
5_94- I$ �.
...7...............
L-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Gowmor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
913 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364
SACRAMENTO, CA 93814
(916) 6334W2
14N
Meg Vaughn
California Coastal Commission
South Coast Area
245 West Broadway, Suite 380
P.O. Box 1450
Long Beach, CA 90802-4416
September 29, 1994 � n
OCT 31994 I U�
COAS CALIFORNIA<CO
SOUTy COAM'SSION
ST
RE: 5-94-182 (Coastal Community Builders)
Dear Ms. Vaughn:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation regarding the process utilized
by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for identifying a most likely
descendent when Native American human remains are discovered. The usual procedure
is for the NAHC to identify a most likely descendent after human remains are found and
reported to the coroner. I have discussed this situation with Coastal Community Builders
and informed them of the process utilized by the NAHC.
Unless there is a compelling reason for the NAHC to change its process for this
instance, please notify me. I will consider your request.
Sincerely, ,�/
'`�/%�'
L rry Myers
Executive Secretary
cc: William Mungary, NAHC Chair
Norman Witt, Vice President,. Coastal
Community Builders
10,
t�T
s-q4- J82,
44C. C MENT5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Gowt"t
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364
SACRAMENTO, CA 93614
(914) 6334M
September 16, 1994
Macko Archaeological Consulting
22112 Cape May Lane
Huntington beach, Ca 92646
N
OCT 2 11994
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
RE: Master Archaeological Operation Plan and Research Design
Proposed Newporter North Residential Developmeot
Dear Mr. Macko:
I reviewed the above referenced document and make the following
comments:
Page 82 Human Remains
Reference to the Gabrielino/Tongva representatives should be
changed to read Gabrielino - The Tongva tribe has split into
several groups. This term will identify all Gabrielinos.
Clarification needs to be made that the Coroner will call the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and they will
Identify the Most Likely Descendant (Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 (a). Also there shalt be no further excavation
or disturbance of the site or any nearby ... (Health and Safety
Code 7050,5)
Based on past similar projects it is suggested that Mr. Paul
Langenwalter II, meet with the Coroner and develop procedures
satisfactory to the Coroner for reporting the discovery of remains.
The Coroner may wish to come to the site himself and identify
the remains before contacting NAHC. (Health and Safety Code
7050.5).
It is not clear what is meant by the statement that the remains will
be excavated and reburied immediately. Does this mean
immediately upon discovery or Immediately at the conclusion
of the project? The time and place for reburial normally would
be included in the most likely descendants recommendations.
It is recommended that clearer distinction between documenting human
remains and associated grave goods and analysis/scientific analysis of other
material be stated. It also should be clarified that destructive/non destructive
analysis of human remains and associated grave goods is the decision of the'
Most Likely Descendant rf' � �M '
f4hgC, Q0MMMtArS
y.. -.-I ...,E ............
r; :....Z..... 3_...
i
Currently the Fullerton Museum of Anthropology has in its possession a
few skeletal materials unearthed during excavations in the area and a collection
from the Irvine Ranch. (on 25 year- loan). It is recommended that these skeletal
remains be reclaimed and reburied with any remains discovered at the Newporter
North Development.
' Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
tcNult
Gaiy
Associate Program Analyst
cc: Coastal Community Builders
Coastal Community Builders
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904
5-q�SA - c. GarrM
Jim Velasques
Coastal Gabrielino
1226 West 3rd. Street
Santa Ana, California 92703
(7 f4) 547-4237
September 22, 1994
Mr. Norman E. Witt, Jr., Vice President
Coastal Community Builders
550 Newport Center Drive
P. 0. Box 6370
Newport Beach, California 92658-6370
0012 1 1"4
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
Re: Review of Master Operation Plan and Research Design for the Proposed
Newporter North Residential Development
Dear Mr. Witt:
I am writing to you as a representative of the Coastal Gabrielino Indians of Orange County.
I have reviewed the subject report by Macko Archaeological Consulting (MAC) and find the
proposed archaeological operations plan and research design to be especially appropriate in
terms of excavation scope, the identification and treatment of Native American Graves and
Grave Goods, and the ultimate curation of collected scientific samples.
My point of reference in determining the adequacy of the MAC archaeological investigation
of ORA-64 stems from my knowledge of the site and the successful completion of the
Newport Coast Archaeological Project, particularly as regards the careful identification,
respectful treatment, and expeditious reburial of Native American graves and grave goods.
As I am sure you are aware, the latter project was designed and implemented by Mr. Macko
for Coastal Community Builders. Based on my experience with Mr. Macko, I am sure the
work at ORA-64 will be conducted with appropriate respect and dignity towards Native
American graves.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the MAC document, and please do not hesitate to
call if you have any questions on my comments.
Sincerely,
Jim Velasques
Tribal Chairman
Coastal Gabrielino
7-9y- ia2
A4,.4i fir! Am
1................
THE JUANENO BAND OF MI' -SIGN INDIANS
ACJACHEMEN NAT) DN
October 11•, 1994 '
Mr. Norman E, Witt, J�'Vfi. P-resident
Coastal Community 8uitd$is"
550 Newport Center Dale *_ •
P.O. Box 6370
Newport Beach, Califgiriia '82658-.G3ti::
Dear Mr. Witt,
Macko Archaeological Gbnsuit.
Archaeological Operation,, Plan:
Newporter North Resida.t, .F9:,1
I would like to comment: ':w:Pii
Overview. My recomm,phsiatio
Ethnohistorical Analysis" as, pt
Archaeological Project.
Second, the identificatic
agreement for all remai
other human remains u
agreed upon by the,.prc
Group, or person_,de341
Thirdly, the durd�oi ';af
an adequate -fiarl ffy')`wou
Gabrielino pebo'le''that a
provided.
U1]
OCT 2 1 1994
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
.Y •M �wM� „x
;-,'Firm has asked r"rie".t6,",*bvi'ew the Master
rici:`Rirsearch;;D,es g for. a proposed
ielopment:4 pri ?ale: `fhree areas in which
.:Ihe• Enihnofisttl.r r and Ethnographic
ruouicf.be:to do"a: .i:cjiialiy extensive
:ttie "N6; wpoit Coast
Y eatma of Humi n��emains. A reburial
iustyr."6cavated, associated goods and any
,q:;.ti -a'future of his project, should be
r;.and the app! )priate Native American
`the: Native Amer -an Heritage Commission.
onsider for the future, if
:: r,
to Ile Actachemen or
P.
the. collectiorr-`wbuld be
..M
-. I.. '.
,Tv
•.�YY�NI�f...
.. �. �YiijAX; iy•
An•iM�
Finally, although myself and ow peapii3 prefer 'ot3l,mpreservation of. our
homeland, I understand the need Tqg `the mitigation'proce'ss and our
Involvement in it. After reviewing the,.,Rassrch UBsigri, and taking into
consideration the cal itrjen#s;ab;swe, i" beIW a the proposal exceeds
professional pract9ces;= _
• .....,.. �j4w�-try Anw►� 'Gam
Z
3174Z via Selardes San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (714) 493-4933
My conclusion after reviewing the research desig 1 are based on my
seventeen years experiencewin. Cultural Resource Management, Most Likely
Descendant, and Tribal. Chair;of the ,Juaneno Bard of Mission Indians,
Acjachemen Nation.
Thank you for aliowirig`+rie to.revieW. the propost.i, and make comments for
your consideration; .:; •
•
j ,�.'wn JC.r..
.nlfi'wa'�i..'Tin+�tM
w
• :Awn�..n
••��
�
Vn{ ..4 ..
n
Y:*w
Sincerely
David Belardes� , Tribift
Juaneno Band of Mission
Acjachemen Nation
31742'Via
Sat Juan
I
• pir
•• ice.
•I.
rl♦
iNii•
t4o.4t
A 92675 (714)493.4933
01
d ni
When developers and public agencies assess the environmental impact of their pro-
jects, they must consider "cultural resources" as an aspect of the environment in ac-
cordance with Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
These resources can include Native American graves and artifacts; natural resources
used for food, ceremonies or traditional crafts; and places that have special signifi-
cance because of spiritual power associated with them. When projects are proposed
in areas where cultural resources are likely to be affected, one way to avoid damage to
cultural resources and minimize litigation associated with the project- is to perform ar-
chaeological testing, with a Native American monitor/consultant on site. In sensitive
areas, it may be appropriate to have a monitor/consultant on site during part or all of
the construction work.
A knowledgeable, well -trained monitor/consultant can spot indications that an area
has been used as a village site, gathering area, burial site, etc. and estimate how ex-
tensive the site might be. A monitor/consultant can prevent damage to a site by being
able to communicate well with others involved in the project - this might involve re-
questing work to be stopped so that an archaeological survey can be completed; en-
suring that burials are avoided when heavy equipment is used; sharing information so
that others will understand the Importance of the resource involved; or making sure
that burials are treated appropriately when they are encountered.
By working with and acting as a liaison between Native Americans, archaeologists,
developers, contractors and public agencies, a Native American monitor/consultant
can see that cultural resources are treated appropriately from the Native American
point of view. This can help others involved in a project to coordinate mitigation mea-
sures and avoid obstacles to project completion. These guidelines are intended to
provide prospective monitors/consultants and people who hire monitors/consultants
with an understanding of the scope and extent of knowledge that should be expected.
1) The on -site monitor/consultant should be familiar with and knowledgeable about
local historic and prehistoric Native American village sites, culture, religion, ceremony
and burial practices.
2) Knowledge and understanding of Senate Bill 297 (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982)
and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 404, Statutes of 1987.)
u u4
5-9LI- 18 ?�
. _ .........
3) Ability to communicate meaning of Senate Bill 297 (Native American remains) and
Senate Bill 447 (Felony Bill) to project developers, Native Americans, planners,
landowners, and archaeologists.
4) Ability to work with local law enforcement officials and NAHC to ensure return of all
associated grave goods taken from a Native American grave during excavation.
5) Ability to travel to several project sites, if necessary, within traditional tribal territory.
6) Knowledge and understanding of Appendix K of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and Section 106 of the Historic Sites Preservation Act
of 1966,
7) Ability to read a topographical map and be able to locate for future inclusion into
the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory sites that are discovered but not recorded and lo.
cation of reburials.
8) Knowledge of the techniques archaeologists use to collect on -site data,
excavation, auger holes, trenches, shovel pits, controlled grid surface collections, etc.
W:1911111194UT 14►r
1) Required to communicate orally and in writing with local Native American tribes,
project developers, archaeologists, planners and NAHC staff and other Involved in the
mitigation plan.
2) Required to maintain a daily log of activities and prepare well written progress re-
ports on any "findings" at a project site, (le; associated grave goods, skeletal remains,
bone fragments, beads, arrow points, pottery and other artifacts,)
3) Required to present to the developer and archaeologist the decisions of the most
likely descendents as Identified by NAHC concerning the disposition of site findings,
le; reinterment, research and examination.
4) Required to prepare a final written report describing the discovery of any Native
American remains and associated grave goods and their final disposition. This report
shall contain at a minimum the date of find, description of remains and associated
grave goods, date of reburial, and place of reburial. The report shall include a discus-
sion of mitigation measures taken to preserve or protect Native American cultural re-
sources and it applicable a comparison with mitigation measures described In the en-
vironmental impact report. This report shall be submitted to NAHC within four weeks
after completion of the project. Reburial Information will be included in the Sacred
Lands files.
.2.
15
5) Ability to identify archaeological deposits and potential areas:of impact.
6) A person 1wi I not act as most likely descendent on the same project which he or she
has served as a monitor/consultant.
EXPERIENCE
1) It is recommended that each monitodconsultant have previous experience working
with Native American cultural resources under the guidance of a Society of Profes-
sional Archaeologists (SOPA) qualified archaeologist. This must be continuous on -
site guidance. letters from the onsite archaeologist should be submitted with a copy
of the archaeologist's resume.
OR
2) Experience and knowledge regarding cultural, traditional, and religious resources
can be gained by training from tribal elders. This experience and knowledge may be
verified by the submission of copies of contracts, reports, letters from elders, etc.
OR
3) Formal education regarding cultural resources can be substituted for experience.
This education must be taken in the Anthropology Department of a two or four year ac-
credited institution. This education may be verified by the submission of copies of
transcripts.
PREFERENCE
It is recommended that preference for monitor/consultant positions be given to local
Native Americans. These local people usually have knowledge of the local customs
and traditions. They are also aware of the local leaders and elders that may need to
be contacted should an unusual situation occur. Since it is their traditional area being
impacted, local Indians have vested interest in the project.
1 /89
Final Approved 7/10/89
-3-
t-.I:u.d
S-qt4- $;I—