HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-3 - Big Canyon Country Club GPARESOLUTION NO. 2009-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. ND2008 -003, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. GP2007 -008 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. NP2007 -029 (PA2007 -210).
WHEREAS, an application was filed for a General Plan Amendment,
Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, and Parcel Map by the Big Canyon
Country Club, with respect to a 1.9 -acre property located on the north side of Big
Canyon Drive, between Rue Biarritz and Rue Villars; and
WHEREAS, the project includes a General Plan Amendment, Planned
Community Development Plan Amendment, and Parcel Map to allow the development
of a new, single - family dwelling on a portion of the Big Canyon golf course. The
General Plan Amendment would change the land use category from 'Parks and
Recreation" (PR) to "Single Unit Residential — Detached" (RS -D). The Planned
Community Development Plan Amendment would amend the Big Canyon Planned
Community Development Plan to change the land use designation from "Golf Course" to
"Low Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport
Beach, California, A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in
accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented
to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, at the December 4, 2008, hearing, the Planning Commission
received public comments and voted (5 ayes and 2 absent) to recommend approval of
the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan
Amendment, and Parcel Map; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Newport Beach City Council on
January 27, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport
Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in
accordance with the Municipal Code and State Law. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan and Planned Community
Development Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth
any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments; and
WHEREAS, Land Use Policy LU 4.2 of the Land Use Element prohibits new
residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units unless authorized
by an amendment of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment would
authorize one additional dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan
Amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. If
a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) generates
more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area or
exceeds 100 dwelling units in a statistical area, a vote of the electorate would be
required if the City Council approves the suggested General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, this is the first GPA in Statistical Area L2 since the General Plan
update in 2006. One additional dwelling unit results in an increase of 0.75 AM peak
hour trips and 1.01 PM peak hour trips based on the Single - Family Detached Housing
trip rates reflected in Council Policy A -18 and as none of the three thresholds to require
a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is exceeded, no vote of the electorate is
required; and
WHEREAS, the project is located within the Big Canyon Planned Community
where public services and infrastructure are available to serve the additional dwelling unit
to be created by this proposed subdivision. All applicable improvements required by
Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are to be satisfied by
the applicant; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain
findings and facts in support of such findings shall be made for approval of a Tentative
Parcel Map. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows:
1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
The proposed amendments will bring the parcels into consistency with the General Plan
and the Big Canyon Planned Community. Standard conditions of approval have been
included to ensure compliance with Subdivision Map Act and Subdivision Code.
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
The proposed 1.9 -acre (approximately 82,764 square feet) project site is physically
large enough to accommodate one single - family dwelling as the minimum parcel size is
8,000 square feet (approximately .18 of an acre). Vehicular access to the parcel will be
from Big Canyon Drive.
3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the
decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an
environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made
pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that
specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and mitigation measures have
been provided that will reduce the potential significant impacts to less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed project would not cause substantial environmental damage nor
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
The development of the parcel for residential use is not expected to cause serious
public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices as
noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. No evidence was identified
that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health
problems. The parcel has been designed in compliance with all applicable subdivision
standards of Title 19 and any future proposed residence will be required to comply with
Low Density Residential development standards of the Big Canyon Planned
Community, insuring the provision of adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for the
dwelling unit, and insuring design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making
body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for
use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to
ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within a subdivision.
The project site contains two easements that will remain in place. A condition of
approval is included that prohibits permanent structures within the limits of the
easements on site.
6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision
Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California
Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a
subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or
the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial
agricultural use of the land.
The project site is not currently zoned or used for agriculture purposes and does not fall
under a Williamson Act contract.
7. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan
for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making
body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for
the area.
The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan; therefore,
this finding does not apply.
8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have
been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum
heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The
Newport Beach Building Department will enforce Title 24 compliance through the plan
check and field inspection processes for the construction of any future proposed
residence.
9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map
Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's
share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the
region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal
and environmental resources.
The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of one, new residential dwelling that
will be added to the City's housing stock and furthers the City's goal of meeting its
housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The addition
of one unit will not cause an undue strain on public services.
10.That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing
sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing residential
use of the surrounding properties and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) requirements. Additionally, sewer connections have been conditioned
to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer
Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
11.For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the
subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where
applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act.
The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a Coastal Zone; therefore,
this finding does not apply.
WHEREAS, based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the environmental factors
identified to have either no impact or less than significant impact were: Aesthetics,
Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Geology and Soil, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population
and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems; and
WHEREAS, based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the environmental factors
identified as potentially significant impacts were: Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, and Transportation and Traffic. Specific mitigation measures have been
included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level;
and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed and circulated for a
mandatory 20 -day public- review period that began on November 7, 2008, and concluded
on December 1, 2008. Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered
by the Planning Commission at a December 4, 2008, public hearing; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program was completed to implement
all mitigation measures required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As
project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that
such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge,
and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be
awarded to a successful challenger; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopts Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. ND2008 -003 as depicted in Exhibit "A" and Mitigation
Monitoring Report Program as depicted in Exhibit "B" of this resolution.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach approves General
Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -008 as depicted in Exhibit "C ".
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach approves Tentative
Parcel Map No. NP2008 -111, subject to Conditions of Approval as depicted in Exhibit
"D"
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27'' DAY OF JANUARY, 2009.
1 '
1
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Exhibit "A"
Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Attached separately)
EXHIBIT - A
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
A 1VIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Newport Beach is considering a recommendation that the
proposed project described herein will have no significant impact on the environment in compliance with
Section 15070 of State CEQA guidelines.
Project Title and Location:
Big Canyon General Plan Amendment and Subdivision
1 Big Canyon Drive, City of Newport Beach
Description of Proposed Project:
The City of Newport Beach has completed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Big
Canyon General Plan Amendment and Subdivision project. The property consists of a graded pad
surrounded by disturbed areas of vegetation primarily with native and non - native ruderal species and a
steep slope to the east vegetated primarily with native scrub species. Surrounding the property are single -
family detached dwellings at the south and east, and single - family attached dwellings to the west. The golf
course is contiguous to the site at the north with more single - family detached dwellings beyond. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.9-acre parcel for the development of one single - family dwelling,
which requires the approval of a three -part application: 1) A Parcel Map to subdivide a 1.9 acre portion of
the golf course into a legal lot; 2) General Plan amendment to create a new lot on the General Plan Land
Use Map and change the land use designation from "Parks and Recreation" to "Single Unit Residential —
Detached "; and 3) amend the Big Canyon Planned Community (PC) to change the land use designation
from "Golf Course" to "Low Density Residential" and modify the appropriate text and PC Land Use Map.
November 7, 2008
Review
Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration should provide their written
comments to the City of Newport Beach, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658; attention Russell
Bunim, Assistant Planner, by December 1, 2008 (20 -day comment period).
This notice is required to be filed with the County Clerk's Office for a period of not less than twenty (20)
days, beginning November 7, 2008, and ending December 1 2008.
A copy of the Initial Study and all documents referenced in the Initial Study are available for public
review at Newport Beach City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and during normal business hours at the other following locations:
City of Newport Beach, Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach CA 92663
Newport Beach Public Library, Central Library
1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Newport Beach Public Library, Mariners Branch
1300 Irvine Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Newport Beach Public Library, Balboa Branch
100 East Balboa Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Newport Beach Public Library, Corona del Mar
420 Marigold Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Date, Time and Location of Public Meeting, if any:
Tentatively scheduled: December 4, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. at the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers.
Please contact the City of Newport Beach Planning Department at 949-644 -3233.
Contact Person:
Russell Bunim, Assistant planner
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach CA 92663
(949) 644 -3236
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Description of Project:
Big Canyon Subdivision
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Russell Bunim, Planning Department
(949) 6443210
1 Big Canyon Drive
Newport Beach, CA
Big Canyon Country Club
Parks and Recreation to Residential
Big Canyon Planned Community
The City of Newport Beach has completed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Big Canyon
subdivision and single - family dwelling project. The property consists of a graded pad surrounded by disturbed
areas of vegetation primarily with native and non - native ruderal species and a steep slope to the east vegetated
primarily with native scrub species. Surrounding the property are single - family detached dwellings to the south
and east, and single - family attached dwellings to the west. The golf course is contiguous to the site at the north
with more single - family detached dwellings beyond. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.9 acre parcel for
the development of one single - family dwelling which requires the approval of a three -part application: 1) A Parcel
Map to subdivide a 1.9 acre portion of the golf course into a legal lot, 2) General Plan amendment to create a new
lot on the General Plan Land Use Map and change the land use from "Parks and Recreation" to "Single Unit
Residential — Detached ", and 3) Amend the Big Canyon Planned Community (PC) to change the land use from
"Golf Course" to "Low Density Residential" and modify the appropriate text and PC Land Use Map.
9. Surrounding Land Uses:
Current Development:
Goff course
To the north:
Golf course with single - family detached dwellings beyond
To the east:
Single-family detached dwellings
To the south:
Big Canyon Drive with single-family detached dwellings
To the west:
Single-family attached dwellings
CHECKLIST
Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Public Services
Circulation
❑ Population & Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service
Systems
❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy & Mineral ❑ Aesthetics
Resources
❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact'
or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on thearivironment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Prepared by:
ttunim, Assistant Planner
Date
L
CHECKLIST
Page 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
0
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
C) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
C) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Potentially
Less Than
Less than No
Significant
Significant with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
Page 3
e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
n
0
IN
7
0
0
1
0
0
CHECKLIST
Page 4
Potentially
Less Than
Less than
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
b) Violate any air quality standard or
❑
❑
❑
El
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively
❑
❑
0
❑
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non - attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
❑
❑
Q
❑
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
n
0
IN
7
0
0
1
0
0
CHECKLIST
Page 4
CHECKLIST
Page 5
Potentially
LeSS Than
LeSS than
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
d)
Interfere substantially with the
❑
0
❑
❑
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or
❑
0
❑
❑
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an
❑
0
❑
❑
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would
the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse
❑
❑
❑
0
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse
❑
0
❑
❑
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
C)
Directly or indirectly destroy a
❑
0
❑
❑
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains,
❑
❑
0
❑
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
VI.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to
❑
❑
0
0
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involvina:
CHECKLIST
Page 5
CHECKLIST
Page 6
Potentially
Less Than
Lessthan
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
❑
❑
0
❑
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground
❑
❑
0
❑
shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
❑
❑
0
❑
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
0
❑
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or
❑
❑
0
❑
the loss of topsoil?
C)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil
❑
❑
❑
0
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project and potentially result in on-
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as
❑
❑
0
❑
defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately
❑
❑
0
❑
supporting the use septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the
❑
❑
❑
D
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
CHECKLIST
Page 6
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
CHECKLIST
Page 7
.Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
b)
Create a significant hazard to the
❑
❑
0
❑
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
C)
Emit hazardous emissions or
❑
❑
❑
0
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one - quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is
❑
❑
❑
D
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites which complied
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment?
e)
For a project within an airport land
❑
❑
0
❑
use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a
❑
❑
❑
0
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
g)
Impair implementation of or
❑
❑
❑
0
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a
❑
❑
❑
0
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
CHECKLIST
Page 7
CHECKLIST
Page 8
potentially
Less Than
Less than
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
a)
Violate any water quality standards
❑
❑
0
❑
or waste discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater
❑
❑
0
❑
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
C)
Substantially alter the existing
❑
❑
0
❑
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing
❑
❑
0
❑
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of a
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on or off -site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water
❑
❑
0
❑
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade
❑
❑
0
❑
water quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year
❑
❑
❑
0
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard
❑
❑
❑
0
area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
CHECKLIST
Page 8
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the proposal:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
otentially
Less Than
Less than No
gnificant
Significant with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
0
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally- important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
XI. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
aaencies?
❑ ❑ 0 0
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
CHECKLIST
Page 9
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of"
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Potentially
Less Than
Less than No
Significant
Significant with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ H V
CHECKLIST
Page 10
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the
project:
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, need
for new or physically altered
government facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction of or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? opportunities?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC Would.
the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of .
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
Intersections)?
Potentially
Less Than
Less than No
Significant _
Significant with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
❑ 0
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
CHECKLIST
Page 11
b) Exceed either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
C) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
Potentially
Less Than
Less than No
Significant
Significant with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
Incorporated
0
❑
0
❑ ❑
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
CHECKLIST
Page 12
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Potentially
Less Than
Less than No
Significant
Significantwith
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
® ❑
e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ Q ❑
wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ Q ❑
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ Q ❑
statutes and regulation related to
solid waste?
h) Include anew or retrofitted Strom ❑ ❑ Q ❑
water treatment control Best
Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
water quality treatment basin,
constructed treatment wetland), the
operation of which could result in
significant environmental effects
(e.g. increased vectors and odors)?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential ❑ Q ❑ ❑
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major period of California history or
prehistory?
CHECKLIST
Page 13
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
C) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
otentially
Less Than
Less than
gnificant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
0
❑ ❑ a
Impact
J
0
CHECKLIST
Page 14
SOURCE LIST
The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning
Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660.
1. Final Program EIR— City of Newport Beach General Plan
2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach.
3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code.
5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997.
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997.
CHECKLIST
Page 15
Environmental Analysis
I. AESTHETICS.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No impact. The project will not have an adverse effect on any scenic vistas as none are identified
onsite or nearby. The 1.9 -acre site is located north of Big Canyon Drive in the Big Canyon
Planned Community at approximately 40 feet lower in elevation than the adjacent residential
property to the east. Since the project site is wedged into a canyon land form at a much lower
elevation, the project site is not easily viewed from adjacent properties. City policies do not
protect private views and the view from Big Canyon Drive out to the site is not designated as
scenic vista. The project site consists of a graded pad surrounded by disturbed areas of
vegetation primarily with native and non - native ruderal species and a steep slope to the east
vegetated primarily with native scrub species. The land uses surrounding the property are single -
family detached dwellings to the south and east, and single - family attached dwellings to the west.
The golf course is contiguous to the site at the north with more single - family detached dwellings
beyond. No impact to a scenic vista will occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No impact. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the California
Department of Transportation, the project site is not located on or near a major state - designated
scenic highway. The closest officially designated state scenic highway to the project site is State
Route 1 (SR -1), also known as Pacific Coast Highway, which is located over one mile south of
the project site. Moreover, the site does not contain any scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less than significant. The existing visual character of the project site consists of a graded pad
with native and non - native species as pointed out above. The character of the area surrounding
the site is a suburban neighborhood with large, residential dwellings. The residential dwellings
are one and two stories with well - maintained landscaping. The addition of one single - family
dwelling with landscaping will have not have a significant impact on the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings as residential property is already established in the
area.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any structures and is not a
source of light or glare. The development of one single - family dwelling will result in light and
glare sources that are similar to otter dwellings in the community. Therefore, no substantial
impacts are anticipated.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant effects, the lead agency
referred to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural
use?
No impact. According to the California Resource Agency's Department of Conservation
Important Farmland Map for Orange County (2006), the project site is not designated as
Farmland or Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. The
project site is located in a suburban area surrounded by a golf course and residential dwellings.
No significant would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
ftp: //fti) consry ca (iov/ pub /dlro /FMMP /Ddf /2006 /orao6 pdf
(Map of Orange County important farmland — 2006 reference)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact. The project site is not currently zoned or used for agriculture purposes and does not
fall under Williamson Act contract. The project site is currently zoned Planned Community (PC)
with a °Golf Course' land designation within the PC. The proposed land use is residential. No
significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
htti)://www.conservation.ca.00v/dirpAca/paoes/index.asDx
(Williamson Act reference)
C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
No impact. The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes; therefore, the project
would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No impacts to farmland
would occur. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
III. AIR QUALITY.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than significant impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local
agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the
environmental efforts of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air
quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information
as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. Only new or
amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects need to undergo a
consistency review. This is because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local
general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent
with AQMP.
The proposed project would not emit either short- or long -term quantities of criteria pollutants
which exceed the SCAQMD's air quality significance thresholds (See Appendix A for SCAQMD
air quality significant thresholds). The SCAQMD does not consider projects which result in
emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds to interfere with the goals established in
the AQMP. Therefore, no significant impact to the AQMP will occur as a result of the proposed
project. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
2
Less than significant. The proposed project includes construction of one single - family dwelling
on a 1.9 -acre parcel. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the
short-term for site preparation and construction activities. In addition emissions would result from
the long -term operation of the completed project from facility - related energy consumption and
automobile traffic traveling to and from the project site. The analysis below describes the
project's short-term and long -term air quality impacts.
http://www.aqmd.gov/
(Air Quality Management District reference)
Short-Term Air Quality Impacts
The estimated dates for construction begin in 2009 and are estimated to take approximately 15
months. The proposed project does not require demolition of any structure — only clearing and
grubbing is necessary to remove vegetation on site, which would take 2 days to remove. Grading
activities would take approximately 20 days to export approximately 7,500 cubic yards of soil
(from previous fill projects on site) and import 5,000 cubic yards of soil back on site for re-
compaction. Building the single - family dwelling would take approximately 12 months. These
construction emissions were estimated using the SCAQMD's URBEMIS2007 and are included in
the table below; the model run is included in Appendix B.
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Source
Pollutants Ibs /da
CO
NOx
VOC
SO2
PM10
PM2.e
CO2
Demolition
6
9
2
0
1
1
825
Site Preparation
25
55
6
1
13
5
5,904
Building Construction
6
10
2
0
1
1
917
SCAQMD Threshold
550
100
75
150
150
55
N/A
Exceeds Threshold
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
N/A
• Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2.
• N /A: Not Applicable
• VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds (ref: URBEMIS ROG: Reactive Organic Gases)
• Construction equipment mix based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which is based on
SCAQMD construction surveys of midsized construction sites.
• Fugitive dust emissions assumes application of Rule 403, which includes replacing ground
cover as quickly as possible, watering exposed surfaces two times daily, equipment
loading /unloading measures, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to less than miles
per hour. See Appendix A for additional fugitive dust control measures detailed in SCAQMD
Rule 403.
• CO2 emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAQMD, OPR, or CARB
have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this pollutant.
As shown in the table above, all emissions are less than their respective SCAQMD threshold
values. SCAQMD, Office of Planning and Research (OPR), or California Air Resources Board
(GARB) have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for CO2 emissions. However,
because the project is not a regionally significant project and the project would not exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants (CO, NO, PM,o, and PM2.5), which were established to
identify substantial new sources of air pollution, CO2 emissions are likely not to be considered
substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions and climate change impacts. Therefore the project's cumulative contribution to GHG
emissions is less than significant.
Long -Term Operational - Related Impacts
Long -term air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be associated with project -
related vehicle trips and stationary- source emissions generated on -site by sources such as water
heaters, gas stoves, and fuel consumed for landscaping activities. Long -term air quality impacts
are typically associated with the emissions produced by project - generated vehicle trips which are
estimated by the Institute of Transpiration Engineers (ITE) as ten trips per day for one single -
family dwelling. However, one single - family dwelling will not exceed the threshold for SCAQMD
air quality significance as pointed out on the chart below for operational emissions.
Maximum Daily Operational Emissions
Source
Pollutants Ibs /d a
c0
NOx
VOC
IS02
PM10
I PM2.e
CO2
Demolition
1.24
0.15
11
9
0.19
0.04
115.14
SCAQMD Threshold
550
100
75
150
150
55
N/A
Exceeds Threshold
NO
NO
I NO
I NO
NO
NO
I NO
• Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2.
• N /A: Not Applicable
• VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds (ref: URBEMIS ROG: Reactive Organic Gases)
• Construction equipment mix based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which is based on
SCAQMD construction surveys of midsized construction sites.
• CO2 emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAQMD, OPR, or CARB
have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this pollutant.
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Less than significant. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not
exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a
cumulative impact. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) is designated as a non - attainment area
for ozone and particulates (PMao and PM2.5) under the state and federal Ambient Air Quality
Standards (AAQS). Air pollutant modeling for construction emissions demonstrates that project
implementation would not exceed the SCAQMD's construction phase pollutant thresholds.
Furthermore, the operational emissions which include vehicular trips will not exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds as pointed out in the Operational Emissions chart above. Therefore, the
project will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. No mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than significant. The subject site is located in a residential and golf course community.
Although sensitive receptors (i.e., surrounding residential dwellings) are located in the vicinity of
the site, the greatest amount of pollutants generated by the proposed project will occur during the
construction phase. The emissions will be comprised of mostly dirt and dust particles as the
subject site is graded and a new home is constructed. However, such emissions will be
controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District and will be short -term. The emissions released from
operations after the constructions phase is completed will predominantly be comprised by vehicle
trips which will not be a significant impact as pointed out in Operational Emissions chart above.
Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect sensitive receptors and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
0
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant. Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating
exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing asphalt and other
building materials to the site. With regard to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts would be
confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. During the operations phase of the
project, single - family dwellings do not typically generate substantial emissions or odors that affect
people outside the confines of the property. By the time such emissions or odors reach any
sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they are typically diluted to well below any
level of air quality concern. Such emissions and odors are an adverse, but not significant, air
quality impacts. Mitigation measures are not necessary as the impacts of emissions and odors
are less than significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
The analysis below, is based on results of the Biological report dated August 25, 2008, prepared
by Glenn Lukos Associates, included as Appendix C.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological Interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or Impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less than significant impact with mitigation (a — f). At this time, the precise development and
grading plans for the proposed residential lot are not available. However, the buildable area of
the lot has been identified, as depicted on the attached Vegetation Map [Exhibit 3 of Glenn Lukos
Associates' report (Appendix C)]. Therefore, this impact analysis assumes that all vegetation
within the buildable area will be impacted. A summary of the vegetation impacts is given in the
Table below.
Vegetation Impacts Table
Vegetation Association
Total on Site (acres)
Buildable Area (acres)
Mixed Sage Scrub/ Chenopod Scrub
0.29
0.008
Ruderal
0.49
0.39
Ruderal / Ornamental
0.06
0.0001
Southern Willow Scrub
0.04
0.04
Ornamental
0.82
0.11
Disturbed
0.18
0.15
Total
1.88
0.70
Impacts to ruderal, ornamental, and disturbed areas would not be considered significant as these
areas have low habitat value and have no potential to support special status flora or fauna.
The coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) is a federally listed threatened species. This small
songbird is a year- round, obligate resident of coastal sage scrub communities in southern
California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. The CAGN is insectivorous, and nests and
forages in moderately dense stands of sage scrub occurring on and hillsides, mesas, and in
washes. The CAGN generally lives below 1,200 feet in elevation. Coastal sage scrub
communities dominated by California sage brush, California buckwheat, white sage, and black
sage are preferred by this species. Loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat due to expanding
development have been major factors in the decline of this bird in southern California.
This species typically nests in areas with less than 40 percent slope, and requires at minimum a
patch of scrub of at least 0.5 acre for nesting. Given the steepness of the slope and small size of
the patch from large, contiguous areas of scrub habitat, the CAGN is not likely to breed on site. It
is possible, although unlikely, that a dispersing individual could briefly utilize the site for rest and
forage at the beginning or end of the season.
Given that the mixed sage scrub / chenopod scrub located on the hillside adjacent to the
buildable area has little potential to support special status flora or fauna, including the coastal
California gnatcatcher, impacts to 0.008 acre of mixed sage scrub / chenopod scrub would not be
significant.
Mitigation Measure. The project site has some potential to support nesting migratory birds.
Impacts to such species are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California
Fish and Game Code. In order to ensure that the proposed project will not impact nesting
migratory birds, the following mitigation measure is recommended:
If vegetation is to be removed during the nesting season, recognized from February 1
through August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey of potentially
suitable nesting vegetation no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active
nests are identified during nesting bird surveys, then the nesting vegetation will be
avoided until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive
independently from the nest. The biologist will flag the active nesting vegetation, and will
establish an adequate buffer around the nesting vegetation of 300 feet (500 feet for
raptors). If active nests are identified, clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer
until the nesting event has completed.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
No impact. Section 10564.5 defines historic resources as resources as resources listed or
determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register
of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered to be "historically
significant ", if it meets one of the following criteria:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the patterns
of California's history and culture heritage;
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Figure HR1, Historic Resources, of the Historic Resources Element of the Citys General Plan
update does not identify any historic resources within or adjacent to the project site. Before the
development of the Big Canyon Planned Community, the land was use as a ranch owned by the
Irvine Company and did not contain any significant structures. The project location is contiguous
to the Big Canyon Country Club golf course; however, the subject site was never included as part
of the course design or construction. The subject site is vacant and does not contain any
structures. The proposed project has no impacts on historical resources; therefore, no mitigation
measures are required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.51
Less than significant Impact with mitigation. The project site has been previously graded and
filled. While removing the loose soil, it is unlikely that any significant archaeological resources will
be found. However, the following mitigation procedure will be followed to ensure that impacts
related to archaeological resources remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property owner /developer shall submit a letter to the
Planning Department showing that a qualified archaeologist has been hired to ensure that the
following actions are implemented.
• The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts. are uncovered.
If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer
shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for
exploration and /or salvage.
• Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an
educational or research institution.
• Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified
archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the
archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the
monitor can survey the area.
• A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to
the City Engineer. Upon Completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City
as to when the final report will be submitted.
C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. As stated above, the project site has been
previously graded and filled. While removing the loose soil, the project is unlikely to destroy any
unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. However, the following mitigation
procedure will be followed to ensure that impacts related to archaeological resources remain less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure
The property owner /develop shall submit a letter to the Planning Department showing that a
certified paleontologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
• The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish
procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and
evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist
shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for
exploration and /or salvage.
• Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an
appropriate educational or research institution.
• Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified
paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the
paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the
monitor can survey the area.
• A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted.
Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the
final report will be submitted.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than significant impact. No remains are known to be present on site. The project site has
been previously graded and filled. In the event that unknown remains are discovered on the
subject site, the proposed project will be in compliance with the State Health and Safety Code
7050.5, as required and cited below:
If human remains are encountered, the state Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner
has mad a determination of the origin and disposition pursuant to Public
Resources Code 5097.98. The county coroner must be notified immediately of
the find. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner is required
to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine
and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With permission of the owner ofthe
land or his /her authorized representative, the descendent may inspect the site of
the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of
notification of the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
il) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Iv) Landslides?
Less than significant Impact. The subject site is not located in a seismic hazard or liquefaction
area with the possibility for landslides or located in a fault disclosure zone according to the
Seismic Hazards Map in the City of Newport Beach General Plan. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant Impact. As stated previously in this document, the construction phase of
the project will include grading that will leave soil exposed. The City has policies to insure Best
Management Practices (BMP) be followed that minimize erosion and loss of topsoil. After the site
is developed, landscaping, paving, and drainage will reduce erosion as less soil will be exposed
and proper drainage will be installed.
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -13 of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than significant Impact (c-d). The City of Newport Beach Safety Element does not identify
the project site as at risk of being unstable from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse. As stated above, this site has been graded and filled. Removing loose
soil for a buildable pad requires a grading plan and soils report which are typically reviewed at the
plan check phase of the project by the Building Department.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water?
No impact. The proposed project involves the development of one single - family dwelling in
Newport Beach. The Utilities Department requires that dwellings install water service and sewer
service per City standards, so the project will not need a septic tank or alternative wastewater
disposal system. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Impact. The proposed project will not utilize or dispose of any hazardous materials of
reportable quantities in typical operations. Substances for landscaping, such as fertilizers and
pesticides, will be subject to all applicable Bes Management Practices (BMP) regulations.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Less than significant impact. The project has a potential for on -site dirt to be released into the
air during the grading process of construction. However, compliance with the existing regulations
would reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant. To reduce impacts from potential
spills of hazardous materials during construction, the project is required to comply with the
requirements set fourth under the Statewide General Permit for Construction Activities, pursuant
to Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act. Per, the requirements, BMP's would be employed
to control hazardous materials use and spills.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No impact. There are no schools within one - quarter mile of the proposed project site. The
nearest school is Our Lady Queen of Angels School, located at 750 Domingo Drive, Newport
Beach, approximately one third of a mile away from the project site.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which
complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. The project site is not identified in the Department of Toxic Substances Control's
(DTSC) hazardous wastes and substances list, which includes the Federal Superfund sites
(National Priority List), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites,
Permitted Sites, and Corrective Actions Sites. Construction of the proposed single - family
dwelling site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than significant impact. The project site, which is located approximately three miles south
of the John Wayne Airport, is within the limits of its Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) as
established by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The John Wayne
Airport AELUP has established various zones surrounding the airport including Noise Impact
Zone and Runway Protection Zone.
The Noise Impact Zone establishes land uses that are "normally acceptable ", "conditionally
acceptable ", and normally unacceptable" within each noise impact zone delineated by the
respective Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour derived from studies of
aircraft flight operations into and out of the John Wayne Airport. The project site does not. fall
within the Noise Impact Zone. Therefore, noise from airport operations would be less than
significant at the project site.
The Runway Protection Zone (also known as the Clear Zone) identifies areas within the direct
pathway of the runways that should remain relatively clear of development. The project site does
not fall within the Runway Protection Zone as the project site is located approximately three miles
south of the runway. Therefore, the location of the project will not be an impact.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
10
No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact will
result of this project.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact Access to the site will be taken from Big Canyon Drive. Although no other dwellings
have direct access to Big Canyon Drive, the addition of one new driveway will not interfere with
emergency response. The proposed project has been routed to City public safety departments
including Fire and Police, and no issues have been identified that will impair emergency
response.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No impact. The project site is not located within an area susceptible to fire as designated in the
City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than significant impact. Pursuant to Section 420 of the Clean Water Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. In
California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES
permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. For
Orange County, the Santa Ana Regional Control Board would be responsible for implementation
of the NPDES requirements. The NPDES program regulates pollutant discharges, including,
those from construction activities on sites larger than one acre. The proposed project would be
subject to the NPDES program since the project would involve a site larger than one acre.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less than significant impact. The project will not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge. The project includes a mass grading phase; however, the construction of
one new single - family dwelling will include a drainage plan that will not interfere or deplete ground
water. The single - family dwelling will be served by the local sewer and water system. It is not
anticipated that the project will have any significant impact on groundwater.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
Less than significant impact. The project will not result in a significant change to the drainage
pattern of property as the drainage plan will be required to comply with applicable policies noted
above. The proposed project would not involve the alteration of the course of a stream or river in
a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Therefore, it's not
anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to erosion or siltation on- or off -
site.
11
d) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff In a manner which would result in flooding on or
off -site?
Less than significant impact. The project does not involve any alteration of the existing and/or
planned drainage system (pattern) of the area. The development of the site will not alter the
course of a stream or a river. The project does not propose any alterations to the existing or
planned storm drain system in Newport Beach. Therefore, no impacts to this topical area will
occur as a result of the project.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than significant impact. The City of Newport Beach is primarily built -out and contains an
existing storm water drainage system. The project is consistent with the capacity of the existing
storm drain system in the City of Newport Beach and will be required to install drainage systems
in accordance with applicable policies. Therefore, no impacts associated with runoff will occur as
a result of the proposed project.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than significant impact. See response to "a)" above. The project will comply with all
requirements regarding water quality. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will
substantially degrade water quality.
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
No impact The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain.
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
No impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. Failure of the nearby Big
Canyon Dam is unlikely as a seismic analysis shows that it can withstand a maximum magnitude
earthquake (M =7) on the Newport- Inglewood fault. This earthquake is anticipated to produce
very strong ground motions, with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.91g, in the area of
the reservoir. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No impact. The project site is not located in the immediate vicinity of a reservoir, harbor, lake, or
storage tank capable of creating a seiche. The closest body of water is located approximately
one mile west of the project site (Upper Newport Bay). Due to the distance and the relatively
small surface area of the Upper Newport Bay as well as the difference in elevation between the
Bay and project site, inundation of the project site by a seiche or tsunami is highly unlikely. The
12
project site is located approximately three miles north of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, inundation
of the project site by tsunami is also unlikely.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The project site is located in a residential and golf course community. The addition
of one parcel for the use of a single family home will not divide the community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant impact (b & c). The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains
objectives, policies, and distributions of land use for development in the City. Since the project
site is designated within the Land Use Element of the General Plan as Parks and Recreational (PR),
a General Plan Amendment is required to change the land use to Single -Unit Residential Detached
(RS -D).
Most planned communities have home owners associations (HOA) that serve as a governing body to
their community and own the common land. The General Plan policy (below) insures that open
space and recreational facilities that are owned by the HOA be preserved. The policy is intended to
preserve open space and recreational facilities of the community living in the private residential
developments. It specifically states that facilities to be preserved are integrated into and owned
by private residential developments (typically by an HOA). However, this is not applicable for the
Big Canyon Planned Community as the private residential development (or HOA) does not own
or govern the golf course. The golf course is owned by the Big Canyon Country Club. Therefore,
the proposed project will not conflict with this land use policy.
Land Use Policy LU 6.29 (Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities):
"Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by
private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development
approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land
use."
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No impact. As pointed out earlier in Section IV of this document (Biology Resources), the project site
is not designated as a habitat conservation area that supports flora or fauna. Moreover, the project
site is not being persevered as the City has used the site in the past to deposit soil after a previous
construction project in the area.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the state?
No impact. The City of Newport Beach's General Plan does not identify any known minerals on
the project site (vacant) or surrounding areas (golf course and residential dwellings). The project
will not result in the loss of known mineral resource that would be of state, regional, or local value.
Therefore, no mineral resource impacts are expected to occur an no mitigation measures are
required.
13
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally - important resource recovery site in the
City's General Plan. Therefore, no impacts in relation to locally important mineral resources will
result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required.
XI. NOISE.
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project includes the construction of one single -
family dwelling. Project- generated noise during the construction phase of the project would be
from project- generated traffic and on -site operations. Once the construction phase of the project
is complete, the project will not generate noise beyond the typical use of a single - family house.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
Less than significant impact. The project will be constructed using typical construction
techniques, and vibration intensive activities such as pile- driving or sheet piles are not permitted
in the City per Building Department policies. As such, it is anticipated that the equipment to be
used during construction would not cause excessive ground borne noise or vibration. Post -
construction on -site activities would be limited to suburban land uses that do not generate
excessive ground borne vibration or noise. Furthermore, the Building Bepartment requires the
contactor to notify the adjacent property owners by certified mail 10 days prior to starting shoring
or excavation work. Therefore, vibration or noise levels will 'not be a significant impact.
C) A substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Less than significant. As noted in response Xl.a above, the proposed would not substantially
increase ambient noise levels at residential uses in the vicinity of the project due to stationary-
source or mobile- sources noise generated by the one single - family dwelling. Impacts would be
less than significant.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than significant impact d). Noise levels associated with construction activities would be
higher than ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of
the proposed project is completed. Two types of noise impacts could occur during the
construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would
incrementally increase noise levels along site's access roadways.
The second type of impact is related to noise generated by on -site construction operations. The
local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of on -site
construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out in phases, each of which have a
mix of different types of equipment and, consequently, different noise characteristics. These
various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the
construction site as work progresses.
14
Construction of the project is estimated to take approximately 15 months and noise generated by
construction activities will cease once construction is completed. Noise related impacts are
typical to the construction of a single - family dwelling and the City of Newport Beach limits the
hours of construction to weekdays 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM, and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
excluding Sundays and federal holidays. Impacts are less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
No impact. The project site located approximately three miles from John Wayne Airport. The
project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour of the John Wayne AELUP as
established by the Orange County ALUC. No impact. No mitigation required.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. There are no private airstrips within at least five miles of the project site. No impact.
No mitigation required.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than significant impact (a — c). The introduction of one dwelling unit will not induce
substantial population growth as the State Department of Finance reports the average household
size in Newport Beach is 2.97. Affordable housing will be addressed by the payment of an in -lieu
fee.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, In order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• Fire protection?
• Police protection?
• Schools?
• Other public facilities?
Less than significant impact. Police and Fire Departments report that the project will not result
in a substantial increase in demand for public safety services. The proposed project will be
.15
assessed fees for the school district, parks and sanitation to off -set any impacts to these public
facilities.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? opportunities?
Less than significant impact (a & b). The 1.9-acre site will have a large, relatively level building
pad that will provide adequate open space for recreational activities. In addition, the Big Canyon
Planned Community has four acres of open turf. The City of Newport Beach requires a park fee
for new dwelling units, which the City uses for purchasing new park land and upgrading existing
facilities. Therefore, the project will not have adverse effect on recreation facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
C) Result in a change In air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than significant impact with Mitigation (a -d). The City of Newport Beach's Traffic
Engineer has reviewed the proposed project and concluded that the proposed project will not
result in any significant impacts to any traffic load and capacity, levels of service, or result in an
increase in traffic levels that will result in a safety risk on the existing roads.
Mitigation Measure. The Traffic Engineer will require during the plan check review phase that
the proposed project to be designed to accommodate vehicular turnaround on -site. Backing out
on to Big Canyon Drive is prohibited.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. Police and Fire Departments concluded that the proposed project will not result in
inadequate emergency access. At the time of plan check for building permits, the Plan Check
Engineer in the Building Department will check for Building Code compliance and emergency
ingress and egress from inside the dwelling unit to a safe outdoor location.
Q Result in Inadequate parking capacity?
No impact. The proposed single - family will be required to provide adequate parking on -site per
the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Planning Department will plan check the parking
proposed as part of the plan check process.
16
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation. The project does not propose to alter any existing bus
turnouts or established alternative transportation programs within the City. The City's
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance would not apply to this project since it is
residential. No impact.
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
Project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid
waste?
h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management
Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland),
the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g.
increased vectors and odors)?
Less than significant impact (a•h). The proposed project has been reviewed by the City of
Newport Beach's Utilities Department. They provided comments back stating the dwelling will
need water and sewer services installed per City standard. Therefore, no mitigations are
necessary.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California
history or prehistory?
17
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The subject site is currently undeveloped and
was used as a dumping site for unused soil from nearby construction projects. The project does
have the possibility to reduce the habitat of the California Gnatcatcher; however, with the
mitigation stated above in the Biological Resources section, the project will have less than a
significant impact on the environment. Although the subject site has been disturbed by adding
soil from nearby projects and the potential for discovery of examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory is minimal, the potential for subsurface discovery remains and has
been mitigated to a less than significant level. No further mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Does the project have impacts that are Individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
Less than significant impact No cumulative impacts are anticipated with this or other projects.
All project impacts are less that significant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. No
other projects have been proposed in the vicinity of the project site that would result in significant
impacts.
C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly?
Less than significant impact. The Initial Study reviewed the proposed project's potential
impacts. As discussed in the respective sections of this document, implantation of the proposed
project would not result in potentially significant impacts. However, where impacts were to be
potentially significant, mitigation has been provided that will reduce the impact to less than
significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have no substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. No further mitigation measures are necessary.
M
Page:1
7/3/2008 8:06:49 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name: F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \Russells Shortcuts \Big Canyon Urbemis \1 Big Canyon.urb924
Project Name: single family dwelling
Project Location: Orange County
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
71312008 8:06:49 AM
Summary'Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
BQQ
NO X
PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust
PM10 PM2.5
D is
PM2.5
PM2.5
Exhaust
2009 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.20
1.64
0.82
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.17
0.02
0.09
0.10
2010 TOTALS (tonslyear unmitigated) 0.03
0.19
0.11
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
BOG
NOX
CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
TOTALS (tonslyear, unmitigated)
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.93
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
B2
NOx
QQ
X92
PM10
PM2.5
S�Q2
TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated)
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.00
0.04
0.01
20.34
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
BOG
NOX
M
PM10
PM2.5
&42
TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated)
0.03
0.02
0.23
0.00
0.04
0.01
24.27
Consttvotfon Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per
Year, Unmitigated
ROG
NQX
CO
PM10 Dust
PM10 Exhaust
PM10
PM25 Dust
PM2.5 Exhaust
PM2.5
S42
159.16
16.70
Page:3
7/3/2008 8:06:49 AM
2009
0.20 _
1.64
0.82
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.17
0.02
0.09
0.10
159.16
Demolition 01/01/2009-
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.82
01/03/2009
Fugitive Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Demo Off Road Diesel
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
Demo On Road Diesel
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Demo Worker Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
Mass Grading 01/05/2009-
0.04
0.41
0.18
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.03
44.28
01/25/2009
Mass Grading Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
0.02
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
16.85
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
0.02
0.21
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
26.49
Mass Grading Worker Trips
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.93
Trenching 01/2612009- 0113012009
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.60
Trenching Off Road Diesel
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.29
Trenching Worker Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
Building 01131/2009.01/31 /2010
0.16
1.17
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.07
109.46
Building Off Road Diesel
0.15
1.17
0.59
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.07
106.76
Building Vendor Trips
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
Building Worker Trips
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.14
Page: 4
713/2008 8:06:25 AM
Time Slice 01/01/2010 -01/29/2010
Active Days: 21
Building 01/31/2009 -01/31/2010
Building Off Road Diesel
Building Vendor Trips
Building Worker Trips
Time Slice 02101/2010- 02105/2010
Active Days: 5
Fine Grading 02/01/2010-
02/05/2010
Fine Grading Dust
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel
Fine Grading On Road Diesel
Fine Grading Worker Trips
Time Slice 02/08/2010- 02/1112010
Active Days: 4
Asphalt 02/06/2010- 02/1112010
Paving Off -Gas
Paving Off Road Diesel
Paving On Road Diesel
Paving Worker Trips
Time Slice 02/12/2010 -02/12/2010
Active Days: 1
Coating 02/1212010- 02/132010
Architectural Coating
Coating Worker Trips
1.21
9.20
4.97
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
916.01
1.21
9.20
4.97
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
916.01
1.21
9.16
4.81
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
893.39
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.70
0.00
0.01
.0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.92
3.12
26.26
13.89
0.00
2M
LN
10.91
2i-11 ,
12D
2.541.30
3.12
26.26
13.89
0.00
9.61
1.30
10.91
2.01
1.20
3.20
2,541.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.60
0.00
9.60
2.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
3.00
24.99
12.46
0.00
0.00
1.25
1.25
0.00
1.15
1.15
2,247.32
0.09
1.22
0.45
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.05
169.54
0.03
0.06
0.98
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.44
2.33
13.04
9.09
Qm
0.02
1.07
1.09
0.01
0.99
0.99
1,343.06
2.33
13.04
9.09
0.00
0.02
1.07
1.09
0.01
0.99
0.99
1,343.06
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.95
11.89
6.98
0.00
0.00
1.03
1.03
0.00
0.94
0.94
979.23
0.08
1.05
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.04
146.06
0.05
0.10
1.72
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
217.78
1324
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
13.24
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
13.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
Page: 5
7/8/2008 8:06:49 AM
1 Concrete /Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Fine Grading 02/01/2010.02/0512010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 1.9
Maximum Dally Acreage Disturbed: 0.48
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 Ibs per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 40
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 01/05/2009 - 01125/2009 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 1.9
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.48
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 Ibs per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 833.33
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 01/26/2009 - 01/30/2009 - Default Trenching Description
Off -Road Equipment:
Page: 6
7/3/2008 8:06:25 AM
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 bad factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors /Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 01/2612009 - 01130/2009 - Default Trenching Description
Off -Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating ate 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Trectors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 02/06/2010 - 02/11/2010 - Default Paving Description
Acres to be Paved: 0.48
Off -Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Traclors/Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 0113112009 - 0113112010 - Default Building Construction Description
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coaling 0211212010 - 0211312010 - slury seal
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 0110112005 ends 06/3012008 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 0710112008 ends 1213112040 specifies a VOC of 50
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 01/0112005 ends 06/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 07/0112008 ends 1213112040 specifies a VOC of 100
Page: 7
S02
PM10
7/3/2008 8:06:49 AM
S92
0.00
Area+S6urce Unmitigated Detail Report:
0.00
0.00
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source
ROG
HQX
Natural Gas
0.00
0.00
WeaitFi ....
0.00
0.00
Landscape
0.00
0.00
Con'sumerPhoducts .
0.01
Architectural Coatings
0.00
TOTALS (tonstyedf, unmitigated)
0.01
0.00
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.93
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Length of summer period for landscape equipment changed from 365 days to 90 days
Operationsl'Utirhitigated*6tail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOX
Single family housing 0.02 0.02
TOTALS (tons/yeelr, unmitigated) 0.02 0.02
Operational Settings:
Does not Include correction for passby trips
Does not Include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2009 Season: Annual
CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
S92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.80
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.93
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Length of summer period for landscape equipment changed from 365 days to 90 days
Operationsl'Utirhitigated*6tail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOX
Single family housing 0.02 0.02
TOTALS (tons/yeelr, unmitigated) 0.02 0.02
Operational Settings:
Does not Include correction for passby trips
Does not Include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2009 Season: Annual
CO
S02
PM10
PM25
CO2
0.22
0.00
0.04
0.01
20.34
0.22
0.00
0.04
0.01'
20.34
Page: 8
7/3/2008 8:06:25 AM
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006
Land Use Type
Single family housing
Vehicle Type
Light Auto
Light Truck < 3750 lbs
Light Truck 3751.5750 Ibs
Mad Truck 5751.8500 Ibs
Lite -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 Ibs
Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,000 Ibs
Med -Heavy Truck 14,001. 33,000 Ibs
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001- 60,000 Ibs
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Summary of Land Uses
Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units
Total Trips
Total VMT
1.90 11.15 dwelling units 1.00
11.15
112.65
11.15
112.65
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Percent Type Non - Catalyst
catalyst
Diesel
51.5 1.4
98.2
0.4
7.0 2.9
94.2
2.9
23.8 0.4
99.6
0.0
10.6 0.9
99.1
0.0
1.6 0.0
81.2
18.8
0.5 0.0
60.0
40.0
0.9 0.0
22.2
77.8
0.2 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.1 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9 72.4
27.6
0.0
0.1 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.8 0.0
87.5
12.5
Page: 9
7/3/2008 8:06:49 AM
Urban Trip Length (miles)
Rural Trip Length (miles)
Trip speeds (mph)
% of Trips - Residential
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Travel Conditions
Residential
Commercial
Home -Work
Home -Shop
Home -Other
Commute
Non -Work
Customer
12.7
7.0
9.5
13.3
7.4
8.9
17.6
12.1
14.9
15.4
9.6
12.6
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
32.9
18.0
49.1
Page: 1
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name: F:\USERS \PLN \Shared \Russells Shortcuts \Big Canyon Urbemis\1 Big Canyon.urb924
Project Name: single family dwelling
Project Location: Orange County
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
7/3/2008 8:06:25 AM
Summary'Rspo(i:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
aQ.Q
RQX
M
S002,
PM10 Dust
PM10 Exhaust
2009 TOTALS (lbs /day unmitigated)
5.22
54.43
24.24
0.03
9.72
2.47
2010 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)
13.24
26.26
13.89
0.00
9.61
1.30
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
X42
PM10
PM2.5 S�
1345
NOX
TOTALS (Iba/day, unmitigated)
0.06
0.02
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
PPM10
PM2.5 1i92
1.24
ROG
NOx
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)
0.10
0.12
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
PM2.5 �!?2
1.30
ROG
NQX
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)
0.16
0.14
construction .Unmitigated Detail Report:
PM10 PM2.5 Dust P 9. PW.5 Exhau d PM2.5
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROG
NOX
M
PM10 PM Z5 Dust PM2.5 PM15 C�2
Exhaust
12.19 2.05 2.27 4.31 5,903.80
10.91 2.01 1.20 3.20 2,541.30
M
X42
PM10
PM2.5 S�
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00 20.86
M
19M
PPM10
PM2.5 1i92
1.24
0.00
0.19
0.04 115.14
CO
$02
PM10
PM2.5 �!?2
1.30
0.00
0.19
0.04 136.00
6Q2
PM10 Dust
EM70 Exhaus
PM10 PM2.5 Dust P 9. PW.5 Exhau d PM2.5
0
Page: 3
71312008 8:06:25 AM
Time Slice 01/01/2009 - 0110212009
1.26
8.22
5.84
0.00
0.01
0.64
0.65
0.00
0.59
0.59
824.78
Active Days: 2
Demolition 01/01/2009-
1.26
8.22
5.84
0.00
0.01
0.64
0.65
0.00
0.59
0.59
824.78
01/03/2009
Fugitive Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Demo Off Road Diesel
1.23
8.15
4.78
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.64
0.00
0.59
0.59
700.30
Demo On Road Diesel
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Demo Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.06
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.48
Time Slice 01/05/2009 - 01/23/2009
;i 22
54.43
24.24
9.03
9.72
2,AZ
1=11
43
5.903.80
Active Days: 15
Mass Grading 01/05/2009-
5.22
54.43
24.24
0.03
9.72
2.47
12.19
2.05
2.27
4.31
5,903.80
01/25/2009
Mass Grading Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.60
0.00
9.60
2.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
3.18
26.46
12.98
0.00
0.00
1.33
1.33
0.00
1.23
1.23
2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
2.00
27.91
10.21
0.03
0.12
1.13
1.25
0.04
1.04
1.08
3,532.00
Mass Grading Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.06
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.48
Time Slice 01/26/2009- 01/30/2009
2.21
18.96
9.38
0.00
0.01
0.93
0.94
0.00
0.86
0.86
1,839.12
Active Days: 5
Trenching 01/26/2009 - 01/30/2009
2.21
18.96
9.38
0.00
0.01
0.93
0.94
0.00
0.86
0.86
1,839.12
Trenching Off Road Diesel
2.18
18.90
8.32
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.93
0.00
0.86
0.86
1,714.64
Trenching Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.06
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.48
Time Slice 02/02/2009 - 12131/2009
1.30
9.83
5.11
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.64
0.00
0.58
0.58
916.02
Active Days: 239
Building 01/31/2009- 01/31/2010
1.30
9.83
5.11
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.64
0.00
0.58
0.58
916.02
Building Off Road Diesel
1.30
9.79
4.94
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
0.00
0.58
0.58
893.39
Building Vendor Trips
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.70
Building Worker Trips
0.00
0.01
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.93
Page: 4
7/3/2008 8:06:25 AM
Time Slice 01/0112010- 01/29/2010
1.21
9.20
4.97
0.00
0.00
- 0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
916.01
Active Days: 21
Building 01 131/2009- 01131/2010
1.21
9.20
4.97
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
916.01
Building Off Road Diesel
1.21
9.16
4.81
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
893.39
Building Vendor Trips
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.70
Building Worker Trips
0.00
0.01
.0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.92
Time Slice 02/01/2010 - 02105/2010
3.12
2LM
13.89
0.00
R&II
1.30
19.91
2.01
IM
x,20
2.54130
Active Days: 5
Fine Grading 02101/2010-
3.12
26.26
13.89
0.00
9.61
1.30
10.91
2.01
1.20
3.20
2,541.30
02/05/2010
Fine Grading Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.60
0.00
9.60
2.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel
3.00
24.99
12.46
0.00
0.00
1.25
1.25
0.00
1.15
1.15
2,247.32
Fine Grading On Road Diesel
0.09
1.22
0.45
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.05
169.54
Fine Grading Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
0.98
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.44
Time Slice 02108/2010. 02111/2010
2.33
13.04
9.09
0.00
0.02
1.07
1.09
0.01
0.99
0.99
1,343.06
Active Days: 4
Asphalt 02 /06/2010 - 02/11/2010
2.33
13.04
9.09
0.00
0.02
1.07
1.09
0.01
0.99
0.99
1,343.06
Paving Off -Gras
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel
1.95
11.89
6.98
0.00
0.00
1.03
1.03
0.00
0.94
0.94
979.23
Paving On Road Diesel
0.08
1.05
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.04
146.06
Paving Worker Trips
0.05
0.10
1.72
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
217.78
Time Slice 02/12/2010.02/1212010
13.24
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
Active Days: 1
Coaling 02/12/2010- 02/13/2010
13.24
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
Architectural Coating
13.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CoaBng Worker Trips
0.02
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
Page: 5
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
Phase Assumptions
Phase: Demolition 01/0112009 - 01/0312009 - Default Demolition Description
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 0
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Concrete /Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
2 Trectors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Fine Grading 02/01 /2010 - 0210512010 - Default Fine Site Grading /Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 1.9
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.48
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 Ibs per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 40
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for-6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 01/0512009 - 01/25/2009 - Default Mass Site Grading /Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 1.9
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.48
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 Ibs per acre-day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 83333
Off -Road Equipment:
Page: 6
7/3/2008 8:06:25 AM
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 bad factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 01126/2009 - 01 /30/2009 - Default Trenching Description
Off -Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load fadorfor S hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load fadorfor 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 0210612010 - 02/11/2010 - Default Paving Description
Acres to be Paved: 0.48
Off -Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tradors/LOaders/BackhOes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 01/31/2009 - 01/31/2010 - Default Building Constriction Description
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 02/1212010 - 02/13/2010 - slury seal
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 0110112005 ends 06130/2008 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 0710112008 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 50
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 01/0112005 ends 06/3012008 specifies a VOC of250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 07101/2008 ends 1213112040 specifies a VOC of 100
Page: 7
7/3/2008 8:06:25 AM
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 01/01/2005 ends 12/3112040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 01/01/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Area;Source Unmitigated: Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer.Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source - 1345 HQZ
&4
a42
PM10
PM2.5
&92
Natural Gas 0.00 0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.79
hearth,- No Summer Emissions
-
-
Landscape 0.01 0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
Consumer Ptodgets " 0.05
Architectural Coatings 0.00
TOTALS fdsiday, unmitigated) 0.02
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.86.
Area Source Chances to
Defaults
Length of summer period for landscape equipment changed from 365 days to 90 days
Operatonal Likmillgat6d( Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOX
CO
S02
PM10
PM25
CO2
Single family housing 0.10 0.12
1.24 ,
0.00
0.19
0.04
115.14
TOTALSjtwday,. unmitigated) - 0.10 0.12
1.24
0.00
0.19
- -. 0.04
115.14
Operational Settings:
Page: 8
7/3/2008 8:06:25 AAA
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not Include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006
Land Use Type
Single family housing
Vehicle Type
Light Auto
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs
Light Truck 3751 -5750 Ibs
Mad Truck 5751 -8500 Ibs
Lite -Heavy Truck 8501- 10,000 Ibs
Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,000 Ibs
Med -Heavy Truck 14,001. 33,000 Ibs
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 -60,000 Ibs
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Summary of Land Use
Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units
Total Trips
Total VMT
1.90 11.15 dwelling units 1.00
11.15
112.65
Vehicle Fleet
11.15
112.65
Mix
Percent Type Non - Catalyst
Catalyst
Diesel
51.5 1.4
98.2
0.4
7.0 2.9
94.2
2.9
23.8 0.4
99.6
0.0
10.6 0.9
99.1
0.0
1.6 0.0
812
18.8
0.5 0.0
60.0
40.0
0.9 0.0
22.2
77.8
02 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.1 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9 72.4
27.6
0.0
0.1 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.8 0.0
87.5
12.5
Page: 9
7/3/2008 8:06:25 AM
Urban Trip Length (miles)
Rural Trip Length (miles)
Trip speeds (mph)
% of Trips - Residential
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Travel Conditions
Residential
Commercial
Home -Work
Home -Shop
Home -Other
Commute
Non -Work
Customer
12.7
7.0
9.5
13.3
7.4
8.9
17.6
12.1
14.9
15.4
9.6
12.6
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
32.9
18.0
49.1
Page: 1
71312008 8:06:40 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day)
File Name: F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \Russells Shortcuts \Big Canyon Urbemis \1 Big Canyon.urb924
Project Name: single family dwelling
Project Location: Orange County
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
7/312008 8:06:40 AM
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROOO
NOx
- Q
,S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust
2009 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)
5.22
54.43
24.24
0.03 9.72 2.47
2010 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated)
13.24
26.26
13.89
0.00 9.61 1.30
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 �y
Exhau
12.19 2.05 2.27 4.31 5,903.80
10.91 2.01 1.20 3.20 2,541.30
O0
ROO
NOx
TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated)
0.21
0.03
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
0.07
0.06
39.82
RM
NOx
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)
0.11
0.15
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
0.00
0.19
ROG
NOx
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)
0.32
0.18
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 �y
Exhau
12.19 2.05 2.27 4.31 5,903.80
10.91 2.01 1.20 3.20 2,541.30
O0
S02
PM10
PM2.5
C2
0.44
0.00
0.07
0.06
39.82
OO
SO3
PM10
PM2.5
QQZ
1.19
0.00
0.19
0.04
104.15
00
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
1.63
0.00
0.26
0.10
143.97
S02
PM10 Dust
PM10 Exhaust
PM10
PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5
0
Page: 3
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
Time Slice 01/0112009A1/02/2009
1.26
8.22
5.84
0.00
0.01
0.64
0.65
0.00
0.59
0.59
824.78
Active Days: 2
Demolition 01101/2009-
1.26
8.22
5.84
0.00
0.01
0.64
0.65
0.00
0.59
0.59
824.78
01/03/2009
Fugitive Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Demo 08 Road Diesel
1.23
8.15
4.78
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.64
0.00
0.59
0.59
700.30
Demo On Road Diesel
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Demo Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.06
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.48
Time Slice 01 /05/2009 - 01/2312009
IM
54.43
242A
g,g3
472
2AZ
12.19
4.37.
5.903.80
Active Days: 15
Mass Grading 01/0512009-
5.22
54.43
24.24
0.03
9.72
2.47
12.19
2.05
2.27
4.31
5,903.80
01/2512009
Mass Grading Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.60
0.00
9.60
2.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
Mass Grading 08 Road Diesel
3.18
26.46
12.98
0.00
0.00
1.33
1.33
0.00
1.23
1.23
2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
2.00
27.91
10.21
0.03
0.12
1.13
1.25
0.04
1.04
1.08
3,532.00
Mass Grading Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.06
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.48
Time Slice 01 /26/2009 -01/3012009
2.21
18.96
9.38
0.00
0.01
0.93
0.94
0.00
0.86
0.86
1,839.12
Active Days: 5
Trenching 01 /2612009- 01/30/2009
2.21
18.96
9.38
0.00
0.01
0.93
0.94
0.00
0.86
0.86
1,839.12
Trenching 00 Road Diesel
2.18
18.90
8.32
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.93
0.00
0.86
0.86
1,714.64
Trenching Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.06
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.48
Time Slice 02/0212009- 12131 /2009
1.30
9.83
5.11
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.64
0.00
0.58
0.58
916.02
Active Days: 239
Building 01/31/2009.01/31 /2010
1.30
9.83
5.11
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.64
0.00
0.58
0.58
916.02
Building Off Road Diesel
1.30
9.79
4.94
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
0.00
0.58
0.58
893.39
Building Vendor Trips
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.70
Building Worker Trips
0.00
0.01
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.93
Page: 4
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
Time Slice 01/01/2010- 01/29/2010
1.21
9.20
4.97
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
916.01
Active Days: 21
Building 01/31/2009 -01/31/2010
1.21
9.20
4.97
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
916.01
Building Off Road Diesel
1.21
9.16
4.81
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
893.39
Building Vendor Trips
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.70
Building Worker Trips
0.00
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.92
Time Slice 02 /01/2010- 02/05/2010
3.12
26.26
13.89
0.00
9.6.7.
IM
10.91
8.41.
1z
3.20
2.541.30
Active Days: 5
Fine Grading 02/01/2010-
3.12
26.26
13.89
0.00
9.61
1.30
10.91
2.01
1.20
3.20
2,541.30
02/05/2010
Fine Grading Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.60
0.00
9.60
2.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel
3.00
24.99
12.46
0.00
0.00
1.25
1.25
0.00
1.15
1.15
2,247.32
Fine Grading On Road Diesel
0.09
1.22
0.45
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.05
169.54
Fine Grading Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
0.98
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.44
Time Slice 02/08/2010- 02/11/2010
2.33
13.04
9.09
4.04
0.02
1.07
1.09
0.01
0.99
0.99
1,343.06
Active Days: 4
Asphalt 02/06/2010- 02/11/2010
2.33
13.04
9.09
0.00
0.02
1.07
1.09
0.01
0.99
0.99
1,343.06
Paving Off -Gas
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel
1.95
11.89
6.98
0.00
0.00
1.03
1.03
0.00
0.94
0.94
979.23
Paving On Road Diesel
0.08
1.05
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.04
146.06
Paving Worker Trips
0.05
0.10
1.72
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
217.78
Time Slice 02/12/2010 -02/12/2010
1324
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
Active Days: 1
Coating 02/12/2010- 02/13/2010
13.24
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
Architectural Coating
13.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CoaBng Worker Trips
0.02
0.03
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.60
Page: 5
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
Phan Atiumnflon s
Phase: Demolition 0110112009 - 01/0312009 - Default Demolition Description
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 0
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Concrete /Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factorfor 8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating ate 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factorfor 6 hours per day
Phase: Fine Grading 02/01/2010.02/05 /2010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavatlon Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 1.9
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.48
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 Ibs per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 40
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tmetors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 01/0512009 - 01/25/2009 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 1.9
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.48
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 Ibs per acre-day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 833.33
Off -Road Equipment:
Page: 6
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a O.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors /Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 01/26/2009 - 01/30/2009 - Default Trenching Description
Off -Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 02106/2010 - 02/11/2010 - Default Paving Description
Acres to be Paved: 0.48
Off -Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 01/31/2009 - 01/31/2010 - Default Building Construction Description
00 -Road Equipment
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors /Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 02/12/2010 - 02113/2010 - slury seal
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 01/01/2005 ends 06/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 07/01/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 01/01/2005 ends 06130/2008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 07/01/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100
Page: 7
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 01101/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 01/01/2005 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
:Area Sour"ce.Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source
ROG
NOx
M
X42
PM10 PM2.5
CO2
Natural Gas
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00 0.00
20.79
Hearth
6.16
0.01
0.43
0.00
0.07 0.06
19.03
Landscaping - No Winter Emissions
Consumer Products
0.05
Architectural Coatings
0.00
TOTALS (Ibs/daq, unmitigated)
0.21
0.03
0.44
0:00
0:07 0:06
39.82
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Length of summer period for landscape equipment changed from 365 days to 90 days
.Operatioisa _Unmitigated Detail Report-.
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOX
Single family housing 0.11 015
TOTALS (lbalday, unmhgated) 0.11 0.15
Operational Settings:
CO
S02
PM10
PM25
CO2
1.19
0.00
0.19
0.04
104.15
119
0.00
0.19
0.04
10415
Page: 8
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
Does not Include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2009 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006
Land Use Type
Single family housing
Vehicle Type
Light Auto
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs
Light Truck -3751 -5750 Ibs
Mad Truck 5751 -8500 lbs
Lite -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 Ibs
Lite -Heavy, Truck 10,001- 14,000 Ibs
Med -Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,000 Ibs
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001- 60,000 Ibs
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Summary of land Uses
Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units
Total Trips
Total VMT
1.90 11.15 dwelling units 1.00
11.15
112.65
11.15
112.65
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Percent Type Non - Catalyst
Catalyst
Diesel
51.5 1.4
98.2
0.4
7.0 2.9
94.2
2.9
23.8 0.4
99.6
0.0
10.6 0.9
99.1
0.0
1.6 0.0
81.2
18.8
0.5 0.0
60.0
40.0
0.9 0.0
22.2
77.8
0.2 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.1 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9 72.4
27.6
0.0
0.1 0.0
0.0
100.0
0.8 0.0
87.5
12.5
Page: 9
7/3/2008 8:06:40 AM
Urban Trip Length (miles)
Rural Trip Length (miles)
Trip speeds (mph)
of Trips - Residential
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Travel Conditions
Commute
Residential
Customer
Home -Work
Hom"hop
Home-Other
12.7
7.0
9.5
17.6
12.1
14.9
30.0
30.0
30.0
32.9
18.0
49.1
Commercial
Commute
Non -Work
Customer
13.3
7.4
6.9
15.4
9.6
12.6
30.0
30.0
30.0
GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES
Regulatory Services
August 25, 2008
Larry Tucker
Big Canyon Country Club
One Big Canyon Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
SUBJECT: Results of Biological/Regulatory Overview Conducted for the 1.9 -Acre Proposed
Residential Lot Located in the Big Canyon Community, Newport Beach, Orange
County, California.
Dear Mr. Tucker:
A biologist from Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) visited the above - mentioned property on
August 8, 2008 to identify the actual or potential presence of special- status species or habitats
capable of supporting special- status species. In addition, the property was also evaluated for the
presence of areas potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
The following letter includes an overview of the biological resources, including special - status
species and habitats, which occur or have the potential to occur on site. Impacts to special - status
species and habitats must be addressed during project review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, species federally listed as threatened or endangered are
regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to the Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Species listed as threatened or endangered by the State of California are
regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) pursuant to the State ESA.
Wildlife that are assigned other designations by CDFG (i.e., species of concern, fully- protected
species, etc.), and plants given special status by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) are
not granted additional protection, except that impacts to these species may need to be evaluated
pursuant to CEQA.
In addition to the biological overview, this report contains an analysis of impacts to biological
resources associated with the proposed project.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 2
Enclosed are a Regional Map [Exhibit 1], a map of the Project Vicinity [Exhibit 2], a Vegetation
Map that depicts onsite vegetation associations with an overlay of the developable area [Exhibit
3], and representative site photographs [Exhibit 4].
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 3
I. SITE DESCRIPTION
The 1.9 -acre property is located north of Big Canyon Drive between Rue Biarritz and Rue Villars
in the Big Canyon Community, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California [Exhibit 1—
Regional Map, Exhibit 2 — Vicinity Map]. The property consists of a graded pad with
approximately three feet of fill materials surrounded by disturbed areas and vegetated primarily
with native and non - native ruderal species, and a steep slope east of the disturbed graded pad
vegetated with native scrub species. Surrounding the property are residences to the south, east,
and west, a wetland/riparian mitigation area immediately to the north, and the golf course fairway
to the north immediately beyond the mitigation area.
No blue -line drainages occur on site, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic map Tustin, California [dated 1978 and photorevised in 1981].
H. METHODOLOGY
A GLA biologist visited the property on August 8, 2008 to conduct a site review and vegetation
mapping of the property. Site reconnaissance was conducted in such a manner as to allow
inspection of the entire site by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. The site was
inspected to determine whether any sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or potential
jurisdictional areas are present on site. Vegetation communities within the property were
mapped according to the Orange County GIS Habitat Classification System ( "OCHCS'; Gray
and Bramlet 1992). Identification and mapping of vegetation also incorporated habitat
descriptions provided by Holland (1986). Project - specific vegetation types were modified or
created as necessary to reflect on site associations. Plant communities were mapped in the field
directly on to a 75 -scale (1" = 75') aerial photograph. A Vegetation Map is provided as Exhibit
3.
In addition to site reconnaissance, evaluation of the property included a review of the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the Tustin, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Juan
Capistrano, Orange, Dana Point, and El Toro Quadrangles2, a review of the 2008 California
Native Plant Society (CLAPS) inventory}, and a soil map review.
'Personal communication with Jeff Beardsley on August 8, 2008.
2 California Department of Fish and Game. March 2008. Natural Diversity Database: RareFind 2.
' California Native Plant Society. 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Seventh Edition).
http: / /cnps.web.apius.net/cgi- bin/inv /inventoty.cgi
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 4
M. RESULTS
Site Reconnaissance
The property consists of a graded pad with approximately three feet of fill material surrounded by
disturbed areas vegetated primarily with native and non - native ruderal species, and a steep slope
east of the disturbed graded pad vegetated with native scrub species. Several ornamental trees
occur on the edge of the property bordering Big Canyon Drive and at the top of the slope
bordering the residences to the east of the property. Surrounding the property are residences to
the south, east, and west, a wetland/riparian mitigation area immediately to the north, and the
golf course fairway to the north immediately beyond the mitigation area.
The disturbed portion of the site, including the graded pad, is vegetated primarily with non - native
species. Dominant species include pampas grass (Cortedaria selloana), myoporum (Myoporum
laetum), crystal iceplant (Mesembryamthum crystallinum), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia
incana), black mustard (Brassica nigra), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Australian salt bush
(Atriplex semibacatta), lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album), pride of Madeira (Echium
fastuosum), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), bristly ox- tongue (Picris echioides), and poison
hemlock (Conium maculatum). Other non - native species present within the disturbed portion of
the site include prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis),
Spanish sunflower (Pulicaria paludosa), garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarium),
tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), milk thistle (Silybum
marianum), and London rocket (Sisimbrium Trio). Ornamental trees occurring on the edges of
the property include myoporum (Myoporum laetum), London plane tree (Platanus acerifolia),
and pine (Pinus sp.). Locally dominant native species within the disturbed/graded pad area
include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Also present in a disturbed area are a few large
patches of the native alkali heath (Frankenia saliva) and a few individuals of arroyo willow
(Satix lasiolepis). The arroyo willow individuals are not associated with any drainage course.
The steep slope east of the graded pad is vegetated with native scrub species including Brewer's
salt bush (Atriplex lentiformis ssp. breweri), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica),
California encelia ( Encelia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and
coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii).
Birds observed on site either by direct observation or by characteristic vocalization include song
sparrow (Melospiza melodia), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), house finch
(Carpodacus mexicanus), anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus) California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), redtailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and wrentit
(Chamaea fasciata).
No reptiles or amphibians were observed on site.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 5
Mammals either observed by direct observation, or by the presence of diagnostic sign (i.e.,
tracks, scat, etc.) include coyote (Canis latrans).
Vegetation Maooina
Several vegetation associations were observed and mapped on site as discussed below [Exhibit 3
— Vegetation Map]. As previously stated, the majority of the site is disturbed and vegetated with
weedy non- native species. The only native community on site is the steep slope that is vegetated
with native scrub.
Mixed Same Scrub / Chenopod Scrub 12.3.1012.7
This vegetation association occurs on the steep slope east of the graded pad, covers
approximately 0.29 acre, and consists of a mix of two vegetation associations as defined by the
OCHCS. The slope is dominated by both native shrubs consistent with mixed sage scrub
including California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California encelia ( Encelia
californica), and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and native shrubs consistent with
chenopod scrub including Brewer's saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis breweri) and coastal
goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii).
Ruderal [4.67
This vegetation association covers approximately 0.49 acre, occurs over an large portion of the
property including the graded pad, and is dominated by weedy native and non - native species
including crystal iceplant (Mesembryamthum crystallinum), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia
incana), black mustard (Brassica nigra), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Australian salt bush
(Atriplex semibaccata), lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus),
bristly ox- tongue (Picris echioides), and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum).
Ruderal /Ornamental (4.6 115.57
This vegetation association covers approximately 0.06 acres and occurs in southern portion of the
slope east of the access road. Dominant species include pampas grass (Cortedaria selloana),
black mustard (Brassica nigra), pride of Madeira (Echium fastuosum), and myoponun
(Myoporum laetum).
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 6
Southern Willow Scrub R.21
Included in this association is a small patch of arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis) covering
approximately 0.04 acre. The willows are not associated with any drainage course and appear to
be supported by groundwater and/or irrigation runoff.
Omamental (15.57
This vegetation association covers approximately 0.82 acre and consists of ornamental trees
including London plane tree (Platanus acerifolia), Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) and myoporum
(Myoporum laetum).
Disturbed !16.11
This land cover totals approximately 0. 18 acre and includes the gravel access road that extends
from north to south across the property.
Special- Status Animals
No special - status animals were observed at the property during site reconnaissance, and none are
expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat.
Table 1 provides a summary of all species considered for the biological overview. Species were
considered based on a number of factors, including: 1) species identified by the March 2008
CNDDB as occurring (either currently of historically) on or in the vicinity of the property, 2) any
other special- status species that are known to occur within the vicinity of the property, or for
which potentially suitable habitat occurs on site. Following the table, additional discussions are
provided for any special- status animals observed on site, for which potentially suitable habitat
occurs on the property, and/or for which additional discussion is necessary for other reasons.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 7
Table 1. Special- status wildlife considered for the biological overview.
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
American badger
Federal: None
Occurs drier shrub, forest, and
Does not occur
Taxidea taxes
State: None
herbaceous habitats. Needs
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
open, uncultivated ground and
lack of suitable
friable soils for digging
habitat
burrows. Preys on burrowing
rodents.
Arroyo chub
Federal: None
Slow - moving or backwater
Does not occur
Gila orcutti
State: None
sections of warm to cool
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
streams with substrates of sand
lack of suitable
or mud.
habitat
Arroyo southwestern toad
Federal: FE
Breed, forage, and/or aestivate
Does not occur
Anaxyrus califotnicus
State: None
in aquatic habitats, riparian,
on site due to a
CDFG: None
coastal sage scrub, oak, and
lack of suitable
chaparral habitats. Breeding
habitat
pools must be open and shallow
with minimal current, and with
a sand or pea gravel substrate
overlain with sand or flocculent
silt. Adjacent banks with sandy
or gravely terraces and very
little herbaceous cover for adult
and juvenile foraging areas,
within a moderate riparian
canopy of cottonwood, willow,
or oak.
Belding's savannah sparrow
Federal: None
Coastal Marshes
Does not occur
Passerculus sandwichensis
State: SE
on site due to a
beldingi
CDFG: CSC
lack of suitable
habitat
Big free -tailed bat
Federal: None
Occurs in low -lying and areas
Does not occur
Nyctinomops macrons
State: None
in Southern California. Roosts
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
in high cliffs or rocky outcrops.
lack of suitable
habitat
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 8
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
Burrowing owl
Federal: None
Shortgrass prairies, grasslands,
Does not occur
Athene cunicularia
State: None
lowland scrub, agricultural
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
lands (particularly rangelands),
lack of suitable
coastal dunes, desert floors, and
habitat
some artificial, open areas as a
year -long resident. Occupies
abandoned ground squirrel
burrows as well as artificial
structures such as culverts and
underpasses.
California black rail
Federal: None
Occurs in coastal saltmarsh and
Does not occur
Laterallus jamaicensis
State: ST
brackish marsh dominated by
on site due to a
coturniculus
CDFG: None
pickleweed,
lack of suitable
habitat
California homed lark
Federal: None
Occupies a variety of open
Not expected
Eremophila alpestris actia
State: None
habitats, usually where trees
to occur on
CDFG: CSC
and large shrubs are absent.
site due to a
lack of suitable
habitat.
California least tern
Federal: FE
Flat, vegetated substrates near
Does not occur
Sterna antillarum browni
State: SE
the coast. Occurs near
on site due to a
CDFG: CFP
estuaries, bays, or harbors
lack of suitable
where fish is abundant
habitat
Coast (San Diego) homed Lizard
Federal: FSC
Chaparral and coastal sage
Does not occur
Phrynosoma coronatum
State: None
scrub
on site due to a
(blainvillii population)
CDFG: CSC
lack of suitable
habitat
Coast patch -nosed snake
Federal: None
Occurs in coastal chaparral,
Does not occur
Salvadora hex alepis virgultea
State: None
desert scrub, washes, sandy
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
flats, and rocky areas.
lack of suitable
habitat
Coastal cactus wren
Federal: None
Occurs almost exclusively in
Does not occur
Campylorhychus brunneicapillus
State: None
cactus (cholla and prickly pear)
on site due to a
couest
CDFG: CSC
dominated coastal sage scrub.
lack of suitable
habitat
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 9
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Federal: FT
Low elevation coastal sage
Not expected
Poltoptila californica californica
State: None
scrub and coastal bluff scrub.
to occur on
CDFG: CSC
site due to lack
of suitable
habitat. See
discussion
below for this
species.
Coastal western whiptail
Federal: None
Open, often rocky areas with
Not expected
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegerf
State: None
little vegetation, or sunny
to occur on
Locally rare
microhabitats within shrub or
site due to a
grassland associations.
lack of suitable
habitat.
Dulzura pocket mouse
Federal: None
Coastal scrub, grassland, and
Does not occur
Cbaetodipus califranicus
State: None
chaparral, especially at grass-
on site due to a
femaralis
CDFG: CSC
chaparral edges
lack of suitable
habitat
Ferruginous hawk (wintering)
Federal: FSC
Open, dry country, perching on
Not expected
Buteo regalis
State: None
trees, posts, and mounds. In
to occur due to
CDFG: CSC
California, wintering habitat
a lack of
consists of open terrain and
suitable
grasslands of the plains and
habitat.
foothills.
Globose dune beetle
Federal: None
Coastal sand dunes.
Does not occur
Coelusglobosus
State: None
on site due to a
CDFG: None
lack of suitable
habitat
Grasshopper sparrow (nesting)
Federal: None
Occurs in dense grasslands on
Does not occur
Ammodramus sa annarum
State: None
rolling hills, lowland plains, in
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
valleys, and on hillsides on
lack of suitable
lower mountain slopes. Favors
habitat
native grasslands with a mix of
grasses, forbs, and scattered
shrubs. Loosely colonial when
nesting.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 10
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
Great blue heron
Federal: None
Colonial nester in tall trees,
Does not occur
Ardea herodias
State: None
cliffsides, and sequestered spots
on site due to a
CDFG: None
on marshes. Rookery sites in
lack of suitable
close proximity to foraging
habitat
areas: marshes, lake margins,
tide -flats, rivers and streams,
wet meadows.
Hoary Bat
Federal: None
Prefers open habitats or habitat
Does not occur
Lasiurus cinereus
State: None
mosaics, with access to trees for
on site due to a
CDFG: None
cover and open areas or habitat
lack of suitable
edges for feeding. Roosts in
habitat
dense foliage of medium to
large trees. Feeds primarily on
moths. Requires water.
Least Bell's vireo
Federal: FE
Dense riparian habitats with a
Does not occur
Vireo bellii pus Was
State: SE
stratified canopy, including
on site due to a
CDFG: None
southern willow scrub, mule fat
lack of suitable
scrub, and riparian forest.
habitat
Light - footed clapper rail
Federal: FE
Marsh vegetation of coastal
Does not occur
Rallus longirostris levipes
State: SE
wetlands.
on site due to a
CDFG: CFP
lack of suitable
habitat
Mexican long- tongued bat
Federal: None
Occasionally found in San
Does not occur
Choeronycteris mexicana
State: None
Diego County, which is on the
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
periphery of its range. Feeds on
lack of suitable
nectar & pollen of night-
habitat
blooming succulents. Roosts in
relatively well -lit caves, & in &
around buildings.
Mimic tryonia
Federal: None
Coastal lagoons, estuaries, and
Does not occur
Dyonia imitator
State: None
salt marshes.
on site due to a
CDFG: None
lack of suitable
habitat
Monarch butterfly (wintering)
Federal: None
Roosts in winter in wind-
Does not occur
Danaus plexippus
State: None
protected tree groves along the
on site due to a
California coast from northern
lack of suitable
Mendocino to Baja California,
habitat
Mexico.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 11
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
Northern red - diamond rattlesnake
Federal: None
Habitats with heavy brush and
Does not occur
Crotalus tuber
State: None
rock outcrops, including coastal
on site due to a
-
CDFG: CSC
sage scrub and chaparral.
lack of suitable
habitat
Orange - throated whiptail
Federal: None
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
Does not occur
Asp idoscelis hyperythrus
State: None
non - native grassland, oak
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
woodland, and juniper
lack of suitable
woodland.
habitat
Osprey
Federal: None
Ocean shore, bays, fresh -water
Does not occur
Pandion haliaetus
State: None
lakes, and larger streams.
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
Builds large nests in tree -tops
lack of suitable
within 15 miles of good fish-
habitat
producing body of water.
Pacific pocket mouse
Federal: FE
Fine, alluvial soils along the
Does not occur
Perognathus longimembris
State: None
coastal plain. Scarcely in rocky
on site due to a
pac fcus
CDFG: CSC
soils of scrub habitats.
lack of suitable
habitat
Riverside fairy shrimp
Federal: FE
Restricted to deep seasonal
Does not occur
Streptocephalus woottoni
State: None
vernal pools, vernal pool -like
on site due to a
CDFG: None
ephemeral ponds, and stock
lack of suitable
ponds.
habitat
Rosy boa
Federal: None
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
Does not occur
Charina trivirgata roseofusca
State: None
or mixed habitats, commonly
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
with rocky soils and outcrops.
lack of suitable.
Also in oak woodlands and
habitat
riparian areas bordering scrub
habitats.
San Diego desert woodrat
Federal: None
Occurs in a variety of shrub and
Does not occur
Neotoma lepida intermedia
State: None
desert habitats, primarily
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
associated with rock outcrops,
lack of suitable
boulders, cacti, or areas of
habitat
dense undergrowth.
San Diego fairy shrimp
Federal: FE
Seasonal vernal pools
Does not occur
Bronchinecta sandiegonensis
State: None
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
lack of suitable
habitat
Sandy beach tiger beetle
Federal: None
Coastal sand dunes
Does not occur
Cicindela hirticollis gravida
State: None
on site due to a
CDFG: None
lack of suitable
habitat
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 12
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
Santa Ana speckled dace
Federal: None
Occurs in the headwaters of the
Does not occur
Rhinichthys osculus
State: None
Santa Ana and San Gabriel -
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
Rivers. May be extirpated from
lack of suitable
the Los Angeles River system.
habitat
Requires permanent flowing
streams with summer water
temperatures of 17 -20 C.
Usually inhabits shallow cobble
and gravel riles.
Santa Ana sucker
Federal: FT
Small, shallow streams, less
Does not occur
Catostomus santaanae
State: None
than 7 meters in width, with
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
currents ranging from swift in
lack of suitable
the canyons to sluggish in the
habitat
bottom lands. Preferred
substrates are generally coarse
and consist of gravel, rubble,
and boulders with growths of
filamentous algae, but
occasionally they are found on
sand/mud substrates.
Southern California saltmarsh
Federal: None
Occurs in coastal marshes in
Does not occur
shrew
State: None
Los Angeles, Orange, and
on site due to a
Sorex ornatus salicornicus
CDFG: CSC
Ventura Counties. Requires
lack of suitable
dense vegetation and woody
habitat
debris for cover.
Southwestern pond turtle
Federal: FSC
Slow- moving permanent or
Does not occur
Clemmys marmorata pallida
State: None
intermittent streams, small
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
ponds and lakes, reservoirs,
lack of suitable
abandoned gravel pits,
habitat
permanent and ephemeral
shallow wetlands, stock ponds,
and treatment lagoons.
Abundant basking sites and
cover necessary, including logs,
rocks, submerged vegetation,
and undercut banks.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 13
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
Tidewater goby
Federal: FE
Occurs in shallow lagoons and
Does not occur
Eucyclobobius newbenyi
State: None
lower stream reaches along the
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
California coast from Agua
lack of suitable
Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego
habitat
Co. to the mouth of the Smith
River.
Two - striped garter snake
Federal: None
Aquatic snake typically
Does not occur
Thamnophis hammondii
State: None
associated with wetland habitats
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
such as streams, creeks, and
lack of suitable
pools.
habitat
Western beach tiger beetle
Federal: None
Occurs at mudflats and beaches
Does not occur
Cicindela latesignota latesignata
State: None
in coastal southern California.
on site due to a
CDFG: None
lack of suitable
habitat
Western mastiff bat
Federal: None
Occurs in many open, semi -arid
Does not occur
Eumops perods californicus
State: None
to and habitats, including
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
conifer and deciduous
lack of suitable
woodlands, coastal scrub,
habitat
grasslands, and chaparral.
Roosts in crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees, and
tunnels.
Western snowy plover
Federal: FT
Sandy or gravelly beaches
Does not occur
Charadnm alexandrinus nivosus
State: None
along the coast, estuarine salt
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
ponds, alkali lakes, and at the
lack of suitable
Salton Sea.
habitat
Western spadefoot
Federal: FSC
Seasonal pools in coastal sage
Does not occur
Scaphiopus hammandii
State: None
scrub, chaparral, and grassland
on site due to a
CDFG: CSC
habitats.
lack of suitable
habitat
Western tidal -flat tiger beetle
Federal: None
inhabits estuaries and mudflats
Does not occur
Cicindela gabbii
State: None
along the coast of southern
on site due to a
CDFG: None
California. Generally found on
lack of suitable
dark - colored mud in the lower
habitat
zone; occasionally found on dry
saline flats of estuaries.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 14
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
White -tailed kite (nesting)
Federal: FSC
Low elevation open grasslands,
Very low
Elanus leucurus
State: None
savannah -like habitats,
potential to
CDFG: CFP
agricultural areas, wetlands, and
occur on site
oak woodlands. Dense
for foraging;
canopies used for nesting and
however, does
cover.
not breed on
site due to lack
of suitable
nesting habitat.
Yuma myotis
Federal: None
Occurs in open forests and
Does not occur
Myotis yumanensis
State: None
woodlands with sources of
on site due to a
CDFG: None
water over which to feed.
lack of suitable
Maternity colonies are in caves,
habitat
mines, buildings, or crevices.
Federal State
FE — Federally Endangered SE — State Endangered
FT — Federally Threatened ST — State Threatened
FPT —Federally Proposed Threatened
FSC — Federal Species of Concern
CDFG
CSC — California Species of Concern
CFP — California Fully- Protected Species
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
The coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) is a federally listed threatened species. This small
songbird is a year- round, obligate resident of coastal sage scrub communities in southern
California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. CAGN is insectivorous, and nests and
forages in moderately dense stands of sage scrub occurring on and hillsides, mesas, and in
washes. CAGN generally occur below 1,200 feet in elevation. Coastal sage scrub communities
dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum), white sage (Salvia apiana), and black sage (Salvia mellifera) are preferred by this
species. Loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat due to expanding development have been
major factors in the decline of this bird in southern California.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 15
This species typically nests in areas with less than 40 percent slope, and requires at a minimum a
patch of scrub of at least 0.5 acre for nesting4. Given the steepness of the slope and small size of
the patch of scrub on sites (0.29 acre within the property), and the distance of this fragmented
patch from large, contiguous areas of scrub habitat, CAGN would not breed on site. It is
possible, although unlikely, that a dispersing individual could briefly utilize the site for rest and
forage at the beginning or end of the nesting season.
Special- Status Plants
No special - status plants were observed at the property during site reconnaissance, and none are
expected to occur due to the high degree of disturbance on the site, lack of native soils, and
presence of fill material.
Table 2 provides a summary of all plants considered for the biological overview. Species were
considered based on a number of factors, including: 1) species identified by the March 2008
CNDDB as occurring (either currently of historically) on or in the vicinity of the property, 2) any
other special- status plants that are known to occur within the vicinity of the property, or for
which potentially suitable habitat occurs on site. Following the table, additional discussions are
provided for any special - status plants observed on site, for which potentially suitable habitat
occurs on the property, and/or for which additional discussion is necessary for other reasons.
Table 2. Special- status plants considered for the property.
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Aphanisma
Federal: None
Coastal bluff Scrub, coastal dunes,
Does not occur
Aphanisma blitoides
State: None
coastal dune scrubs
on site due to a
CNPS: List IB.2
lack of suitable
habitat
Blochman's dudleya
Federal: None
Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral,
Does not occur
Dudleya blochmaniae sap.
State: None
coastal sage scrub, valley and
on site due to a
blochmaniae
CLAPS: List 1B.1
foothill grassland. Rocky soils,
lack of suitable
often of clay or serpentinite.
habitat
° Mock, P. 2004 California Gnatcatcher (Poliptila ca/ifornica). In The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird
Conservation Plan: a strategy for protecting and managing coastal scrub and chaparral habitats and associated birds
in California. California Partners in Flight. htt p:// www. prbo .org/calpuf/htmldocs /Scrub.htinl
s The patch of scrub adjacent to the buildable area covers 0.34 acre; however, only 0.29 acre of the scrub is within
the parcel proposed for development.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 16
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
Chaparral bear grass
Federal: None
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub.
Does not occur
Nolina cismontana
State: None
Occurring on sandstone or gabbro
on site due to a
CNPS: List 1B.2
substrates.
lack of suitable
habitat
Chaparral sand verbena
Federal: None
Sandy soils in chaparral, coastal
Does not occur
Abronia villosa var. aurita
State: None
sage scrub.
on site due to a
CNPS: List 1 B.1
lack of suitable
habitat
Cliff spurge
Federal: None
Coastal bluff scrub and coastal
Does not occur
Euphorbia misera
State: None
sage scrub. Occurring on rocky
on site due to a
CNPS: List 2.2
soils.
lack of suitable
habitat
Coast woolly -heads
Federal: None
Coastal dunes
Does not occur
Nemacaulis denudata var.
State: None
on site due to a
denudata
CNPS: List 1 B.2
lack of suitable
habitat
Coulter's goldfields
Federal: None
Playas, vernal pools, marshes and
Does not occur
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
State: None
swamps (coastal salt).
on site due to a
coulteri
CNPS: List I B.I
lack of suitable
habitat
Coulter's saltbush
Federal: None
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
Does not occur
Atriplex coulteri
State: None
coastal sage scrub, valley and
on site due to a
CNPS: List 1B.2
foothill grassland. Occurring on
lack of suitable
alkaline or clay soils.
habitat
Big- leaved crownbeard
Federal: FT
Southern maritime chaparral,
Does not occur
Verbesina dissita
State: ST
coastal sage scrub
on site due to a
CNPS: List IB.1
lack of suitable
habitat
Davidson's saltscale
Federal: None
Alkaline soils in coastal sage scrub,
Does not occur
Atriplex serenana var.
State: None
coastal bluff scrub.
on site due to a
davidsond
CNPS: List 1B.2
lack of suitable
habitat
Estuary seablite
Federal: None
Coastal salt marsh and swamps.
Does not occur
Suaeda esteroa
State: None
Occurring in sandy soils
on site due to a
CNPS: List I B.2
lack of suitable
habitat
Intermediate mariposa lily
Federal: None
Rocky soils in chaparral, coastal
Does not occur
Calochornm weedu var.
State: None
sage scrub, valley and foothill
on site due to a
intermednu
CNPS: List I B.2
grassland.
lack of suitable
habitat
Laguna beach dudleya
Federal: FT
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
Does not occur
Dudleya stolonifera
State: ST
coastal sage scrub, valley and
on site due to a
CNPS: List I B.2
foothill grassland. Occurring on
lack of suitable
rocky soils.
habitat
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 17
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
Los Angeles sunflower
Federal: None
Marshes and swamps (coastal salt
Does not occur
Hehanthus nuttallii ssp.
State: None
and freshwater). Historical from
on site due to a
Parishii
CLAPS: List IA
Southern California. 5- 1675m.
lack of suitable
presumed extinct
habitat
in CA
Many - stemmed dudleya
Federal: None
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
Does not occur
Dudleya multicaulis
State: None
valley and foothill grassland.
on site due to a
CNPS: List 113.2
Often occurring in clay soils.
lack of suitable
habitat
Mesa horkelia
Federal: None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
Does not occur
Horkelia cuneata ssp.
State: None
and coastal scrub. Occurring on
on site due to a
puberula
CLAPS: List I B.I
sandy or gravelly soils.
lack of suitable
habitat
Mud nama
Federal: None
Marshes and swamps
Does not occur
Nama stenocarpum
State: None
on site due to a
CLAPS: List 2.2
lack of suitable
habitat
Nuttall's scrub oak
Federal: None
Closed -cone coniferous forest,
Does not occur
Quercus dumosa
State: None
chaparral, and coastal sage scrub.
on site due to a
CLAPS: List IB.I
Occurring on sandy, clay loam
lack of suitable
soils.
habitat
Orcutt's pincushion
Federal: None
Coastal bluff scrub (sandy soils)
Does not occur
Chaenactis glabriuscula
State: None
and coastal dunes.
on site due to a
var. orcuttiana
CLAPS: List 1B.1
lack of suitable
habitat
Parish's brittlescale
Federal: None
Chenopod scrub, playas, vernal
Does not occur
Atriplex parishii
State: None
pools.
on site due to a
CNPS: List IB.I
lack of suitable
habitat
Prostrate navarretia
Federal: None
Coastal sage scrub, valley and
Does not occur
Navarretia prostrata
State: None
foothill grassland (alkaline), vernal
on site due to a
CNPS: List IB.I
pools. Occurring in mesic soils.
lack of suitable
habitat
Rayless ragwort
Federal: None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
Does not occur
Senecio aphanactis
State: None
coastal sage scrub. Occurring on
on site due to a
CLAPS: List 2.2
alkaline soils.
lack of suitable
habitat
Salt marsh bird's -beak
Federal: FE
Coastal dune, coastal salt marshes
Does not occur
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp.
State: SE
and swamps.
on site due to a
maritimus
CNPS: List I13.2
lack ofsuitable
habitat
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 18
Federal State
FE - Federally Endangered SE - State Endangered
FT - Federally Threatened ST — State Threatened
CLAPS
List 1 B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
List 3 — Plants about which more information is needed.
Potential for
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Occurrence
San Bernadine, aster
Federal: None
Cssmontane woodland, coastal
Does not occur
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
State: None
scrub, lower montane coniferous
on site due to a
CNPS: List 113.2
forest, meadows and seeps,
lack of suitable
marshes and swamps, valley and
habitat
foothill grassland (vernally mesicy
near ditches, streams springs
San Fernando Valley
Federal:
Coastal sage scrub, occurring on
Does not occur
spineflower
Candidate
sandy soils.
on site due to a
Chorizanthe parryi var.
State: SE
lack of suitable
ernandina
CNPS: List IB.1
habitat
Santa Ana River woolly star
Federal: FE
Alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral.
Does not occur
Eriastrum densifolium ssp.
State: SE
Occurring on sandy or rocky soils.
on site due to a
sanctomm
CNPS: List 1B.1
lack of suitable
habitat
South coast saltscale
Federal: None
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
Does not occur
Atripler pacica
State: None
coastal sage scrub, playas.
on site due to a
CNPS: List 113.2
lack of suitable
habitat
Southern tarplant
Federal: None
Disturbed habitats, margins of
Does not occur
Centromadia parryi ssp.
State: Rare
marshes and swamps, vernally
on site due to a
australus
CNPS: List 1 B.1
mesic valley and foothill grassland,
lack of suitable
vernal pools.
habitat
Summer holly
Federal: None
Chaparral.
Does not occur
Comarostaphylos
State: None
on site due to a
diversifolia ssp. diversifolia
CNPS: List 1B.2
lack of suitable
habitat
Thread- leaved brodiaea
Federal: FT
Clay soils in chaparral (openings),
Does not occur
Brodiaeafdifolia
State: SE
cismontane woodland, coastal sage
on site due to a
CNPS: List I B.1
scrub, playas, valley and foothill
lack of suitable
grassland, vernal pools.
habitat
White rabbit- tobacco
Federal: None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
Does not occur
Pseudognaphalium
State: None
coastal scrub, and riparian
on site due to a
leucocephalum
CNPS: List 2.2
woodland in sandy and gravelly
lack of suitable
soils.
habitat
Federal State
FE - Federally Endangered SE - State Endangered
FT - Federally Threatened ST — State Threatened
CLAPS
List 1 B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
List 3 — Plants about which more information is needed.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 19
Threat Code extension
.1 — Seriously endangered in California (over 80% occurrences threatened)
.2 — Fairly endangered in California (20 -80% occurrences threatened)
.3 — Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats ]mown)
Special- Status Habitats
A review of the March 2008 CNDDB identified the following special - status habitats as occurring
within the Tustin, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Orange, Dana Point, and
El Toro Quadrangles quadrangles: Southern California Arroyo Chub /Santa Ana Sucker Stream,
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Southern Cottonwood
Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Foredunes, Southern Riparian Scrub,
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, Valley Needlegrass Grassland.
No special- habitats occur on site, including those identified in the CNDDB.
Critical Habitat
The property does not occur within any USFWS critical habitat areas.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Considerations
The property currently contains trees, shrubs, and groundcover that have the potential to support
nesting birds. Impacts to such species are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Corps /CD Jurisdiction
The property contains no potential areas of Corps /CDFG jurisdiction
6 The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R.
Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50
C.F.R.21). In addition, sections 3505, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code
prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 20
IV. IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that may
occur as a result of implementation of the Project. Project- related impacts can occur in two
forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss,
modification or disturbance of plant communities, which in turn, directly affect the flora and
fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or
wildlife, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the
physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability.
Other impacts, such as loss of foraging habitat, can occur although these areas or habitats are not
directly removed by project development; i.e., indirect impacts. Indirect impacts can also involve
the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or light, unnatural predators (i.e., domestic cats
and other non -native animals), competition with exotic plants and animals, and increased human
disturbance such as hiking and dumping of green waste on site. Indirect impacts may be
associated with the subsequent day -to -day activities associated with project build -out, such as
increased traffic use, permanent concrete barrier walls or chain -link fences, exotic ornamental
plantings that provide a local source of seed, etc., which may be both short-terra and long -term in
their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as "edge effects" and may result in a
slow replacement of native plants by exotics, and changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife
and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.
Potential significant adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
special - status plant, animal, or habitat that could occur as a result of project development, are
discussed below.
California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance
Environmental impacts relative to biological resources are assessed using impact significance
threshold criteria, which reflect the policy statement contained in CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the
California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State Legislature has established it to be the
policy of the State of California:
"Prevent the elimination offish or wildlife species due to man's activities, ensure
that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self- perpetuating levels, and
preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal
communities... "
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 21
Determining whether a project may have a significant effect, or impact, plays a critical role in the
CEQA process. According to CEQA, Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance), each public
agency is encouraged to develop and adopt (by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation)
thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of
environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or
performance level of a particular environmental effect, non - compliance with which means the
effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which
means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. In the development of
thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources CEQA provides guidance primarily
in Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, and the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G,
Environmental Checklist Form. Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant
effect where:
"The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or wildlife community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, ... "
Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, impacts to biological resources are considered
potentially significant (before considering offsetting mitigation measures) if one or more of the
following criteria discussed below would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Criteria for Determining Significance Pursuant to CEOA
Appendix G of the 1998 State CEQA guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a
significant effect on the environment if the project is likely to:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
Lary Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 22
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
J) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
Direct Proiect Impacts
At this time, the precise development and grading plans for the proposed residential lot are not
available. However, the buildable area of the proposed lot has been identified, as depicted on the
attached Vegetation Map [Exhibit 3]. Therefore, this impact analysis assumes that all vegetation
within the buildable area will be impacted. A summary of vegetation impacts is given in Table 3
below.
TABLE 3. Summary of Potential Impacts (Acres) by Vegetation Associations Occurring
with the Buildable Area.
Vegetation Association
Total on Site
acres
Buildable Area (acres)
Mixed Sae Scrub /Chen od Scrub
0.29
0.008
Ruderal
0.49
0.39
Ruderal/Ornamental
0.06
0.0001
Southern Willow Scrub
0.04
0.04
Ornamental
0.82
0.11
Disturbed
0.18
0.15
TOTAL
1.88
0.70
Impacts to ruderal, ornamental, and disturbed areas would not be considered significant as these
areas have low habitat value and have no potential to support special status flora or fauna. Given
that the mixed sage scrub /chenopod scrub located on the hillside adjacent to the buildable has no
potential to support special status flora or fauna, including the coastal California gnatcatcher,
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 23
impacts to 0.008 acre of mixed sage scrub /chenopod scrub would not be significant. As
previously stated, the 0.04 acre of southern willow scrub onsite is not associated with a
jurisdictional drainage or wetland, and therefore impacts to this association would not be
significant.
Indirect Effects
No indirect effects are anticipated as a result of the proposed residential lot.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The Project Site has some potential to support nesting migratory birds. Impacts to such species
are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game
Code .7 In order to ensure that the proposed project will not impact nesting migratory birds, the
following mitigation measure is recommended:
If vegetation is to be removed during the nesting season, recognized from February 1
through August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey of potentially
suitable nesting vegetation no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active
nests are identified during nesting bird surveys, then the nesting vegetation will be
avoided until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive independently
from the nest. The biologist will flag the active nesting vegetation, and will establish an
adequate buffer around the nesting vegetation of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors). If active
nests are identified, clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting
event has completed.
With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the project impacts will be reduced to
less than significant pursuant to CEQA.
7 The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R.
Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50
C.F.R.21). In addition, sections 3505, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code
prohibit the take, possession; or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.
Larry Tucker
August 25, 2008
Page 24
If you have any questions regarding this letter report, please call me at (949) 837-OW,
sincerely,
GLENN L UKOS ASSOCIATES, INC
.
Erin Bornkanip
Biologist
8:$66- tax�rt.dac
i
CL
m
CD
CL
0
3
c
cn
co
m
m
D
m
a
c
m
CL
E3
m
7
N
Z w
o Ilj I*
7
N
r
m
(n A
a
0
Q
m
Q
0
0
3
C
N
G)
c
N
7
n
N
a
C
N
Q
co61
7
M
Z
O I^
0
0
0
0
T N
mo
mo
w
0
0
BIG CANYON GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES
RESIDENTIAL LOT PROPOSAL
Vicinity Map Exhibit 2
PHOTOGRAPH 1. Southeast facing view of disturbed area and
ruderal vegetation.
PHOTOGRAPH 2. Northeast facing view of slope vegetated with mixed
sage scrub and chenopod scrub.
w
t—
Q
U
0
cn
Q
t/)
0
Y
D
J
z
z
W
_J
6,
u
m
X
w
a
I z
w
M
wJ
Q
0a
z
v a
(D �-
00 0
Exhibit "B"
Mitigation Monitoring Report Program
EXHIBIT - B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Big Canyon General Plan Amendment and Subdivision
Newport Beach, CA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Big Canyon General Plan Amendment and Subdivsion
Page f
-
Method of
Timing of
No.
Mitigation Measure
Verification
Implementation
Responsibility
lology
The project site has some potential to support nesting
migratory birds. Impacts to such species are prohibited
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
California Fish and Game Code. In order to ensure that
the proposed project will not Impact nesting migratory
birds, the following mitigation measure is
recommended:
If vegetation is to be removed during the nesting
season, recognized from February 1 through August
31, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird
Survey from a qualified
Prior to Issuance of the
Applicant
MM -1
survey of potentially suitable nesting vegetation no
biologist
grading permit
more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If
Planning Department
active nests are identified during nesting bird surveys,
then the nesting vegetation will be avoided until the
nesting event has completed and the juveniles can
survive independently from the nest. The biologist will
flag the active nesting vegetation, and will establish an
adequate buffer around the nesting vegetation of 300
feet (500 feet for raptors). If active nests are identified,
clearing /grading shall not occur within the buffer until
the nesting event has completed.
Cultural
Resources
Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property
owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Planning
Department showing that a qualified archaeologist has
been hired to ensure that the following actions are
implemented.
The archaeologist must be present at the
pregradtng conference in order to establish
Applicant
MM -2
procedures for temporarily haifing or redirecting
Letter from a qualified
Prior to Issuance of the
work to permit the sampling, Identification, and
archaeologist
grading permit
Planning Department
evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant
artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered
and determined to be significant, the
archaeological observer shall determine
appropriate actions In cooperation with the
property owner /developer for exploration and/or
,
salvage.
• Specimens that are collected prior to or during the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Big Canyon General Plan Amendment and Subdivsion
Page f
No.
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Im lamentation
Responsibility
grading process will be donated to an educational
or research institution.
• Any archaeological work at the site shall be
conducted under the direction of the certified
archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered
during grading operations when the archaeological
monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted
around the area until the monitor can survey the
area.
• A final report detailing the findings and disposition
of the specimens shalt be submitted to the City
Engineer. Upon Completion of the grading, the
archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the
final report will be submitted.
Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property
owner /develop shall submit a letter to the Planning
Department showing that a certified paleontologist has
been hired to ensure that the following actions are
Implemented:
• The paleontologist must be present at the
pregrading conference in order to establish
procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to
permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of
fossils. If potentially significant materials are
discovered, the paleontologist shall determine
appropriate actions in cooperation with the property
MM -3
owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage.
• Specimens that are collected prior to or during the
Letter from a qualified
Prior to Issuance of the
Applicant
grading process will be donated to an appropriate
paleontologist
grading permit
Planning Department
educational or research institution.
• Any paleontological work at the site shall be
conducted under the direction of the certified
paleontologist. if any fossils are discovered during
grading operations when the paleontological monitor
Is not present, grading shall be diverted around the
area until the monitor can survey the area.
• A final report detailing the findings and disposition of
the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the
completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall
notify the City as to when the final report will be
submitted.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Big Canyon General Plan Amendment and Subdivr' -
Ps
Exhibit "C"
General Plan Amendment
EXHIBIT - C
Overview Map OMY LU f 5
See Figures LU2 through
D p 5 I Wes
I�
ClWoiN wpcd O-tl
goynEary
�1i yydhXCd Neo BourclW
` 2 � �
Cltt of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
Figure
GENERAL PLA N
OVERVIE W MAP
1 ",
ammeDnoir�groD
,
_
CFO] de9ltl�lOd�
�
.'i
' >r '
1. ✓ t t
:54�
'
%
�rnmrow uM1XRealaeM1xd
DelocM1eO
. 1J�
n'
l�
Y I
>
i %�
�MUXWb'UNi ReitleM1ibl
11, /x '�`
3I
�: -
M�XhyUnX Resid3M1XdL
So
1 />;• aY Z " ", 3
k�2
U
Gmmercim DblridsaMCOMEOt1
yhh. ��y'f
x�U
i� aiyti�
[ R. � _,-.
1�XYt
t
�NeIpM1WRwotl COmmerdd
YFDa Ff
?y 11
A�
l�
�
�CaOtlaCanmmdd
1f r �y, �� at
�:�' � �
n
C,... ?`e, •'�"
�Oeneroi COmmeldd
� .. \ ,t, �y�s�' 1�-
!p, f
Mtlrol5elWq COmmedU
�Racreoflondtl
_
r
and MOMe
.I ""'
1 �`
`Y 'Q
Comme1dr00EKa Dbh104
,3 3�r
.Y
'F � r
�' 4f$
-Gplgml COnmercltl 011ka
�
` �
'�`° �Y "�i.,
-Medkd Gwnrtaldal OfMe
o��
s.
� i y�a I
C♦a�,M1dcomm�drn
� �
Y ��
h
yleWltl�M1D
YF`3. ���4u
ltl
I
X�
III
in
� �
S �'
_ 5 �tiF�
itiJ �'s..f�
1 add
pp+-c•
�1dPO�1 C(h'e aM51NPOMM16 USe
�' -� a
-
. °.ljA�5
MOrod Ake Dbmcn
®Mked l#eH koMd
®NPietlUsemlpbic R4Natl
vubuc,- N�aWlnsbtuHOnal
Overview Map OMY LU f 5
See Figures LU2 through
D p 5 I Wes
I�
ClWoiN wpcd O-tl
goynEary
�1i yydhXCd Neo BourclW
W2 –W r M.P.mxa /wweg2
0
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERALPLAN
Rgurs LU2
INDEX MAP
DPLICMIMDI NoWboMtoodt
®S &n mReYdentki Detadwa
® 5mateeNl Reflden0tl Aaacned
- Md 0. Bmh Rmklemhd
- NLMIpleUNt Reftlen0d/
Open�ace
Commwdd�fMde afM Calitlgn
Nel9hlmropd Canmerdtl
CuIWp Cpmmerdd
_ Gerrerd Cwrmertld
-Mahpr3erNg Cpmrnmd
- RecreaNaftl aM Mahe
Canmercld
- Re�mlCCmmefdal
COMmelcld OIIICB DMtkb
®Genetd Cpmmertltl Olfice
® Meded COmmerclalOMCe
® I.bMpnd Cpmmerclal omoe
Newhall DbMah
hWNrld
AhDOd SUDDOfNp DbMela
® N'pgd Office aM Brrpppeln9 Uer.
MNeo -um VwAcu
® tRred we VeMCd
h4etl we Honronttl
h&etl We Water Realetl
PuDOa, Umi -Pa00a aM huKhMo W
PuWP m0
-RNmehahtu0.
-pvlm mb Recredbm
®Opensp
- Open�ma / 2aatlaJid VAbae
Ot medofw,M acquired
a w permarent open n epoce)
ildelmm aM.'Lpner9ed Lmdf
�0� Cltyd Newpwf Beacm
Bamaary
w
0 0 0
LUU3 Na rLCaniw.m J YMW
CffYof NEWPORT BEACH
GENERALPLAN
Figure Wl3
STATISTICAL AREAS
Fl, Ll, L2, Ml -M5
petlaen9m NeWhbodmods
® Res mWi oatoolrea
® StrpbAtittt ReNaeMlal ANaUtetl
iwoLMlReiWenMl
- Mu" UNIRetlae w
- MuNliteAlnN RatNenibl CBtacFa
C'affefrerM01 DMNCkwMCOMaaR
NelRlrbalwoa Cammerd[A
COMaa CammercM
-Genertl COmmemid
_ N9brSaMna COmmerckd
_ RecreallmalaW MMne
CommerGal
_ RepIOrW Canmercbl
C0111mBRle1 gficB Oblfich
®Generd COmmardal OMw
® MeabcECanmemlal Office
® ReDbn[ACOmmerclal Olfice
ItrdfMfaI DUMCit
MauslNa
Alfpoe ArppofNy DWcfi
M AhpMOtMMearia SUp NUM
Mpfeo -DNB DbMa
Ml U Ve
Mhrea Lha Ilurlmnim
MLmaLbe Water Relafetl
NNW.e I -Publa and MtMuflorKd
PUNCr ale
- PrlvaW hatN,Nbru
Mmft ale ReaeaMOn
®Open SPace
iqe aMak .Wd WM
r`0 CA/Of New dNeocn
ONO BOUmiaY Fl
B°It"C°rYAreu
� U. wMeata Une
Referfe anomtdv iNSle
Exhibit "D"
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT - D
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2008 -111 (PA 2007 -210)
1. The Map shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Parcel Map
dated August 4, 2008, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. The Tentative Parcel Map shall expire within 24 months from the date of approval
unless extensions are granted prior to expiration in accordance with the
Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act.
4. Height of proposed future residences shall be measured from natural grade as
depicted on the topographic survey prepared by Walden & Associates on August
4, 2008, for the subject site.
5. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials,
officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands,
obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines,
penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attomey's
fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which
may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of
the General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -008, Planned Community
Development Plan No. PD2007 -005 and Parcel Map No. NP2007 -029; and /or the
City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations.
6. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the Building and Fire
Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -
adopted version of the California Building Code.
7. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs
identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification
of costs or prior to the release for recordation of the parcel map.
8. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, park dedication fees for one dwelling
unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.52 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
9. A parcel map shall be recorded and prepared on the California coordinate
system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the map, the surveyor /engineer
preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport
Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330
and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County
Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The map to be submitted to the City of
Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images
will not be accepted.
10. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map
shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by
the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the
Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18.
Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless
otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in
place if installed prior to completion of the construction project.
11. All existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded.
12. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of-
way or easement area.
13. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110 -L.
14. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
15. Water meter and the sewer cleanout will be located in the public right -of -way. If
installed at a location that will be subjected to vehicle traffic, each shall be installed
with a traffic -grade box and cover.
16. Backing out onto Big Canyon Drive shall be prohibited.
17. As part of the proposed single - family development, the applicant shall provide
information showing the proposed storm drain system and site drainage. This shall
be submitted during the plan check process.
18. As part of the proposed single - family development, the applicant shall prepare a
soils report. This shall be submitted during the plan check process.
19. No permanent structures can be built within the limits of the easements on the
subject site.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution,
being Resolution No. 2009 -3 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City
Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 27th day of
January 2009, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Henn, Rosansky, Curry, Webb, Daigle, Mayor Selich
Noes: Gardner
Absent: None
Abstain: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 28th day of January, 2009.
(Seal)
Q �- PAW-
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California