Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13 - C-3157 - Mitigated Negative Declaration for DahliaAugust 9, 1999 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 13 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DAHLIA/FERNLEAF SLOPE REPAIR — CONTRACT NO. 3157 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dahlia /Fernleaf Slope Repair. DISCUSSION: The City's Capital Improvement Program includes the Dahlia /Fernleaf Slope Repair Project. The project consists of the following (see attached drawing): • Grade and flatten the existing slope above Fernleaf Avenue from Bayside Drive to the top of the Femleaf Ramp. • Replace the existing deteriorated wooden slough wall at the bottom of the slope along Femleaf Avenue with a 2 -foot high reinforced concrete debris wall. • Construct a variable height concrete caisson wall at the top of the slope, along the public right -of -way line from Bayside Drive to the top of the Fernleaf Ramp. • Install an 18 -inch storm drain at the end of Dahlia Place (private alley) and an 18- inch storm drain at the end of the first alley (private) north of Fernleaf Avenue to collect and convey storm water from the top of the slope and under the graded slope for discharge into the storm drain system in Bayside Drive. • Install light and deep- rooted ground cover over the graded slope for erosion control. A Draft Initial Study (D.I.S.) for this project was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and was filed with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, a State Clearinghouse, for review by various State agencies. The review period started on July 1, 1999 and concluded on July 30, 1999. Some of the State agencies that reviewed the D.I.S. included the California Coastal Commission, the Department of Conservation, the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Resources Agency, and the State Lands Commission. The D.I.S. determined that if the proposed conditions and mitigation measures are incorporated as a part of the work, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Staff has determined that the D.I.S. suggested mitigation measures can be implemented. SUBJECT: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dahlia / Femleaf Slope Repair. Contract No. 3157 August 9. 1999 Page 2 A Coastal Development Permit is required for the work. City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is required before the Coastal Development Permit application can be filed. Respectfully submitted, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director By: Fong T , P.E. ProjeAnager Attachment: Drawing Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 f:\ users \pbw\ shared\ oouncil \fy99.00\august- 9\dahlia- femleaf slope c- 3157.doc O LU I as s3AV V17HHo wo ff lit 11, 1$ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Newport Beach, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Enviromuental Quality Act for the proposed project described below. The Draft Initial Study has determined that if the proposed conditions and mitigation measures are applied to the project's design and operation, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The City therefore intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Project Name: Dahlia Avenue Street End Slope Repair at Femleaf Ramp Project Location: The site is located along the southwesterly side of the Femleaf ramp near Dahlia Avenue in Corona Del Mar. Proiect Proponent: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Public Review Period: July 1, 1999 to July 30, 1999 Project Description: The project involves slope repair along the southwesterly side of Femleaf Avenue ramp in Corona Del Mar. The project includes; 1) removing the failed portions of the slope, 2) flattening the slope gradient, 3) provide a caisson wall installed at the top of the slope with an exposed wall surface ranging from 3' in height to 17' in height, 4) installing a debris wall at the toe of the slope adjacent to the Femleaf ramp, 5) providing for local drainage, and 6) installing slope planting. The existing slope area has experienced surficial slippage during heavy rainfalls. Certain portions of the slope have been covered with an erosion control plastic cover to limit further surficial slope failure. The area of slope repair is approximately 325 feet in length. The slope ranges in height from 0 to 35 feet above the existing Femleaf Avenue roadway. Surrounding land uses include existing residential and streets. The project site is located within the coastal zone boundary and will require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. Opportunities for Public Review: Interested person are invited to review the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project, and submit comments. These documents and all comments received will be considered by the Newport Beach City Council prior to final action on the proposed project. A copy of the Draft Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and related documents are available for review at the following location: Newport Beach City Hall Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or the adequacy of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period stated above. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. The City Council is scheduled to consider approval of the project and Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public meeting on Monday August 9, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the Newport Beach Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact Lloyd Dalton at (949) 644 -3311 Date of Publication: July 1, 1999 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3311 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Fx 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange LLIXX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review period: July 1, 1999 to July 29, 1999 Nance of Project: Dahlia Avenue Street End Sope Repair at Femleaf Ramp in Corona Del Mar. Project Location: The site is located along the southwesterly side of the Femleaf Ramp near Dahlia Avenue in Corona Del Mar. Project Description: The involves slope repair along the southwesterly side of Femleaf Avenue ramp in 1 Corona Del Mar. The project includes; 1) removing the failed portions of the slope, 2) flattening the slope gradient, 3) provide a caisson wall installed at the top of the slope with an exposed wall surface ranging from 3' in height to 17' in height, 4) installing a debris wall at the toe of the slope adjacent to the Femleaf ramp, 5) providing for local drainage, and 6) installing slope planting. The existing slope area has experienced surficial slippage during heavy rainfalls. Certain portions of the slope have been covered with an erosion control plastic cover to limit further surficial slope failure. The area of slope repair is approximately 325 feet in length. The slope ranges in height from 0 to 35 feet above the existing Femleaf Avenue roadway. Surrounding land uses include existing residential and streets. The project site is located within the coastal zone boundary and will require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached ❑ on file at the Public Works Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision - maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and /or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also ,vited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any quest ions,,orfNould like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3311. w ap.j� otr�Y Date _1, I2q I Q 9 Bill Patapoff, City Enghtetr City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Dahlia Avenue Street End Slope Repair at Fernleaf Ramp Corona Del Mar 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lloyd R. Dalton, Design Engineer, Public Works Dept. (949) 644 -3311 4. Project Location: The site is located along the southwesterly side of Fernleaf Ramp near Dahlia Avenue in Corona Del Mar. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 0 6. General Plan Designation: Residential 7. Zoning: MFR — Multiple Family Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project involves slope repair along the southwesterly side of Fernleaf Avenue ramp in Corona Del Mar. The project includes; 1) removing the failed portions of the slope, 2) flattening the slope gradient, 3) provide a caisson wall installed at the top of the slope with an exposed wall surface ranging from 3' in height to 17' in height, 4) installing a debris wall at the toe of the slope adjacent to the Fernleaf ramp, 5) providing for local drainage, and 6) installing slope planting. The existing slope area has experienced surficial slippage during heavy rainfalls. Certain portions of the slope have been covered with an erosion control plastic cover to limit further surficial slope failure. The area of slope repair is approximately 325 feet in length. The slope ranges in height from 0 to 35 feet above the existing Fernleaf Avenue roadway. Surrounding land uses include existing residential and streets. The project site is located within the coastal zone boundary and will require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. CHECKLIST Page 1 Ll • 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The proposed site is a slope Located along the southwesterly side of the Fernleaf ramp near Dahlia Avenue in Corona Del Mar. To the north: Ba side Drive, Residential To the east: Ba side Drive, Residential To the south: Residential, Fernleaf, Dahlia Avenue, Seaview Avenue To the west: I Residential 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission — Coastal Development Permit ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CHECKLIST Page 2 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) 0 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR 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. ❑ Submitted by: Bill Patapoff, City Engineer Signature Date Public Works Department (/�� y L I �� 1��4 A 9 Prepared by: Hodge & Associates Signature Date Cheryle L. Hodge F:\ USERS \PLNiS11ARED \I F0RMS \NEG- DE000CKLIST. DOC 0 CHECKLIST Page 3 El 0 Q 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? C) 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? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q CHECKLIST Page 4 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and game or 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, march, 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? Potentially Significant Impact Imil u u 0 0 A rotenuaity Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 AN J Less than No Significant Impact Impact ❑ o E9 ❑ ❑ 0 0 J bil J n CHECKLIST Page 5 I 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q CNCCKLIST Page 6 CHr_CKLIST Page 7 11 0 L J Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ [] p b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ [] ❑ the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ ❑ [] that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ [] defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or propose school? CHr_CKLIST Page 7 11 0 L J 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 Dermits have heen nranteri)? CHECKLIST Page 8 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? d) Substantially alter 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ P1 9 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ P1 9 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 9 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: 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? 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? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 agencies? 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? Potentially Significant Impact C A A FoF rn C Mitigation Incorporated L 0 A .FJ u A rn Lesstnan No Significant Impact Impact ❑ 10 ❑ R1 ❑ a ❑ Q 0 FE a ❑ ❑ a CHECKLIST Page 10 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C r1 LJ CHECKLIST Page 11 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ p [j ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C r1 LJ CHECKLIST Page 11 0 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. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 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 Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 CHECKLIST Page 12 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 Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact ❑ Mitigation Q Incorporated ❑ ❑ E7 Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 1] u CHECKLIST Page 13 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 1] u CHECKLIST Page 13 0 �J Cl L J CHECKLIST Page 14 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) CHECKLIST Page 14 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 0 F:\USERS \PLN \SHARED \I FORMS \NEG- DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑I p environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 0 F:\USERS \PLN \SHARED \I FORMS \NEG- DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST Page 15 0 SOURCE LIST 0 The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Public Works 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. 8. Geotechnical Investigation of Slope Distress, Femleaf Avenue ramp, Corona Del Mar. November 17, 1998. Prepared by Bagahi Engineering. CHECKLIST Page 16 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Dahlia Avenue Street End Slope Repair at Fernleaf Ramp Project Description The project involves slope repair along the southwesterly side of Fernleaf Avenue ramp in Corona Del Mar. The project includes; 1) removing the failed portions of the slope, 2) flattening the slope gradient, 3) providing a caisson wall installed at the top of the slope with an exposed wall surface ranging from 3' in height to 17' in height, 4) installing a debris wall at the toe of the slope adjacent to the Fernleaf ramp, 5) providing for local drainage, and 6) installing slope planting. The existing slope area has experienced surficial slippage during heavy rainfalls. Certain portions of the slope have been covered with an erosion control plastic cover to limit further surficial slope failure. The area of slope repair is approximately 325 feet in length. The slope ranges in height from 0 to 35 feet above the existing Fernleaf Avenue roadway. Surrounding land uses include existing residential and streets. The project site is located within the coastal zone boundary and will require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. I. Aesthetics The project site (slope area) is located near a built -out urbanized area of the City. Surrounding properties are fully developed and include residential uses. The existing slope area has experienced surficial slippage during heavy rainfalls. The slope has been covered with an erosion control plastic cover to limit further damage. The area of slope repair is approximately 325 feet in length. The slope ranges in height from 0 to 35 feet above the existing Fernleaf Avenue roadway. The slope repair includes flattening the existing slope to decrease the steep gradient. The flattened slope area will blend to existing slope gradients at north and south property lines. The project also includes providing a caisson wall installed at the top of the slope with an exposed wall surface ranging from 3' to 17' in height. A debris wall at the toe of the slope will be installed. The project will also provide local drainage and installation of slope planting. A mitigation measure is presented to ensure that the new caisson wall and debris wall are designed to be compatible as much as possible with the existing surroundings. The slope repair will include installing slope planting. Although no existing vegetation will be impacted, a mitigation measure is included requiring a landscape plan for the slope planting. The slope repair activities and walls (caisson & debris walls) to be installed will be visible from many locations within and around the project site. The immediate vicinity of the project site includes a number of existing residences and roadways. The aesthetic treatment of the new slope area will be included in the project. In addition, with the incorporation of the project's design, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the slope repair, as well as the application of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, any impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to commencement ofslope repair activities, the project shall include a design plan for the caisson wall and debris wall, which incorporates features such as finish and landscaping which blends with and complement the immediate surroundings. Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to commencement of slope repair activities, a landscape plan shall be prepared, which provides for slope plantings in compliance with the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report dated November 17, 1998 prepared by Bagahi Engineering. ' H. Agriculture Resources The project site (slope area) is located near a built -out urbanized area of the City. Surrounding properties are fully developed and include residential uses. The project site is not utilized nor zoned for agriculture type uses. Therefore, the project does not result in any impacts to agriculture resources. III. Air Quality The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARE) is responsible for controlling motor vehicle emissions. The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP goals include the implementation of technological and innovative changes that provide for achieving clean air goals while maintaining a healthy economy. The AQMP also addresses state and federal planning requirements and programs. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 2 Potential air quality impacts to surrounding residences from project construction activities will be minimized through mitigation measures, including short-term impacts to air quality from air pollutants being emitted by construction equipment and dust generated during grading. The small amount of project - related emissions will have no impact on regional particulate levels. Where slope repair operations are near existing residences, the dust generated by such activities is a local nuisance as opposed to an actual health hazard. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by City and SCAQMD regulations. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, it is anticipated that the project will not result in any significant impacts to air quality. Mitigation Measure No. 3 During slope repair activities, the following measures shall be implemented to reduce short -term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project- related emissions. Mitigation Measure No. 4 During construction activities, the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. IV. Biological Resources The site is a slope area located in an urbanized area of the City. No rare, endangered, or threatened plant or animal species have been previously reported, or are expected to inhabit the project site. The project will not affect any natural vegetation. V. Cultural Resources The project involves slope repair. There will be limited soil excavation in relation to flattening the gradient of the slope. Since the project primarily involves backfill and soil retention of a slope surface previously damaged by heavy rains, no impacts to cultural resources or historic structure are anticipated as a result of the project. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 3 Ll VI. Geology & Soils Bagahi Engineering conducted a geotechnical investigation of the slope. The geotechnical report (dated November 17, 1998) addressed the geotechnical conditions of the slope instability and recommendations regarding the design and construction of slope measures to improve the stability of the existing slope and to mitigate against possible future surficial failures. The geotechnical investigation included subsurface exploration, collection of soil samples and laboratory testing, stability analysis of the slope, and soils engineering analysis of field and laboratory data. The existing slope gradient varies from a flat slope to a steep slope approaching a 45- degree angle. The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features. There are no evidence of faults on the site. The closest known active or potentially active fault is the Newport- Inglewood fault. The slope area is located within one mile of the Newport- Inglewood fault. The Whittier- Elsinore Fault is located about 23 miles northeast of the site. The slope at the subject site is mainly in Monterey siltstone bedrock with a cover of sandy soils near the surface. The geotechnical report identified that slope erosion and surficial instability can be mitigated by flattening the slope and incorporating slope corrective measures including installation of a caisson wall along the top of the slope and a debris wall at the toe of the slope. The property was originally graded in conjunction with the development of the existing residential uses and adjacent roadways. The slope repair will include some excavation of earth material in order to flatten the slope gradient. It is anticipated that the project will require an estimated 1,800 cubic yards of export earthwork. The excess earthwork will be exported to a Southern California site acceptable to the permit agencies. It is anticipated that a total of 130 truckloads (14 c.y. per double trailer rig truckloads) will be necessary to export the earthwork. During past seasonal storms the Fernleaf ramp has been closed to the public due to surficial slope failures and the potential ',hazard to motorists of such slope failures. The Fernleaf ramp will be temporarily closed to the public during the slope repair associated with the project. A mitigation measure is presented in this section requiring a traffic control plan. Potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils • during slope repair construction operations will be minimized through conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. Dust generated by slope repair activities CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 4 is considered a short -term impact on air quality and is further discussed in the Air Quality section of this document. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (Section IX). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.10.140) will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. No cumulative impacts associated with geological conditions are anticipated as a result of the slope repair. Mitigation Measure No. 5 During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code MMC Section 15.10). Mitigation Measure No. 6 Prior to the start of slope repair activities, a construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction warning /directional signage. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed project area (slope) is located in a residential area of the City. During past seasonal storms the Femleaf ramp has been closed to the public due to surficial slope failures and the potential hazard to motorists of such slope failures. The Femleaf ramp will be temporarily closed to the public during the slope repair associated with the project. Vehicular traffic will be directed to Marguerite Avenue. A mitigation measure requiring a traffic control plan is presented in the Geology and Soils section of this document. The project will not utilize hazardous materials on the site; therefore, no adverse effect on human health or risk of upset is anticipated. VIII. Hydrology & Water Quality The proposed site consists of a slope area located along the southwesterly side of Femleaf Avenue Ramp in Corona Del Mar. The existing slope area has experienced surficial slippage during heavy rainfalls. One area of slope erosion is located directly below an area where surface runoff from an alley discharges into the slope. The proposed slope repair will provide for local drainage. The drainage improvements will include a back -drain behind the debris wall and a diversion Swale (concrete v- ditch) provided at the top of the slope behind the caisson wall to collect surface runoff and divert it from the slope face. The slope has been covered with an erosion control plastic cover to limit further surficial CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 5 11 failure. The project is located outside of all flood hazard areas; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Subject to the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and /or mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the slope repair. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. Compliance with said Code would reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. Mitieation Measure No. 7 The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. IX. Land Use and Planning The project site is located near Dahlia Avenue at the Femleaf Ramp in Corona Del Mar and consists of a slope area. Portions of the slope area have been covered with an erosion control plastic cover. The City's General Plan Land Use Plan designation for the site area is Residential. The City's Zoning Code designation for the site is MFR Multiple Family Residential. This project is located within the Coastal Zone Boundary and therefore a Coastal Development Permit is required. The proposed project will consist of the construction of a caisson wall at the top of the existing slope and a debris wall at the toe of the slope. There are existing residences located near the top of the slope, including a two -story apartment building. The toe of the slope is near Bayside Drive and Femleaf Avenue. The project has the potential to result in impacts related to construction activities (e.g., dust, noise, and traffic). Additionally, existing residences north of the project and vehicular and pedestrian traffic will be exposed to views of the slope repair. Through anticipated conditions of approval and mitigation measures, potential impacts to surrounding and adjacent properties from the proposed slope repair will be eliminated or minimized. Potential impacts, which will be minimized through mitigation measures, include short-term impacts to traffic circulation (temporary traffic detours and road closure), and an increase in noise due to construction activities. These potential impacts are discussed with recommended mitigation measures in the following preceding sections of this document. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 6 X. Mineral Resources 9 The project area is fully developed. The project consists of slope repair to property, which has experienced surficial slippage as a result of heavy rains. The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. No significant increase in the use of energy or natural resources is anticipated. Xl. Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high noise levels. However, intervening structures and/or topography will act as noise barriers to reduce levels. Noise levels will be further mitigated by limiting the hours of construction through provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. XII. Population and Housing The proposed project consists of slope repair and as such will not have any impact on population and housing. Additionally, the project site is located in an area that is already built -out. XHL Public Services The project site is developed and has been for more than 25 years. Surrounding properties are also fully developed. There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for these services. The Fernleaf Avenue ramp will be temporarily closed to traffic during slope repair activities. Vehicular traffic will directed to Marguerite Avenue. A mitigation measure requiring a traffic control plan has been presented in the Geology & Soils section of this document. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 7 XIV. Recreation Due to the nature of the project, slope repair, the project will not result in any impacts to recreational activities and opportunities. There will be no impact upon access to coastal beaches as a result of the project. XV. Transportation/Traffic The proposed site consists of a slope area located along the southwesterly side of Fernleaf Avenue Ramp in Corona Del Mar. During the slope repair activities short-term impacts to traffic /circulation will result. The Femleaf Avenue ramp will be temporarily closed to traffic during slope repair activities. Vehicular traffic will directed to Marguerite Avenue. A mitigation measure requiring a traffic control plan has been presented in the Geology & Soils section of this document. Additionally, the slope repair will include flattening the gradient of the existing steep slope and excess earth material will be transported by trucks to a location within, Southern California. A discussion regarding the exportation of excavated soils is presented in Section VI of this document (Geology & Soils). A mitigation measure is also presented in the Geology & Soils Section of this document to reduce any potential impacts associated with the exportation of soil and temporary traffic impacts to a level of less than significant. Additional vehicular movement long -term) will not be generated as a result of the proposed slope project. However, short-term construction activity will generate a slight increase in the number of trips per day to the project site as a result of construction related vehicle trips. The slight increase in vehicle trips is not considered a significant impact. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Utilities and service systems are already servicing the project area. An where drainage improvements are proposed is located directly below an area where surface runoff from an alley discharges into the slope. The proposed slope repair will provide for local drainage. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. Compliance with said Code would reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 8 The project will not result in the alteration or expansion of existing utility and service systems. However, to ensure that there are no impacts associated with the short-term construction related slope repairs, a mitigation measure is presented which requires coordination with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of the slope repair. Mitigation Measure No. 9 Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the Public Works Department shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation offaeilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. Mitigation Measure No. 10 The project design will provide for local drainage in compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code and subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. \_ J E CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 9 0 0 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long -term environmental[ goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 10 Appendix A Project Plan , CHECKLIST EXPLA NATIONS Page 11 0 2 BAKER Jm z ST. 4- I A ADAMS AVE. ORANG �pQC~ W m COASTjlPQ- �2-• Z CITY OF COLLEGE ORANGE CO.J/. 4 >�' o� COSTA a FAIRGROUND 4F� p�Q `g4 CITY z x MESA w a 0 �y 9q >> isle OF IRVINE S z �. LL VICTORIA ST. Q� �V Q C9 UPPER \ UNIVERSI U � 19TH ` �p �? NEWPORT —. BA � � U.C.I. ST. �9 /CITY 2 sl p� OF NEWP BISON AVE r \ H ° � BEAC e g i \ J sl pi`s SAN RD. oe O \ NPT. \ CENTE SAIL J4 R ti YARD RESEP 14S tun' n ocIv , \ �T VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE H� PROJECT LOCATION DAHLIA AVENUE STREET END SLOPE REPAIR AT FERNLEAF RAMP 8 4yS,�oF PROJECT F P O� P� GP�� SF9 �F P �P O OP O R/� cFgy P �J� O r, 3 e9 QO o O k 4 NOT TO S SCALE LOCATION MAP DAHLIA AVENUE STREET END SLOPE REPAIR AT FERNLEAF RAMP a 6 I I 1 I I I 1 ICI I I I I L! � t e e ------------------- ___ --1JI I 1 � I I I 1 I I III ^. I r � / 1 It a 0i I r � 0 0 Appendix. B Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 12 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM City of Newport Beach Dahlia Avenue Street End Slope Repair at Fernleaf Ramp in Corona Del Mar I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and /or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: • Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post- construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. Ll � E k � k 3 � ( a t/ zi \§ O2 2 / § \ cc k > - + + §\ $ & \ \ . ) / ()� ƒ* �22Sbo - k ( \$ «f Z §� r) Z" &. ) \a]( \§\ /( \ \} ��t Q 22 k)[ \ #/{ §ma -��%�R / � � 9 � � (� > . - 7 + + \) $ §( (t / {/ _ƒ 2 / ) ) $ !g k\� $] �% �Q $ ) \ \2\\2G.Gv6 �` §2 \fe 4) %\ *rj -� ) \ 2� �() ` )k�$�/ }§ /k� }r"s &ma &k�i%�]§!»\! ��r( «0 )\3(u ] b- 4m®, §) §;�22ge /±at,) " oae§3 ®/ _ § �� km '��a /§)2t Q —48Z ` �c ?*L $ /§e §7au� c��a�g� ye�U w. §\ /z \/ ( } \j2 �§qZj4\ �»ktk \$ /\) E }\\ ƒ�,§ ®- « §\3 tEl:o ~Kam / §fr j\I2q§2 ¥CZ4 „g»\ §a )\))§ 444#±§ §e gym 2 z, t3 E: (3 9 � � 0 Im r � > - ] & 2 & ;k r)] \]\ /§§7!j J § ) § 77) pr a, ; E\ E / 2 2 \i @ to ¥\ kma SE -Q,, | / /Z¥ \ / }E Ij \ / \�f44 § / / \ \\ k \k\)\)& t¥)_24( E / \\k \Q||7( �k( } /R\ * -2] / � - /\2$2 \%{$$$)/ \233§8] }ƒ� &� §2 \ \�\ 2 �` ( #�§ %= t ;k °�oo� &t§ $,)f�§a �() \_ % IfE. ,tee %k�«E#� &k�RE �ea&,Q °a « %n ~]kIQ,1 §�uu %nom � -, 2 ° ® go 9 � � §k � \\ } } � # r I ) � \ 5 3 ` ) /f] §\ g{Qc\ © # /7j§((/ E ¥f(2 %4a \5 §SE\§ ƒk ]© # \C�tw4 *§�k -t3 \f}�� k - aE(9�` ;Ea §)2\f / \ \ »jtzN ct3 k -:z �2 2§i§#r)3§]¥ ��2 / m](ƒo ƒ�% Q,w2:\ i � a 9 � �