Loading...
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