HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-2994 - Professional Services for Big Canyon Reservoir Covering0 ! C -2yN
HGREEMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE
PREPARATION OF THE
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
FOR THE
BIG CANYON RESERVOIR COVERING PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this Z07A day of
December, 1993, by and between the City of Newport Beach, a municipal Corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", and Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., a California
Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT ".
WITHESSETH:
WHEREAS, The "CITY ", in conjunction with the Metropolitan Water District's
decision to cover their San Joaquin Reservoir, desires to cover the Big Canyon Reservoir,
and;
WHEREAS, "CITY ", as a part of the Big Canyon Reservoir Covering Project must
construct facilities to implement new floating cover on the reservoir, and; .
WHEREAS, as a part of this project "CITY" must assess the environmental
impacts of the project, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY" will need to prepare an Initial Environmental Study prior to
completion of environmental documentation hereinafter referred to as "STUDY ", and;
WHEREAS, preparation of the "STUDY" requires the services of a qualified
environmental planner, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY" has solicited and received a proposal from "CONSULTANT"
for preparation of the "STUDY" and to provide certain other essential professional
services, as outlined in this agreement, and;
WHEREAS, "CITY" has reviewed and evaluated the previous experience and
expertise of "CONSULTANT" and desires to accept the "CONSULTANTS" proposal,
and;
0 •
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is mutually agreed and
understood that:
I. GENERAL
A. "CITY' engages "CONSULTANT" to perform the described services for the
consideration hereinafter stated.
B. "CONSULTANT" agrees to perform the described services in accord with the terms
and conditions hereinafter set forth.
C. "CONSULTANT" agrees and represents that all required services hereunder will be
performed under his direct supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work are
fully qualified and are authorized or permitted under State and local law to perform
such services. "CONSULTANT" shall not subcontract, transfer or assign any work
except as otherwise allowed by this agreement or as authorized in advance by the
"CITY".
II. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT
"CONSULTANT" shall provide the following listed professional services to "CITY'.
A. "CONSULTANT' shall provide the necessary services to complete the defined tasks
associated with the preparation of the "STUDY'. Those tasks include the following:
1. Project Management.
a. Coordinate with "CITY' staff regarding scheduling, data requirements. an d
analysis methodology. "CONSULTANT' will, develop a project schedule, a
detailed list of study requirements, a table of contents for the initial study and
a description of the approach to the various technical issues surrounding the
"STUDY". Throughout the preparation of the "STUDY', "CONSULTANT'
will communicate regularly with the "CITY'. These communications will be
documented on contact report forms and distributed to the "CITY'.
"CONSULTANT" shall prepare contact report forms for communications
with people outside of the "CITY' staff and these records will be forwarded to
the "CITY'.
b. Contract administration. "CONSULTANT' will accurately track all
labor and expenses associated with the project and monthly invoices
will reflect all charges for the accounting period, project charges to date
and budget remaining, and a brief description of the work
accomplished during the accounting period.
c. Meetings with "CITY' staff. "CONSULTANT' shall attend two
meetings with "CITY' staff, one at project start -up and another to
discuss the results of the "STUDY' and the appropriate type of CEQA
document necessary for the project.
0 9
2. Public Meetings.
a. Attendance at one scoping meeting. The "CITY" will schedule, organize and
host the meeting. "CONSULTANT' shall attend one scoping meeting early
during the preparation of the draft "STUDY'. The scoping meeting will
review the important public issues to the public and provide the opportunity
to focus efforts on the issues likely to receive public scrutiny. "CITY' shall
prepare a mounted aerial photograph for the scoping meeting. "CITY" will
prepare and distribute public meeting notices. "CONSULTANT' will take
notes and compile meeting records. "CONSULTANT' will attend additional
public meetings at the request and upon approval by City at the rates listed in
the PAYMENT AND FEE section of this agreement.
3. Preparation of Initial Study
a. Review Final EIR for the San Joaquin Reservoir. "CONSULTANT' will rely on
the previous work done for San Joaquin Reservoir in the preparation of the
"STUDY" for Big Canyon Reservoir. "CONSULTANT' shall use as much of the
information contained in these documents that can be incorporated by
reference, summarized, or adapted for use in the "STUDY'. "CONSULTANT'
shall prepare in- depth, new technical analysis, as necessary, to complete the
"STUDY", as described in the following section (b).
a
viewshed analysis and aesthetics. "CONSULTANT' will provide a sufficiently
detailed environmental analysis and initial study to enable the "CITY' to reach
an informed decision regarding the appropriate CEQA document for the
project. The format will include a project description with graphics, a checklist,
and paragraphs or expanded text explanations of the determinations. Technical
reports will not be prepared and attached to the "STUDY'. All determinations
will be explained including every "yes ", "no" and "maybe" response.
The "CONSULTANT' shall perform detailed analyses for the
viewshed /aesthetics impacts and construction- related impacts (i.e. noise, traffic,
air quality and visual). The "CONSULTANT' will take photographs at key
observation points (KOPs), which will be determined based on consultation
with the "CITY' and the public input received at the scoping meeting. The
approximate number of sensitive viewers will be determined. "CONSULTANT'
will evaluate the prominence of the reservoir in these existing views relative to
the views of the skyline and the bay and ocean beyond the reservoir. The
anticipated change in the views will be described and the significance of the
change will be evaluated. "CONSULTANT' will include in the "STUDY' the
potential to minimize the visual impacts of the reservoir cover through the
strategic placement of landscaping. This "mitigation" will be judged as to its
ability to achieve a level of insignificance for this issue.
• •
The construction- related impacts will be quantified based on existing traffic
data provided by the "CITY" and technical information contained in the San
Joaquin Reservoir documents and "CITY" planning documents.
"CONSULTANT" will adapt the construction impact analysis in the San Joaquin
Reservoir FIR for application to the subject project, incuding noise contours and
the traffic generation data. "CONSULTANT" will also analyze construction -
related air quality impacts, based on the latest South Coast AQMD Guidelines
for preparing Environmental Impact Reports. "CONSULTANT" shall perform
additional study as necessary to quantify other construction related impacts
specific to this project.
c. Provide recommendations to "CITY" regarding the level of significance of
impacts and the appropriate mitigation measures. The "CONSULTANT"
shall, in the "STUDY ", provide a concise determination of conclusions
regarding residual significance for all issues. Mitigation measures shall be
clearly identified. If at any time during the preparation of the Initial Study,
the "CONSULTANT" believes there are significant environmental impacts
associated with the subject project which cannot be mitigated,
"CONSULTANT" will inform the "CITY" immediately. Following the
"CITY's" review of the draft "STUDY ", "CONSULTANT" will make any
appropriate revisions to the document prior to its distribution by the
"CITY ".
d. Deliverables. "CONSULTANT" will provide the "CITY" with five copies of
the draft "STUDY" and 50 copies of the completed "STUDY ".
"CONSULTANT" shall also prepare up to three display exhibits 3 feet by 4
feet in size for use in meetings and public hearings. One of the boards may
include enlarged photographs of project viewsheds. The "CITY" will
provide large -scale aerial photograph for the scoping meeting.
Ill. DUTIES OF THE CITY
In order to assist the "CONSULTANT" in the execution of his responsibilities under
this Agreement, "CITY" agrees to provide any background information, reports, or
agreements as may be available or are in existence, which may assist the
preparation and completion of the "STUDY ".
IV. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
The deliverable documents to be provided by "CONSULTANT" under this
Agreement shall become the exclusive property of "CITY" and may only be
reproduced as deemed necessary by "CITY" or its duly authorized representative.
Any use of completed deliverables or documents for purposes other than for this
"STUDY ", or any use of incomplete documents, shall be at "CITY's" sole risk, and
"CITY" shall indemnify "CONSULTANT" for any damages incurred as a result of
such use. No report, drawing, map, document or other data given to or prepared
or assembled by "CONSULTANT" pursuant to this Agreement shall be made
available to any individual or organization by "CONSULTANT" without prior
written approval by "CITY ", unless required by subpoena.
0
"CONSULTANT" may reserve the right to publish materials or reports related to
the work performed or data collected under the provisions of this Agreement. The
right to publish shall be at the sole discretion of the "CITY" and written permission
must be obtained by "CONSULTANT" from "CITY" on a case by.case basis.
"CONSULTANT" is granted permission to show to prospective clients the reports
and data which have been approved by "CITY" as prepared under this
Agreement.
V TIME OF COMPLETION
"CONSULTANT" shall commence work immediately upon receipt of written
notice to proceed. Work, as required herein, shall be completed in a diligent and
efficient manner to the execution of its completion. "CONSULTANT' shall
complete his efforts in accord with the following schedule:
Written authorization to proceed.
Receipt of City background materials
Public Notices regarding scoping meeting.
Public scoping meeting.
Complete draft Initial Study and submit to City.
Receive City comments and discuss CEQA
compliance strategy.
Revise Initial Study per City comments and
submit to City.
December 20,1993
December 26,1993
December 30,1993
January 11, 1994
January 25, 1994
February 8, 1994
February 15,1994
The term of this Agreement shall expire thirty (30) days after the "STUDY" has
been completed. It is agreed and understood by both parties, that this is sufficient
time to complete all such activities and tasks associated with the "STUDY ".
VI. RIGHT OF TERMINATION
A. "CITY" reserves the right to terminate this Agreement without cause at any time
by giving "CONSULTANT' five (5) business days prior written notice. Notice
shall be deemed served when delivered personally or upon deposit in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the "CONSULTANT'S" business office
at 7777 Alvarado Road, Suite 319, La Mesa, California 91941 -3649.
B. "CONSULTANT' may terminate this Agreement after ten (10) days' written
notice from "CONSULTANT" to "CITY" notifying "CITY" of their substantial
0
failure to perform in accord with the terms of this Agreement, if, the "CITY" has
not corrected it's non - performance within that time.
VII. SUBCONTRACTORS AND ASSIGNMENT
A. None of the services included in this Agreement shall be assigned,
transferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval
of "CITY ".
B. Neither "CONSULTANT" nor "CITY" shall assign or transfer any interest in
this Agreement, whether by assignment or novation, without the prior
written consent of the other party; provided, however, that claims for money
due or to become due "CONSULTANT" from "CITY" under this Agreement
may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution, or to
a trustee in bankruptcy, without such approval. Notice of any such
assignment or transfer shall be promptly furnished to "CITY ".
VIII. PAYMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE
A. In consideration for the specified services, "CITY" hereby agrees to compensate
"CONSULTANT" on an hourly basis as set forth below in the "PAYMENT &
FEE SCHEDULE ". In no event shall compensation under this agreement
exceed Fourteen Thousand, five hundred sixty-five dollars ($14,565.00).
B. PAYMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE
personnel
hourly rates
Mr. David Claycomb ........................................ ............................... $ 95.00
Ms. Tamara Ching ............................................. ............................... 80.00
Mr. Dennis Marcin ............................................ ............................... 65.00
GraphicsDesign ................................................ ...........................a... 50.00
Clerical................................................................ ............................... 45.00
C. The contract amount shall be paid to "CONSULTANT" in monthly partial
payments based on the amount of hours worked and expenses incurred during
each monthly pay period based on the actual hours of labor expended as
approved by the Project Manager for "CITY ". The sum of the partial payments
shall not exceed ninety percent (90 %) of the maximum fee as set forth in
paragraph "A" herein above. The balance of the total amount earned shall be
paid upon completion of the work specified herein.
D. In addition to the not -to- exceed fee, "CITY" agrees to reimburse "CONSULTANT"
for the actual cost (plus 10 %) for all itemized and documented outside expenses
including those for: reproduction for copies of plans, reports and related
0
0
documents, material costs authorized in advance by the Project Manager for
"CITY ", and other reasonable expenses, where such costs have been advanced by
"CONSULTANT" and approved in advance by "CITY ".
"CONSULTANT" shall provide written records (originals) of all expenses
incurred, and shall report all hours expended in the performance of duties
and tasks on a monthly basis per person. "CITY" agrees to pay
"CONSULTANT" within thirty (30) calendar days of the receipt of records
and hourly summary.
2. "CONSULTANT" shall not be compensated for use of "CONSULTANT's"
equipment, hardware, software materials or reproduction. Said costs are
non- compensable. Time expended by "CONSULTANT's" personnel on such
equipment shall be paid on the basis of the "PAYMENT AND FEE
SCHEDULE ".
IX. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
No change in character, extent, or duration of the work to be performed by
"CONSULTANT" shall be made without prior written approval from "CITY ". In
consideration for performance of additional services authorized in writing in
advance, by "CITY", "CITY" hereby agrees to compensate "CONSULTANT" an
amount based upon the hourly rate as submitted to "CITY" in the "FEE
SCHEDULE ". An increase in the total compensation exceeding One Thousand
five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) shall require that an amended Agreement for
such additional services be executed by the "CONSULTANT" and "CITY ".
X. RECORDS
"CONSULTANT" shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by "CITY" that relate
to the performance of the services specified under this Agreement. All such
records shall be maintained in accord with generally accepted accounting
principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. "CONSULTANT"
shall provide free access to the representatives of "CITY" or its designees at all
proper times upon reasonable notice to "CONSULTANT" to such books and
records, and gives "CITY" the right to examine and audit same, and to make
transcripts therefrom as deemed necessary at "CITY's" cost, and to allow inspection
of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement.
XI. INSURANCE
A. On or before the date of execution of this Agreement, "CONSULTANT" shall
furnish "CITY' with completed certificates showing the type, amount, class of
operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance
policies. "CONSULTANT" shall use the "CITY's" Insurance Certificate form for
endorsement of all policies of insurance. The certificates do not limit
"CONSULTANT's" indemnification, and also contain substantially the
following statement: "The insurance covered by this certificate may not be
canceled, non - renewed, except after thirty (30) days' written notice has been
received by "CITY ". Coverage may not be reduced or otherwise materially
altered.
B. "CONSULTANT" shall maintain in force at all times during the performance
of this Agreement, policies of insurance required by this Agreement, and said
policies of insurance shall be secured from an insurance company assigned
Policyholders' Rating of "B" (or higher) and Financial Size Category "XV" (or
larger) in accord with an industry -wide standard and shall be licensed to do
business in the State of California.
1. An appropriate industry-wide insurance rating standard shall be deemed
"Best's Key Rating Guide", latest edition.
C. "CONSULTANT" shall maintain the following minimum coverages:
Liability Insurance
General liability coverage shall be provided in the following minimum limits:
Category
Bodily Injury
Property Damage
Amount
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
each occurrence
aggregate
each occurrence
aggregate
A combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amount of
$1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits.
D. Subrogation Waiver
In the event of loss or claim of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed
to provide general liability insurance, "CONSULTANT" shall look solely to its
insurance for recovery. "CONSULTANT" hereby grants to "CITY ", on behalf of
any general liability insurer providing insurance to either "CONSULTANT" or
"CITY" with respect to the services of "CONSULTANT ", a waiver of any right of
subrogation which any such insurer of said "CONSULTANT" may acquire
against "CITY" by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.
0 0
E. Additional Insured
"CITY", its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, servants and
employees shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance policies
required under this Agreement, except Errors & Omissions Insurance. The
naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such
additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such
additional insured; and an additional insured named herein shall not be liable
for any premium or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension
thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required
to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance
provided by this policy. Proceeds from any such policy or policies shall be
payable to "CITY" primarily, and to "CONSULTANT' secondarily, if necessary.
XII. WAIVER
A waiver by "CITY' or "CONSULTANT" of any breach of any term, covenant, or
condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent
breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein
whether of the same or different character.
XIII. COST OF LITIGATION
If any legal action is necessary to enforce any provision hereof or for damages by
reason of an alleged breach of any provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to receive from the losing party all costs and expenses in
such amount as the court may adjudge to be reasonable cost of litigation.
XIV. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind
or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary
negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein.
No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions
hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written
execution signed by both "CITY" and "CONSULTANT".
XV. HOLD HARMLESS
"CONSULTANT" shall indemnify and hold harmless, "CITY", its City Council,
boards and commissions, officers, and employees from and against any and all
loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses, whatsoever, including
reasonable costs of litigation, arising from "CONSULTANT'S" negligent acts,
errors or omissions, in the performance of services hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
first date above written:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant
-/x
Attorney
Address and Telephone:
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768
(714) 644 -3011 (714)646 -5204 FAX
10
City of Newport Beach,
a municipal corporation
Kevin rMurphy, Manager
1.011
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.
a California Corporation
David Claycomb
"CONSULTANT"
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.
7777 Alvarado Road, Suite 319
Ia Mesa, California 91941 -3649
(619)462 -1515 (619)462 -0552 FAX
0 (30 1
June 27th, 1994
C -2- g
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. A 8
TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Utilities Department
SUBJECT: BIG CANYON RESERVOIR COVER PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve the Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project
C17Y OC
JUN 2 7 I9y1
2. Adopt the findings regarding the environmental effects
and approve the Negative Declaration for the Big Canyon
Reservoir Cover Project,
3. Authorize staff to solicit proposals for design of a floating
cover for the Big Canyon Reservoir.
BACKGROUND:
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is
in the process of covering the San Joaquin Reservoir as a part of their response
to the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and several other newly
promulgated water quality standards. The San Joaquin Reservoir stores most
of the water the City acquires from MWD. The covering of this reservoir will
allow MWD to change its disinfection process from chlorine to a chloramination
system (a mixture of chlorine and ammonia). This modified disinfection
process will help MWD and the other local water agencies who take water from
it, to improve water quality, meet the new standards and also improve the
aesthetic taste and odor qualities of the water supply.
The State of California Department of Health Services is requiring
the City of Newport Beach to cover the Big Canyon Reservoir after the MWD
project to cover San Joaquin Reservoir is complete. Covering the Big Canyon
Reservoir will insure that Newport can comply with t'-.e new water quality
regulations.
Prior to MWD starting the design of the floating cover for the San
Joaquin Reservoir, an EIR was prepared. As a part owner of the San Joaquin
Reservoir, the City certified the EIR. The City took this action on September
13th, 1993. The documentation for that EIR was extensive and was compiled
over several years. During the preparation of the Initial Environmental Study for
the Big Canyon Reservoir Cover, reference was made to the documentation that
was prepared for the MWD project EIR. Since the two reservoirs are only three
quarters of a mile apart and are very similar in their configuration and
operations, the environmental studies necessary for the MWD project were
identical for the City's environmental studies. The consultant for the MWD
project was also utilized to assist the City with the environmental studies.
Page 2
Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project
Approve Project & Negative Declaration
June 270i, 1994
The following discussion summarizes the City's environmental
studies for the project:
COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA:
The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code Sections 21000- 21177) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (California Administrative Code
Sections 15000 et seq.) require that public agencies consider the
environmental consequences of projects they carry out or approve, and avoid
actions that would cause significant environmental effects when feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures are available that would substantially
lessen the significant effects of such projects.
The document containing the required environmental analysis
is called the "Initial Study ". Sign ficant effect on the environment means a
"substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic
significance" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382).
Unless the proposed project is exempt, the agency must
conduct an Initial Study prior to project approval to determine whether the
project has the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. If,
on the basis of the Initial Study, the City finds that there is substantial
evidence that the project may cause a significant effect on the environment,
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared (Guidelines Sec.
15063). If the Initial Study finds no substantial evidence that the project
may cause a significant effect on the environment, or if changes have been
incorporated into the project that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a
point where clearly no significant effects would occur, a Negative Declaration
shall be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070).
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
In accord with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3, an Initial
Study was prepared for the proposed project. The major concerns identified
in the Initial Study are potential impacts in the areas of air quality, noise,
and traffic during construction; changes to water quality due to runoff from
the reservoir cover; potential health risks associated with the use of
chloramination (chlorine and ammonia) treatment; and view impacts. These
concerns are summarized below. A complete discussion of these issues is
contained in the Initial Study (Attachment "A ").
Construction impacts: Dust, vehicle emissions, noise, and
traffic could create a potentially significant public nuisance during the
construction process. Proposed mitigation measures to reduce construction
emissions, require public notification of construction schedules, and provide
construction traffic controls, along with standard City requirements for dust
suppression contained in the Excavation and Grading Code, would reduce
these impacts below the level of significance.
Page 3
Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project
Approve Project & Negative Declaration
June 270i, 1994
Water quality impacts: The reservoir site is located in the
upper Big Canyon drainage course, which flows into Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve. Since dust and other contaminants that accumulate on
the reservoir cover could be washed downstream into the bay during storms,
it may be necessary to collect and treat surface runoff prior to discharge into
Big Canyon. A mitigation measure is proposed that would require such
collection and treatment if determined to be necessary by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Potential health risks: The water treatment process at the
reservoir currently utilizes a chlorine disinfection process. The proposal
includes the conversion to a chloramination process, a combination of
chlorine and ammonia disinfection. Both of these chemicals are classified as
hazardous substances and are highly toxic if released into the environment.
The conversion to chloramination would actually reduce the quantity of
hazardous chemicals used at the reservoir due to the enhanced effectiveness
of chlorine and ammonia when used in combination. As a result, the project
would have a net beneficial effect by reducing potential hazards from toxic
substances. Storage and use of these chemicals would continue to be
regulated by the State of California, Office of Emergency Services and
monitored by the Newport Beach Fire Department.
View impacts: Due to the sloping terrain, some residents to the
north and east have prominent views of the reservoir (see photo exhibits in
Attachment A). Some of these residents may consider a floating reservoir cover
to be a significant adverse change to existing views. Because of this potential
impact, staff met with several residents who expressed their concern on this
issue in order to determine whether mitigation is appropriate. As a result of
discussions with residents, the Initial Study proposes a landscaping program
designed to screen views of the reservoir surface while leaving distant views
intact. Staff believes this mitigation would reduce view impacts below the level
of significance.
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT:
On January 27, 1994, staff held a public scoping meeting to
provide an opportunity for interested residents to become familiar with the
proposed reservoir cover project. Notices of the scoping were mailed to over
500 individuals and homeowner associations w:=hin one mfle of the site. At
the scoping meeting comments were made by individuals regarding potential
negative view impacts, as well as the health benefits and cost savings to the
City and water users associated with the project.
After evaluating all of the public comments and information
contained in the Initial Study, staff determined that the project as modified by
the recommended mitigation measures, does not have the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. Because of this, a Negative Declaration
was prepared (Attachment "X). The Negative Declaration was posted for a
30 -day public review period starting April 11, 1994. Notice was posted at the
project site, the State Clearinghouse, the County Clerk's office and at City Hall.
Copies of the Negative Declaration were also mailed directly to all parties who
attended the sloping meeting and all adjacent homeowner associations.
Page 4
Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project
Approve Project & Negative Declaration
June 27th. 1994
One letter was received from the Metropolitan Water District
regarding the Negative Declaration (Attachment 'B "). The letter states a
concern regarding project scheduling and requests that the City coordinate
with MWD staff to ensure that no operational problems are created during
the time Big Canyon Reservoir is out of service during construction. No
environmental issues are raised in the letter.
No other comments on the Negative Declaration were received.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Based on the discussion above, staff believes that with the
proposed mitigation measures the project does not have the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration adequately
satisfies the requirements of CEQA. If the City Council concurs with the
analysis and conclusions in the Negative Declaration, CEQA requires that
certain findings must be adopted prior to project approval. These findings are:
1. Adopt the findings regarding the environmental effects and approve the
Negative Declaration for the Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project.
a. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential
environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements
of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council and was reviewed and
considered prior to approval of the project.
b. The mitigation monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6 will be met through required compliance with
applicable codes, standards, mitigation measures, and conditions of
approval adopted in connection with the project. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached to the
Negative Declaration and is hereby adopted. The mitigation measures
contained in the Negative Declaration are hereby adopted as conditions
of approval for the project.
c. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a
whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project
will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in
the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect
contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project
qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section
753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR.
2. Approve the Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project and direct staff to solicit
proposals for the design necessary for the implementation of the floating
cover at the Big Canyon Reservoir.
Page 5
Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project
Approve Project & Negative Declaration
June 270i, 1994
FUTURE ACTIONS:
If the City Council concurs with the analysis and conclusions and
adopts the Negative Declaration, staff will prepare a Notice of Determination and
process it with the appropriate State and County offices.
Staff will also commence with the additional planning and project
design actions to implement the project to cover the reservoir. The 1994 -95
fiscal budget contains a capital project line item which will provide for the costs
of the detailed planning and the engineering design efforts necessary to get
plans ready for bidding and construction.
Design and construction costs are estimated to be approximately
$5.90 million. As staff and the design consultant develop a more detailed
construction plan, schedule and cost estimate, the feasibility of bond financing
for the project will be explored. This issue and more detail about it will be
provided to the Utilities Committee in the coming months.
In the interim, staff recommends approval of the project and the
Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
- JF-FF S' ^J6AvRT
Jeff Staneart, P.E.
Utilities Director
MIS: sdi
Attachments: A) Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project
B) Letter from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
COY OF NEWPORT BEA01
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659.1768 - (714) 644 -3225
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To:
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
XX Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk, County of Orange
XX Public Services Division
P.O. Box 838
Santa Ana, CA 92702
From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768
(Orange County)
Date received for filing at OPR:
Public review period April 11 - May 12, 1994
Name of Project: Big Canyon Reservoir Covering Project
Project Location: North of Pacific View Drive and east of San Miguel Drive, Newport Beac
Big Canyon Reservoir is a 200 million - gallon storage reservoir supplyi
Project Description: drinking water to the city of Newport Beach. The proposal involves
construction of a floating reservoir cover and conversion of the
existing chlorination treatment process to a chloramination process
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy 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 will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. 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.
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 mitigation measures you believe should be adopted
to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited
to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document.
If you have any questions or would tike further information, please contact the undersigned.
Date April 7, 1994
Jo H. uglas, P
Envir ntal C inator
Revised 11/91
.� i •
INITIALSTUDY
APRIL 7,1994
Lead Agency/Project Sponsor:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Califomia 92659
Contact Persons:
John Douglas, AICP
Environmental Coordinator
(714) 6443230
Michael Sinaood, P.E.
Deputy Utilities Director
(714) 644 -3011
Consultant Assistance by:
® ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC.
7777 Alvarado Road, Suite 319
La Mesa, Califomia 91941
ri
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EM
1.0
PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND ........... ...............................
1
2.0
PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ................. ...............................
3
3.0
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT(CEQA) ..................................................... ...............................
4
4.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................... ...............................
4
4.1 Floating Cover ............................................ ...............................
4
4.2 Conversion to Chloramination .......................... ...............................
7
5.0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST ...
8
6.0
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS ........ ...............................
16
7.0
REFERENCES .................................................. ...............................
42
8.0
LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................... ...............................
43
9.0
LIST OF CONTACTS ......................................... ...............................
44
APPENDIX A - Public Scoping Meeting Minutes
APPENDIX B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
i
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
On or Follows
Fi2ure No. Title Page
1 Regional Location Map ............................. ............................... 1
2 Vicinity Map ............................................ ............................... 1
3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels .................. 22
4 Construction Noise Contour Map ................. ............................... 22
5 Existing Land Uses ................................... ............................... 23
6 Photograph Location Map .......................... ............................... 35
7 Existing Views of Big Canyon Reservoir ........ ............................... 35
8 Existing Views of Big Canyon Reservoir ........ ............................... 36
9 Photographs of an Existing Floating Cover on the El Toro Reservoir ...... 37
On or Follows
Table No. Title Page
1 Comparison of Estimated Project - Related Construction Emission Factors
with SCAQMD Impact Thresholds .............. ............................... 18
ii
0 •
1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND
The Big Canyon Reservoir is an approximately 600 - acre -foot (200 - million - gallon)
reservoir, located within the eastern portion of the City of Newport Beach, California
(Figure 1). The reservoir site is also shown on a U.S.G.S. topographic base map in
Figure 2, Vicinity Map. The reservoir is approximately 300 feet above mean sea level
and occupies approximately 23 surface acres. It is nearly rectangular, measuring an
estimated 1,240 feet by 770 feet at its longest and widest points, respectively, and 40 feet
deep at its deepest location. The reservoir is asphalt -lined (with a concrete veneer on the
lining) and was constructed in 1959.
The Big Canyon Reservoir is located within an approximate 40 -acre parcel owned by the
City of Newport Beach. In addition to the reservoir, this parcel includes an existing 2-
acre water treatment plant, a designated construction staging area, employee residences, a
number of ancillary facilities (e.g., pipelines) and a turfed boundary area extending
around the entire site. The existing water treatment plant is located approximately 150
feet west of the reservoir and includes a number of facilities related to current
chlorination activities, such as pump houses, contact vessels, chemical storage buildings
and technical/administrative structures. The noted residential facilities are located
adjacent to the treatment plant complex on the west and provide housing for plant
employees.
The reservoir is surrounded by single family homes and San Miguel Drive to the north;
Pacific View Memorial Park and more single family homes to the east; and schools,
churches and apartments to the west and south. Pacific View Drive borders the reservoir
site on the south. A gated access to the reservoir exists immediately north of the T-
intersection of Pacific View Drive and Marguerite Avenue.
The Big Canyon Reservoir is owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach and it
supplies domestic drinking water to Newport Beach residents and businesses. The
reservoir water is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) and is transmitted via pipelines from Metropolitan's regional transmission
facilities. The majority of water received from Metropolitan is first stored in the San
Joaquin Reservoir, located just east of the City limits (approximately 3,900 feet northeast
of Big Canyon Reservoir, see Figure 2).
1
it
7
SAN JOAQUJ
RESERVOIR
0
cororl
del M,
Arch K=K
/5
It
/ - 4 1 / .
7 tv
Vicinity Map
BIG CANYON RESERVOIR COVERING PROJECT Figure 2
. . r I
Metropolitan has been having water quality problems at the San Joaquin Reservoir since
1977, due to the presence of midge fly larvae and large numbers of African clawed frogs
in the reservoir. The African clawed frog problem is now under control (although not
completely eliminated), but the midge fly larvae continue to cause periodic elevations in
coliform bacteria counts at this reservoir. In addition, the organic matter in the water
(e.g. larvae, leaves, algae, seeds, etc.) reacts with the chlorine which is added to the water
as a disinfectant and forms trihalomethanes (THMs). THMs, such as chloriform, have
been identified as potential human carcinogens and their concentration in drinking water
is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the form of total THMs,
or "TTHMs." At times, the level of TTHMs in the San Joaquin Reservoir has exceeded
EPA standards.
Since the Big Canyon Reservoir obtains its water supply from the San Joaquin Reservoir,
it shares the San Joaquin Reservoir's water quality problems. The Big Canyon Reservoir
also has a problem with midge flies and midge fly larvae. Large "bug zappers" have been
installed along the perimeter fence surrounding the reservoir. Although the water from
the San Joaquin Reservoir has been previously treated with chlorine, it must be
chlorinated again before delivery from the Big Canyon Reservoir to the City's customers.
TTHM standards have also been exceeded at the Big Canyon Reservoir.
In 1993, Metropolitan approved the construction of a floating cover at the San Joaquin
Reservoir and certified the Final EIR for this project. Final designs are expected to be
completed in November 1994 and approved by the State Division of Safety of Dams by
January 1995. Construction bids would then be obtained, with construction expected to
begin no sooner than April 1995 and be completed during late 1996.
The covering of the San Joaquin Reservoir is expected to essentially eliminate the
breeding of midge flies in the reservoir, the amount of airborne contaminants entering
the water, and the formation of algae (which is partially dependent upon sunlight). Thus,
the levels of coliforms and other harmful bacteria and TTHMs in the San Joaquin
Reservoir are expected to be reduced to well within EPA standards, so that the quality of
water reaching the Big Canyon Reservoir will be substantially improved. The proposed
covering of the Big Canyon Reservoir would help to maintain this water quality and
reduce the water treatment requirements that would be necessary if the reservoir remained
uncovered.
2
0 0
EPA is expected to propose revised regulations that would lower the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for TTHMs from 0.10 milligrams per liter (mg/1) to 0.08 mg/1.
In order to ensure long -term compliance with EPA standards for TTHMs, and to improve
compatibility among its various water supplies, Metropolitan is planning to convert its
chlorination facilities at the San Joaquin Reservoir to a chloramination process, which
utilizes a combination of chlorine and ammonia as a disinfectant. If the Big Canyon
Reservoir is to continue to receive water from the San Joaquin Reservoir and for the City
to meet EPA standards in the future, it will be necessary to convert the Big Canyon
Reservoir disinfection to a chloramination process.
In addition to the improved water quality advantages noted above, the covering of Big
Canyon Reservoir is also required to meet the State of Califomia's Department of Health
Services (CDHS) mandate to eliminate the open reservoir from the City's water system
(CDHS 1994).
2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The proposed project would involve the placement of a floating cover over the Big
Canyon Reservoir and the conversion of the reservoir water treatment system from
chlorination to chloramination. The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:
1. To meet existing and future water quality standards and protect the public health.
2. To maintain the quality of the water received from the San Joaquin Reservoir and
minimize the amount of additional treatment required at the Big Canyon Reservoir
prior to distribution of the water to the City's customers.
3. To ensure compatibility of the treatment method at the Big Canyon Reservoir with the
planned chloramination process at the San Joaquin Reservoir.
4. To meet the State of California s requirement to eliminate the open reservoir from the
City of Newport Beach water system.
0
0
3.0 REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sec. 21000- 21177)
and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal.
Admin. Code Sec. 15000 et seq.) require that public agencies consider the environmental
consequences of projects they carry out or approve, and avoid actions that will cause
significant environmental effects when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are
available that would substantially lessen the significant effects of such projects.
The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed Big Canyon Reservoir
Covering Project. The purpose of this Initial Study is to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project, as required by CEQA and the Guidelines.
If, on the basis of the Initial Study, the City finds that there is substantial evidence that
the project may cause a significant effect on the environment, an environment impact
report (EIR) is required (Guidelines Sec. 15063). If the Initial Study finds no substantial
evidence that the project may cause a significant effect on the environment, or if changes
have been incorporated into the project that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effects would occur, a Negative Declaration shall be
prepared (Guidelines Sec. 15070).
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Newport Beach proposes to: 1) construct a floating cover over the Big
Canyon Reservoir and 2) convert its water disinfection process and facilities from
chlorination to chloramination. This section provides a detailed description of each of
these proposed improvements.
461 Floating Cover
The floating cover would seal the reservoir from debris, insects and sunlight, preserving
the quality of water received from the San Joaquin Reservoir and reducing the amount of
additional disinfection necessary at Big Canyon Reservoir. Floating covers are tough
membranes that float directly on the surface of the reservoir and move up and down as
the water level in the reservoir changes. These covers are anchored around the reservoir
perimeter and are strong enough to support a person's weight.
4
Floating Cover Material
The majority of currently available floating covers use the DuPont Hypalon membrane as
a base material. Hypalon is a resin - impregnated fabric (chlorosulfonated polyethylene)
which has been shown to have excellent aging and sealing properties and resistance to
stress. The reservoir covers are constructed of two sheets of Hypalon with a synthetic,
open -weave fabric between the Hypalon sheets. Hypalon provides the ability to form
high- integrity seams in the field and is warranted by its manufacturers to last for 20 years.
It is approved by the CDHS for use on drinking water reservoirs and is being used with
success at three Metropolitan reservoirs. Hypalon covers are available in a variety of
colors, but tend to take on a uniformly gray cast after a few months due to the
accumulation of dust and dirt on the cover surface.
Several alternative materials are available for floating covers, including polypropylene
(PPE) membranes. While not as widely available as Hypalon, PPE covers may offer
some advantages in terms of seam sealing (i.e., PPE seams are heat - welded rather than
chemical- welded), ultraviolet light resistance and strength. The City of Newport Beach
will evaluate the various alternative material options before selecting a cover design for
the proposed project.
Floating Cover Design Alternatives
There are three basic types of floating covers which are commercially available for use
with potable water reservoirs. These include the stress -free, weight - stressed and cable -
stressed designs. The City has not yet determined which type of floating cover it will
use. A description of each of the three alternative floating cover designs follows.
M"Marnyo i$TIK�a
This is the type of cover which Metropolitan plans to construct over the San Joaquin
Reservoir. Installation of a stress -free cover requires the construction of a perimeter
concrete anchor curb. The membrane is then attached in pieces and sealed with a CDHS-
approved adhesive. Since rainfall would collect on the cover surface and mix with dust,
dirt, air pollutants, etc., it would also be necessary to install a system of drainage canals
or flexible hoses and pumps to drain the rain water to the existing reservoir overflow
5
point at the northwest corner of the reservoir. This runoff would be treated (if required
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board) and discharged into the Big Canyon Creek
storm drain channel, which comprises the existing overflow /runoff drainage facility for
the reservoir. Treatment of storm runoff from the proposed cover (if required) could
involve facilities such as settling basins or screens to remove contaminants. Such
contaminants would be limited predominantly to physical constituents including dust,
leaves and airborne pollutants.
Weight- Stressed Cover
This type of cover is similar to the stress -free system except that a series of weights are
constructed along the toe of the reservoir or through a center line float structure. This
cover would have the same rainfall collection and discharge requirements as the stress -
free cover design.
Cable- Stressed Cover
The cable- stressed type of floating cover consists of a flat sheet with enough slack to
reach the bottom of the reservoir. The excess material present in the areas over the
sloped sides of the reservoir when the reservoir is not empty is held in tension by a
network of cables. The cables are attached to the cover, with the other ends of the cables
attached to weights hanging from 10- to 12 -foot high towers. The cables and towers are
spaced at 10 -foot intervals (from center of tower to center of tower) completely around
the top of the reservoir. Floats may also be required in some portions of the reservoir for
added support.
Floating Cover Construction
All three types of floating covers are installed using similar construction techniques. The
reservoir would be drained and would remain empty for the entire construction period.
During this time period, the City would obtain its water supply directly from
Metropolitan.
Construction is expected to require between six and nine months for the weight - stressed
and cable - stressed covers and six to eight months for the stress -free cover. The number
• •
of construction personnel on -site is expected to average 30 workers for the stress -free and
weight - stressed covers, and 40 workers for the cable - stressed cover.
The construction equipment required for the installation of floating cover membrane
material on Big Canyon Reservoir would include two to three pick -up trucks and up to
two rough terrain type fork lifts. The membrane would be shipped by truck in 1.5 -ton
cartons which would be off - loaded and moved into place by fork lifts. The membrane
pieces would be removed from the cartons, unfolded on the reservoir's surface, and then
adhesive - bonded together.
Construction equipment requirements for the perimeter anchor wall or other perimeter
structures would include one backhoe, one concrete mixer, two or three pick -up trucks,
one concrete truck, one compressor, one concrete saw (or one or more jackhammers), and
a number of miscellaneous hand -held tools. Construction of these perimeter concrete
structures is essentially an independent operation from membrane installation. The
perimeter structures can be built in phases starting early in the construction schedule and
progressing ahead of the membrane attachment stage.
After construction of the perimeter structures for the floating cover, it would be necessary
to repave the access road and perimeter road around the reservoir. The perimeter fence
would also need to be replaced, probably along the outside of the access road, as opposed
to its current location between the top of the reservoir and the access road.
The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department maintains a construction storage /staging
area adjacent to the southeast corner of the Big Canyon Reservoir. The staging area is
surrounded by a chain link fence with screening material incorporated into the fence. All
construction materials and equipment would be stored within this existing staging area,
along with a construction trailer, if necessary. Construction worker parking may also be
provided within this area.
4.2 Conversion To Chloramination
As mentioned previously, the proposed project would include the conversion of the water
disinfection process at Big Canyon Reservoir from chlorination to chloramination, in
order to be compatible with the planned chloramination of the water being received from
the San Joaquin Reservoir. The chloramination process uses both chlorine and ammonia
7
as disinfectants, while chlorination uses only chlorine. As a result, the chloramination
process requires much less chlorine. In addition, the covering of both the San Joaquin
and Big Canyon Reservoirs is expected to reduce chemical disinfection requirements and
the associated storage and handling of chemicals at both reservoirs.
In order to convert to a chloramination process at the Big Canyon Reservoir site, the City
must provide location(s) on -site for the storage and processing of ammonia. Two options
which are currently being considered include: 1) the construction of a new building
(approximately 1,000 square feet in size) adjacent to the existing treatment plant
structures or 2) modification of the existing chlorine storage and chlorine processing
buildings so that one of the buildings is used for the storage and processing of chlorine
and the other building is used for the storage and processing of ammonia. All five of the
existing structures at the plant are 1 or 1 1/2 stories in height. If a new structure is
required, it would not exceed the height of the existing structures.
Modification of the on -site treatment system may also require the addition of one or more
water treatment injection pumps (in addition to current facilities). These pumps (if
necessary) would consist of small horsepower electric or combustion engines, and would
be enclosed within existing or proposed treatment plant structures.
5.0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
L Background
1. Application No: N/A
2. Project Name: Big Canyon Reservoir Covering
3. Project Location: Big Canyon Reservoir. City of Newport Beach. CA
4. Applicant: City of Newport Beach Utilities Department
IL Environmental Impacts (See attached explanations)
S = Significant P.S. = Potentially Significant N.S. = Not Significant
E:i
1. Earth, Will the proposal result in:
5 F.& 1S
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
£ Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes
in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the
channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or
similar hazards?
2. Air. Would the proposal result in:
X
X
MD-1
W-I
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X _
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally or regionally?
0
0"
0 0
S P NS
3. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ �(
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? _ X
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ __X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ X _
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? _ �X
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations? _
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? _ X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants?
1[C
a P.S. N.S.
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ X
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ X
5. Animal Life. Would the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals? _ X
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ X
6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise
levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X _
7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light
and glare? _ X
8. Land Use. Would the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned use of an area, or
conflict with existing land use regulations or policies? _ X
9. Natural Resources. Would the proposal result in an
increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ X
11
s_
10. Risk of Accident. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ X _
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? _ �X
11. emulation. Would the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? _ X
12. Housing. Would the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing? _ X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ X
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? _ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ X
i Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? _ _ X
12
0 0
14. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
£ Other governmental services?
15. Energy, Would the proposal result in the use of substantial
amounts of fuel or energy, a substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities, Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Electricity or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water or wastewater?
e. Storm water drainage?
£ Solid waste and disposal?
13
5. L& N S.
X
X
X
X
X
X
- X
X
X
X
— — X
PS NS
17. Human Health. Would the proposal result in the creation
of any health hazard or exposure of people to potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ _X
18. Aesthetics. Would the proposal result in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or result
in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to
public view? _ X
19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _ X
20. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a. Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric
or historic archaeological site? _ X
b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a
prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ X
c. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ X
d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? _ X
III. Mandatory Findings of Significance
1. 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 periods of
California history or prehistory? _ X
14
0 0
.a P N-J&
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will
endure well into the future.) _ x
3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact
two or more separate resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant; or a project
may have incremental impacts that are individually minor, but
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of other past, present, or probable future projects.) _ x
4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly? _ X
IV. 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.
X_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated
into the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
15
Prepared by: David W. Claycomb, AICP C�
Presid t I l ix Env o Planning, Inc. Date:
:��1
Signature:
Approved by: John H. Douglas, AICP'—'
Environmental Coordinator, City of Newport Beach Date:
Signature:
Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations
6.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Evaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
1. Earth
The proposed project would not generate or be subject to any significant impacts in
association with earth resources. Proposed construction activities would be located in
areas with existing pavement and/or fill deposits, and would be subject to the City of
Newport Beach Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code
§ 15.04.140). This code requires all development activities to conform with applicable
policies related to earth resources (including erosion and drainage control, slope stability,
and foundation design), and establishes the authority of City Building Officials to require
geologic and/or soil engineering reports for appropriate actions.
Mitigation Measures
1. Compliance with Excavation and Grading Code
All grading and construction shall comply with the requirements of the City
of Newport Beach Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140).
16
0
2. Air
Emission generation from proposed project activities would include fugitive dust from
construction excavation, combustive emissions from construction vehicles and
equipment, and long -term emissions from operation of water treatment and drainage
pumps, as well as maintenance activities.
Construction - Related Emissions
The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the
jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The
SCAQMD provides screening table thresholds to determine potential project significance
in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993). The screening table factors
provided in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook are intended specifically for use during the
Initial Study process, and provide Lead Agencies with the means to determine if a
proposed project's construction emissions would exceed established significance
thresholds. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is below the screening thresholds
for all applicable categories, with no significant air quality impacts expected in
association with project - related construction. Although project - related construction
emissions are not significant, the SCAB is currently a non - attainment area for ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and PM 10 (suspended particles or droplets smaller
than 10 microns in diameter). It is therefore important to reduce project - related emissions
to the maximum extent feasible. To this end and in keeping with SCAQMD policies and
regulations, the mitigation measures listed below in this section are recommended where
applicable during project construction to further reduce air quality impacts.
Depending on the final project design, installation of the proposed cover may involve the
use of a xylene -based adhesive to seal a number of cover seams. Such adhesives
typically emit a chemical odor during application and for several hours afterward. No
significant impacts would be anticipated from such use at the project site, however, due
to the localized application requirements for cover adhesives (i.e., at seams only) and the
intervening distance to potential odor receptors. That is, the closest potential odor
receptors are associated with residential structures located approximately 220 feet to the
north. This distance is considered adequate for attenuation and dispersal of any potential
short-term odor generation related to cover adhesives. In addition, discussions with
representatives of the El Toro Water District indicated that a similar project in Mission
17
Viejo (at the El Toro Reservoir) did not generate discernible odors in surrounding
residential development (El Toro Water District 1994). Residential densities and
locations near the El Toro Reservoir are similar to those present at the proposed project
site.
Table 1
Comparison of Estimated Project- Related Construction
Emission Factors with SCAQMD Impact Thresholds
Construction
Estimated
SCAQMD Screening
Activity t
Project Units
Table Threshold2
Grading
< 1 acre
177 acres
Vehicle Trips
2,400 miles per day3
24,000 miles per day
I Only activities applicable to the proposed project are listed
2 Screening factors for quarterly thresholds of potential significance
3 Based on 40 construction employees, three trips per employee per day, and 20 miles per trip
Source: SCAQMD (1993)
Mitigation Measures
2. Dust Suppression
All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of
the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and
AQMD Rule 403.
18
3. Construction Emissions Reduction
Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions
to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods may include the following:
a) Use of low - emission construction equipment
b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees
c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts
d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines
e) Use of low - sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment
f) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators
g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference
Long -Term Emissions
Potential long -term emissions are associated with maintenance activities and the
operation of pumps for proposed treatment system modifications and cover drainage.
Construction and operation permits for these pumps would be required from the
SCAQMD, with permit conditions typically involving the use of best available control
technology (BACT) to minimize emission pollutants. In addition, the proposed cover
drainage system would employ electric pumps, which do not involve on -site emissions
and generally produce fewer pollutants than internal combustion pumps.
Overall pumping requirements for the proposed project are not expected to vary
substantially from existing requirements, due to the nature of treatment modifications
(i.e., replacing chlorination with chloramination, with both systems exhibiting generally
equal pumping requirements), and the short -term intermittent nature of cover drainage
pumping (i.e., after storms).
19
• w
Maintenance activities would include regular cleaning of the cover surface to remove
dust, dirt and airborne contaminants. A small amount of motor vehicle exhaust emissions
and dust would be generated by these activities, but would be below the level of
significance.
In light of the above discussion, no significant air quality impacts are expected in relation
to long -term emission generation from the proposed project.
3. Water
The reservoir is located in the upper Big Canyon drainage, which flows into Upper
Newport Bay. The bay is a sensitive area designated as a state ecological reserve.
Potential sources of water contaminants from the proposed project include soil erosion,
spills or leaks of fuel and oil from construction equipment, and construction debris which
could be washed into the ocean or Newport Bay via the storm drain system.
The proposed project would not generate or be subject to any significant impacts
associated with surface water movements or supplies, flooding, or groundwater resources.
These conclusions are based on the fact that the proposed project would not affect any
surface water drainages or groundwater bodies, as well as the project site location outside
of mapped 500 -year floodplains (FEMA 1989). Covering the Big Canyon Reservoir
would increase local runoff quantities by creating an additional 22.5 acres of impervious
surface. This runoff would be diverted from the cover surface (by a collection system
incorporating a series of PVC pipelines and one or more pumps), treated (if necessary)
and discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system. Because of the relatively
small area involved (i.e., 22.5 acres), existing runoff volumes and velocities in the storm
drain system would not be substantially altered by the proposed diversion from the
reservoir cover.
As noted above, runoff from the proposed cover would be treated prior to discharge if
necessary. Such treatment would be designed to eliminate potential water quality impacts
associated with airborne pollutants and contaminants which may accumulate on the cover
surface (e.g., dust and organic debris). During preliminary discussions, officials at the
local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) indicated that runoff treatment
may not be required for the proposed project because the associated watershed is limited
to the reservoir cover, which has a low potential for substantial contaminant occurrence.
KII
Final determination of applicable treatment standards, however, would require
submission of a formal application to the Board (RWQCB 1994).
Mitigation Measures
4. Regional Water Quality Control Board Approvals
Prior to commencement of construction, the City Utilities Director shall
obtain any necessary permits and approvals from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), including requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). If required by the
RWQCB, runoff from the surface of the reservoir cover shall be collected
and treated prior to discharge into the storm drain system.
4. Plant Life
The entire project site has been subject to previous development in association with the
existing reservoir facilities, and incorporates pavement, construction fill and non - native
landscaping. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in any significant
impacts to vegetation.
5. Animal Life
The project site has been subject to previous development and does not support any
significant wildlife habitat or use. Implementation of the proposed project would thus not
significantly affect any animal species, habitats, movements or distribution.
6. Noise
Existing Noise Generation
Existing ambient noise levels at the project site are generally low, although on -site noise
generation is associated with intermittent sources including vehicular activity and insect
eradication ( i.e., "bug zappers "). Minor vehicular activity occurs on -site in association
with uses such as chemical deliveries, maintenance and employee ingress and egress.
21
Noise generation from such vehicular operations is minor and does not constitute a
nuisance to or conflict with surrounding land uses.
The reservoir site is equipped with electric "bug zappers" to control flying insect
populations (especially midge flies) and their attendant larvae (which pose a potential
water quality hazard). Eradication by this method results in a distinctive electric
"crackle" when insects contact the equipment. This noise, while attenuated somewhat by
distance, is discernible at certain adjacent residences (particularly during the relatively
quiet nighttime hours), and may occur continuously for several hours during periods of
high insect activity.
All current noise - generating treatment facilities at the project site (e.g., pumps) are fully
enclosed, and do not result in discernible off -site noise levels.
Short-Term Project Noise Impacts
Short-term noise generation from the proposed project would be limited to the operation
of vehicles and equipment during short -term construction activities. Anticipated
maximum equipment needs for project construction include one backhoe, two fork - lifts,
one concrete mixer, two to three pick -up trucks, one concrete truck, one compressor, one
concrete saw or one or more jackhammers, and a number of miscellaneous hand -held
tools (e.g., saws, drills and hammers). Typical single event noise generation levels at a
distance of 50 feet are shown on Figure 3 for various types of construction equipment.
Operation of the noted equipment would occur intermittently for short periods during the
six- to nine -month construction period, with certain equipment requirements limited to
very short durations. The fork - lifts, for example, would be used only for unloading the
reservoir cover, and use of the concrete truck and mixer would be limited to short periods
during construction of the ammonia processing building and anchor foundations for the
reservoir cover.
Approximate construction noise contours for the proposed project are depicted on Figure
4, with this information based on the noise analysis conducted for similar proposed
activities at the nearby San Joaquin Reservoir (Metropolitan 1992). Assumptions on the
numbers and types of construction equipment, vehicles and personnel for the Big Canyon
project are similar to those used for evaluation of noise impacts at San Joaquin Reservoir.
The noise contours shown on Figure 4 represent average noise levels associated with
`xa
101k a
NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FT
70 80 90 100
Compacters (Rollers)
e
m
Front Loaders
•�
aBackhoes
c
yTractors
0
E
Scrapers, Graders
0
U
Pavers
0
Trucks
e
Concrete Mixers
e
�
Concrete Pumps
�
�
q
w
Cranes (Movable)
e
E
v
Cranes (Derrick)
Pumps
Generators
Compressors
Pneumatic Wrenches
aJack
Hammers and Rock Drills
an
t�
Pile Drivers (Peaks)
Vibrator
u
pSaws
SOURCE: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971, 'Noise from Cautructlai Equipment & Operations'
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels
BIG CANYON RESERVOIR COVERING PROJECT
Figure 3
SqN
65
55
HILLS / ROAD
o eoo
FEET
Construction Noise Contour Map
BIG CANYON RESERVOIR COVERING PROJECT I Figure 4
equipment operation over a 12 -hour period, with noise averaging used due to the
described intermittent operation schedules for most activities. These contours provide
"straight line" noise projections, with attenuation based solely on distance. That is, no
modeling corrections have been incorporated for noise attenuation related to intervening
vegetation and topography.
At the closest point, residential properties are approximately 150 -200 feet from the
construction site. Based on projected conditions, it is anticipated that portions of the
adjacent cemetery and several nearby residential, church and school properties would be
subject to short-term intermittent average noise levels of approximately 65 dB(A) during
proposed construction. Such noise generation would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no construction
allowed on Sundays (except for emergency conditions, pursuant to Section 10.28.040 of
the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code).
Project - related construction noise would not be expected to significantly affect activities
or residents associated with the described local land uses. This conclusion is based on the
short-term and intermittent nature of construction noise, the relatively low level of
anticipated noise generation, and the location of most sensitive receptors outside of the 65
dB(A) contour (see Figures 4 and 5). Discussions with the Pacific View Memorial Park
General Manager indicated that most funeral services are not located in close proximity
to the reservoir site, and that on -going construction activities associated with the
mausoleum building have not significantly affected cemetery activities (Bowers 1994).
Despite the above conclusion of no significant noise impacts, however, the following
measure is recommended to further reduce potential noise conflicts with local residents:
Mitigation Measures
5. Construction Notification
Residents within the noted 65 dB(A) contour line and local school, church
and cemetery officials shall be notified of general construction schedules
and locations prior to commencement of construction. This notice shall
include a contact name and phone number for the City Utilities Department
to facilitate specific inquires and requests regarding potential conflicts
23
0 0
between construction operations and noise - sensitive activities (e.g., outdoor
funeral services).
Long -Term Project Noise Impacts
Potential long -term noise generation is related to the operation of pumps for cover
drainage and water treatment activities.
Pump operation related to cover drainage would be associated with the diversion of storm
runoff, as described above in Section 3, Water. One or more electric pumps would be
required for this purpose, with operation consisting of short-term and intermittent use
(i.e., after storms). No significant noise impacts would result from this use due to the
relatively low level of noise generation associated with electric pumps (i.e.,
approximately 60 dB (A) at 50 feet), and the infrequent operation schedule.
Project implementation may also require the use of additional on -site pumps as part of the
proposed water treatment process. These additional pumps (if required) would be fully
enclosed within existing or new structures located at the treatment plant site (see Section
4.0, Project Description). As a result, no discernible off -site noise generation or
significant noise impacts would result from proposed treatment operations.
Implementation of the proposed project would also allow removal of the above described
"bug zappers ", which would constitute a beneficial noise effect for surrounding land uses.
7. Light and Glare
The proposed project would not involve any additional lighting or reflective surfaces, and
would therefore not result in any adverse impacts related to light and glare. In addition,
removal of the 'bug zappers" noted above under Noise would also eliminate the
associated lighting used to attract insects.
8. Land Use
The proposed project would not substantially alter existing or planned land uses in the
project site and vicinity, and would not conflict with existing land use regulations or
policies. A number of existing land uses surrounding the project site, however, including
24
i
•
residential, church, cemetery and school properties (Figure 5), may be subject to impacts
associated with noise generation, visual resources and traffic circulation. It is anticipated
that these potential impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance
through project design or mitigation measures, as described in Sections 6 (Noise), 13
( Transportation /Circulation/Parking) and 18 (Aesthetics).
An assessment of potential effects to local property values in relation to covering an
existing reservoir was conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the San
Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project (Metropolitan 1992). This analysis is considered
generally comparable to the proposed project at Big Canyon Reservoir, due to the similar
nature of the proposed cover design and the fact that both reservoirs encompass
surrounding residential development. The potential for adverse effects is considered
higher at San Joaquin Reservoir, however, due to the location of many homes on adjacent
high slopes (with corresponding panoramic views of the reservoir) and the undeveloped
nature of much of the surrounding terrain. The discussion of property values at San
Joaquin Reservoir noted that determination of specific cause and effect relationships is
difficult, due to the large number of factors that can influence the sale price of a
residence. This analysis also indicated that while the proposed cover could potentially
decrease property values for homes with substantial views of San Joaquin Reservoir, such
decreases would be associated primarily with construction activities (and related issues
such as noise and aesthetics) and uncertainty over the outcome of the project.
Accordingly, it was concluded that any property value reductions related to the proposed
San Joaquin Reservoir project would likely be short-term in nature. That is, such values
would be expected to increase to match those of comparable units after project
completion, with no long -term negative impacts to local property values. On the basis of
the above discussion, no significant long -term impacts to local property values are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project at Big Canyon Reservoir.
9. Natural Resources
Consumption of natural resources associated with the proposed project would include
short-term construction uses (e.g., lumber, concrete and fossil fuels for equipment and
vehicles), as well as energy requirements for long -term pump operation. None of these
uses represent significant impacts to natural resources due to the short-term nature and
low resource requirements for proposed construction (i.e., a number of activities are
labor- intensive), and the low energy consumption projected for long -term operation
25
• i
(refer to Section 15, Energy). In addition, it should be noted that the proposed cover
would eliminate evaporation from the Big Canyon Reservoir, thereby conserving water
(although incrementally).
10. Risk of Accident
On -site water treatment currently includes chlorine disinfection, with the existing
treatment plant subject to regulatory guidelines of the State of California Office of
Emergency Services. Specifically, these guidelines include the implementation of an
approved Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) for the use and storage of
identified hazardous materials. An RMPP has been prepared for existing plant
operations, and includes provisions for the use of approved storage vessels and structures,
containment system design (e.g., enclosures, berms or liners), training of personnel and
preparation of emergency response and clean -up plans. Inspection and enforcement
related to the existing RMPP is conducted by the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department. All of the above measures are currently utilized in association with on -site
treatment operations, and would be applied to the proposed project and supplemented as
necessary (e.g., to address the proposed storage and use of ammonia). In addition, the
existing water treatment system would be utilized to the maximum extent feasible to
accommodate the proposed project, potentially eliminating the need for construction of a
new ammonia building (see Section 4.0, Project Description).
The proposed project would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation
plans, but would involve the on -site use and storage of ammonia, in addition to the
current use of chlorine, for water disinfection. Both of these chemicals are classified as
hazardous substances by the Orange County and State of California Health Services
Departments. Chlorine, which occurs as a gas at standard atmospheric temperature and
pressure conditions, is highly toxic and may be lethal at concentrations as low as 430
parts per million (ppm). Ammonia is also a gas at standard temperature and pressure,
with lethal concentrations of approximately 10,000 ppm. Both chemicals act as tissue
irritants, affecting mucous membranes at concentrations as low as 15 -20 ppm. Chlorine
also poses significant fire and explosion risks if exposed to heat or flame.
Implementation of the proposed project, in concert with the approved covering of San
Joaquin Reservoir, would reduce overall treatment requirements and associated on -site
chemical use. This reduction in treatment requirements would be associated with the
26
reduction in airborne contaminants at both reservoirs, as well as the fact that the water
received from San Joaquin Reservoir is treated prior to distribution to the Big Canyon
Reservoir. In addition, the proposed conversion of the on -site water treatment process
from chlorination to chloramination would result in a substantial decrease in on -site
chlorine use (although storage requirements would not change). Because of the
potentially hazardous nature of chlorine, this would constitute a beneficial effect relative
to the risk of accidents. On the basis of the above discussion, no significant risk of
accident impacts are anticipated in association with the proposed project.
11. Population
The proposed project would not involve any increase in water storage /treatment capacity
or employment, and would thus not directly or indirectly result in population growth or
redistribution.
12. Housing
The proposed project would be confined to an existing reservoir site and would not
involve any increase in population or employment. As a result, the project would not
affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing.
13. Transportation/Circulation
Existin Traffic
raffic
Existing traffic in the immediate project vicinity includes high peak volumes in relation
to three school sites. Specifically, these include the Harbor Day School (on Pacific View
Drive east of Marguerite Avenue), United Methodist Preschool (at the northwest comer
of Marguerite Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road), and Lincoln Elementary School (on
Pacific View Drive west of Marguerite Avenue, refer to Figure 5). Peak traffic periods
associated with pick -ups and drop -offs at these schools are outlined below based on
discussions with local school officials:
• Harbor Day School - 7:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m., and 2:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.
27
• United Methodist Preschool - 8:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 11:15 a.m. to 11:30
a.m. (morning session); 1:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m., and 3:15 p.m. 3:30 p.m.
(afternoon session).
• Lincoln Elementary - 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. (all grades), 9:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.
(kindergarten second session), 12:15 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. (kindergarten first
session), 1:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. (kindergarten second session), 2:15 p.m. to
2:45 p.m. (grades one through three), and 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (grades four
through six).
As seen from this information, traffic flows from the noted schools are somewhat spread
out in relation to classroom schedules, with the principal cumulative peak traffic levels
occurring from approximately 7:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Additional traffic in the project site vicinity occurs in association with other local land
uses including churches, a cemetery, residential development and a small commercial
center (refer to Figure 5). Much of this traffic is limited to evenings or weekends,
however, and does not substantially contribute to the noted peak traffic periods for local
schools.
Project- Related Traffic and Potential Impacts
Potential project- related impacts to transportation/circulation involve capacity and safety
concerns along two local streets as outlined below. The proposed project would not
impact local parking facilities or requirements, with construction parking to be provided
within the existing reservoir site and no long -term project - related parking required. The
proposed project would also have no short- or long -term impacts to waterborne, rail or air
traffic.
Traffic generation from the proposed project would be limited to short-term trips for
construction employees, material deliveries and one -time ingress and egress of
construction equipment. The maximum workforce expected to be on site during any
given day would be 40 people, with material deliveries expected to average less than one
trip per day. Maximum construction- related traffic generation is assumed to include three
trips per construction employee per day, for a total daily traffic count of 120 trips. This
figure includes two daily trips for construction employees, as well as additional trips for
purposes such as material/equipment deliveries, errands and lunch breaks. As noted, the
M.
i
•
daily traffic figure is considered the maximum number of trips for any single work day,
with the average daily figure expected to be somewhat lower due to variations in the
number of on -site workers, deliveries and related trips.
Construction traffic related to the proposed project could potentially result in significant
short-term circulation and safety impacts along Pacific View Drive and Marguerite
Avenue, as described below. The proposed project would not result in significant
traffic /circulation impacts to other local roadways and intersections, due to their greater
capacity and the relatively small quantity and short-term nature of project - related traffic.
Pacific View Drive and Marguerite Avenue are limited primarily to two travel lanes and
are subject to relatively high weekday traffic levels in association with the described local
schools. The introduction of up to 120 additional daily trips could significantly affect
roadway (and related intersection) capacity during peak traffic periods (as described
above), and may generate safety concerns related to pedestrian flows (especially school
children), bicyclists, and slow moving or stopped motor vehicles (i.e., for student pick-
ups and drop- offs). These impacts could be avoided, however, by requiring daily
construction operations to begin no later than 7:30 a.m. and end no earlier than 4:30 p.m.
as part of the proposed project design. Assuming the maximum daily total of 120 trips,
for example, such a schedule would eliminate approximately 80 trips from local peak
traffic periods (i.e., two daily trips for 40 employees). The remaining daily trips would
include activities with variable schedules and frequencies such as errands, lunch breaks
and deliveries. These additional trips would not be concentrated during local peak hours
and would not significantly affect local circulation or safety. In addition to use of the
noted schedule, the following mitigation measures are recommended to avoid potential
traffic circulation and safety impacts:
Mitigation Measures
6. Traffic Control
The City Utilities Director shall ensure that the following traffic control
procedures are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the
project, and shall ensure that they are followed by construction contractors:
O
• i
a) Project- related construction traffic shall access the reservoir site
through the existing gate located across Pacific View Drive from
Marguerite Avenue to eliminate project traff c from the eastern portion
of Pacific View Drive, and to avoid associated conflicts with
development in this area (including the Harbor Day School and
Pacific View Memorial Park Cemetery).
b) Warning signs shall be placed along Pacific View Drive and
Marguerite Avenue during construction to alert motorists and
pedestrians to the presence of both construction- and school- related
traffic. Flag people shall be present during deliveries by large trucks
to control traffic.
c) Project contractors shall advise employees of local safety concerns
and require compliance with local speed limits.
With the above described schedules and mitigation measures, no significant impacts to
local traffic circulation or safety would be associated with the proposed project.
14. Public Services
The proposed project would not affect the existing need for or maintenance of local
public services including fire protection, police protection, schools, park and recreation
sites, roads, or other services.
15. Energy
Energy requirements associated with the proposed project would include fossil fuel and
electrical consumption related to short -term construction activities and long -term facility
operation. Neither of these uses would substantially increase fuel or energy consumption,
generate increased energy demand, or require the development of new energy sources.
For construction activities, this conclusion is based on the short-term nature of energy
requirements and the fact that a number of construction operations would be labor -
intensive (e.g., cover installation). Long -term project- related energy requirements would
be limited to the operation of pumps associated with proposed treatment plant facilities
and the diversion of runoff from the proposed cover (see Section 3, Water). The
30
proposed change from chlorination to chloramination treatment would not generate a
significant net increase in on -site energy use. That is, while the chloramination process
would require some energy use related to pumping, this consumption would generally be
offset by a reduction of similar energy requirements associated with decreased chlorine
treatment. Pump operation associated with the diversion of runoff from the proposed
cover would not entail substantial energy use, due to the small pump size and intermittent
operation schedule associated with such activities (i.e., after storms). Based on the above
discussion, it is concluded that no significant impacts related to energy use would be
associated with the proposed project.
16. Utilities
The proposed project would not require new utility systems or substantial alterations to
existing facilities for electricity, natural gas, communications, wastewater, or solid waste
disposal. Project facilities would include a potable water reservoir cover and
modifications to the associated water treatment system. These modifications will
improve the quality of the public water supply in the City of Newport Beach.
Furthermore, the required capital expenditure for the proposed project would be
substantially (and perhaps completely) offset by the associated reduction in water
treatment costs. As a result, potential impacts to the water supply system from project
implementation are anticipated to be beneficial. The proposed project would also require
drainage and pumping facilities to collect and discharge runoff from the proposed cover
into existing storm drains (after treatment if necessary, see Section 3, Water). Existing
storm drain facilities would accommodate runoff from the proposed cover without any
substantial alteration. Based on the above discussion, no significant impacts to utilities
are anticipated form the proposed project.
17. Human Health
Potential human health hazards associated with the proposed project would involve the
on -site use and storage of hazardous materials and traffic safety. Project activities
involving hazardous materials would be subject to regulatory requirements as outlined in
Section 10, Risk of Accident. Compliance with these requirements would reduce
associated potential impacts to human health below a level of significance.
31
0 0
Potential traffic safety impacts related to the proposed project are short-term in nature and
would be eliminated through the implementation of schedule restrictions and mitigation
measures identified in Section 13, Transportation/Circulation.
It should also be noted that the proposed project would result in beneficial human health
impacts by decreasing on -site chlorine use, reducing the potential for drownings in the
reservoir, maintaining water quality and substantially decreasing on -site insect breeding
potential.
18. Aesthetics
E ix sting Aesthetic Conditions
Visual Character of the Project Site and Vicinity
The project site encompasses the existing reservoir, a surrounding access road and turfed
(and partially landscaped) drainage area, a treatment plant complex, an existing
construction staging area site and a number of ancillary facilities (e.g., pipelines). In
addition, the entire reservoir property is surrounded by a six -foot high chain link fence
capped with three strands of barbed wire
The reservoir surface generally comprises a prominent visual feature where visible in
close proximity, due to its size, color and often homogeneous appearance. When full, the
reservoir exhibits a generally favorable visual character, with the water surface and
surrounding turf and landscaping (in association with the reservoir site and the adjacent
cemetery) providing a park -like setting. The existing treatment plant, staging area and
ancillary facilities are relatively minor in scale and are screened from most nearby
sensitive viewers. As a result, these facilities do not significantly detract from the
described setting. The nature of the reservoir site appearance varies substantially,
however, in association with water levels. That is, reservoir levels are frequently lowered
by as much as one -half to increase turnover rates. During such periods of low water
levels, substantial portions of the concrete covered reservoir lining are visible. These
conditions change the visual character of the entire reservoir site, imparting a much more
industrial appearance. Water level fluctuations at Big Canyon Reservoir are often
seasonal in nature (with lower water levels more common in the winter due to reduced
demand and turnover), although such changes may occur at any time during the year.
32
• 0
The project site is located in a predominantly urban setting and is surrounded by
residential, institutional and educational development. The local terrain in this area
slopes gently to the west, with the reservoir constructed on a fill pad at an elevation of
approximately 300 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). This pad is higher and more
extensive along the western reservoir boundary to accommodate the noted slope and
serve as a containment structure. As a result of these conditions, foreground views of the
reservoir surface are limited to certain nearby properties at equal or greater elevation to
the north, south and east. A number of these views are also restricted by intervening
structures and vegetation, as described below.
Views From the West
As indicated above, no views of the reservoir surface occur from nearby properties to the
west. These areas are located at lower elevations than the reservoir, with views screened
by the intervening slope. Partial views of the existing treatment plant occur from a
church property and several multi - family residential units adjacent to the west, although
these views are largely screened by intervening vegetation. No additional views of the
proposed project site occur from nearby areas to the west.
The entire project site is visible from the upper floors of several multi -story office
buildings located approximately one mile to the west. Views from these structures are
panoramic in nature, however, with the reservoir encompassing only a minor visual
feature.
Views From the South
Portions of the project site are visible from several adjacent properties to the south along
Pacific View Drive, including the Harbor Day School (located east of Marguerite
Avenue), Saint Michael's Episcopal Church (located just west of Marguerite Avenue) and
a multi- family residential structure (located east of Marguerite Avenue, refer to Figure 5).
Views of the site from the church and school properties include areas adjacent to Pacific
View Drive (e.g., the perimeter fence, adjacent turfed areas and the designated
construction staging site), but do not encompass the reservoir surface. The multi- family
residential structure includes three second -story dwelling units with views of the project
site. Two of these units encompass unobstructed foreground views of the reservoir
33
surface and surrounding areas from second story windows facing Pacific View Drive.
The reservoir site comprises the dominant visual feature for these views, due to its size
and proximity. The third apartment is set back approximately 200 feet and exhibits
oblique foreground to middle ground views of the project site and reservoir, which are
partially screened by intervening vegetation. Background views from these areas include
residential development and the distant San Gabriel Mountains. The project site is not
visible from any additional areas to the south due to intervening structures and
vegetation.
Views From the North
Views of the project site and reservoir surface occur from the adjacent single - family
residential neighborhood to the north (see Figure 5). The majority of this development is
located at elevations of approximately 280 to 380 feet AMSL. Approximately 15 homes
are located along the southern boundary of the noted residential neighborhood at
distances ranging from around 220 to 500 feet. Up to 10 of these homes encompass full
or partial foreground views of the project site (as described below), with middle and
background views including residential development, institutional facilities and portions
of Newport Bay and Catalina Island. An additional 5 to 10 homes may encompass partial
views of the site from portions of the noted residential neighborhood located further to
the north. These areas include similar middle and background views as described above.
The following description of views from adjacent residential development to the north
incorporates two distinct areas: 10 homes located immediately north of the reservoir site
and five homes located northeast of the reservoir. This distinction is made due to the
different orientation of the homes in these two areas (see discussion below and Figure 5).
The portion of the adjacent residential neighborhood immediately north of the reservoir
site is angled to the southwest, with the associated lots oriented parallel to the project site
(see Figure 5). Of the 10 homes along this portion of the noted residential neighborhood
boundary, approximately the westernmost three are completely screened from the project
site by intervening topography and vegetation. That is, these homes are located
downslope from the site and across from the tallest portion of the reservoir embankment.
The remaining seven homes in this area are located directly across from the project site at
distances of approximately 220 feet, and include foreground and middle ground views of
the reservoir surface. Photographic documentation of these views was obtained during
field investigation conducted on December 29, 1993, with photograph locations indicated
34
on Figure 6 and views from the north shown in photographs A and B of Figure 7. These
views encompass the reservoir as a dominant visual feature (due to its size and
proximity), with background views consisting of residential or institutional development
and Newport Bay /Catalina Island. The majority of project site views from these homes
are at least partially screened, however, by thick vegetation on an intervening landscaped
embankment along the southern neighborhood boundary. As a result, views of the
project site and reservoir from these seven homes are limited to areas where open
corridors extend through the noted vegetation. These corridors include full views of the
reservoir surface from several windows and maintained yards.
Approximately the five easternmost homes along the southern boundary of the above
noted residential neighborhood are partially screened by intervening houses and/or are
oriented away from the project site. That is, lot boundaries in this area are angled to the
southeast (away from the project site, see Figure 5), with views from several of these
homes either interrupted by adjacent houses to the west or oriented away from the project
site. Such views encompass the adjacent cemetery in the foreground, with similar middle
and background views as described above (i.e., where not screened by adjacent homes).
Views from this area are also partially screened by vegetation on the above described
embankment along the southern neighborhood boundary, as well as landscaping in the
northeast corner of the project site. Because of these conditions, prominent views of the
project site and reservoir from this portion of the adjacent residential neighborhood are
limited to one or two of the five homes.
The majority of homes located further north (i.e., north of the described residential
neighborhood boundary) are completely screened from the project site and reservoir by
intervening structures and vegetation. As noted above, however, approximately 5 to 10
homes in this area may have partial foreground to middle ground views associated with
corridors between intervening homes and vegetation. Depending on the level of
screening, the reservoir site may constitute a prominent visual feature from these views.
Views From the East
Views of the project site and reservoir surface occur from portions of the adjacent Pacific
View Memorial Park Cemetery and single - family residential development to the east.
The project site and reservoir comprise prominent visual features from portions of the
cemetery property, which slopes up to the east away from the project site. A mausoleum
35
> b
b
w
AdS
W
?� € o
CL
< CL
W
i \ f cc
>< �7 O
N
•\ Z Vyayt �. �� .. ,• � � U
LU
cc
?
N � �
I'
HELIX
Eh: !IRO::GiENTAL
PLA(Jijlrlc, t:jc.
building is located along the eastern boundary of the cemetery and is currently
undergoing construction to expand the facility. The reservoir surface constitutes a
prominent foreground to middle ground visual feature from the mausoleum structure and
adjacent grounds, due to its location upslope and the lack of intervening structures or
substantial vegetation. Background views from this area are panoramic and include
extensive urban development, Newport Bay /Catalina Island, and the Pacific Ocean. The
majority of existing cemetery use is centered in the southern half of the property,
however, which incorporates substantial landscaping and is largely screened from views
of the reservoir site. The cemetery chapel, for example, is located in the southwestern
corner of the site and is completely screened from the reservoir property by intervening
vegetation.
A single - family residential development is located adjacent to the cemetery site on the
east, at elevations ranging from 460 to 520 feet AMSL. Approximately 15 homes located
immediately east of the cemetery have unobstructed foreground to middle ground views
of the reservoir property. These homes are located north of the noted mausoleum
structure, at distances of approximately 1,000 feet from the reservoir site. Westerly views
from these homes are panoramic in nature and include the cemetery in the foreground; the
reservoir and developed areas in the foreground to middle ground; and urban
development, Newport Bay /Catalina Island and the Pacific Ocean in the background.
Documentation of these views is provided in photographs C and D of Figure 8, with
photograph locations provided in Figure 6. The reservoir constitutes the dominant visual
feature from the noted 15 homes due to its size and proximity. The remaining homes
located adjacent to the cemetery on the east are either screened from the reservoir site by
intervening structures (i.e., the mausoleum) and landscaping, or are oriented away from
the reservoir property. Homes located further east in this development do not encompass
views of the project site due to intervening structures. That is, these homes are closely
spaced and do not vary substantially in elevation from adjacent houses. Foreground and
middle ground views from homes further east in this area are therefore largely screened
by the rooftops of adjacent structures to the west.
An additional residential development is located further to the east on Spyglass Hill, at
elevations ranging from approximately 400 to 670 feet AMSL. These homes are located
at distances of between approximately 2,000 to 5,000 feet from the project site. Many
homes in this neighborhood encompass panoramic views to the west, including extensive
background views of urban development, Newport bay /Catalina Island and the Pacific
C
HELIX
ENVIRCINF IEN TAL
PANNING. INC.
• 0
Ocean. Views of the project site from this area are generally absent, however, or are
limited to minor portions of the reservoir as a middle ground feature. This condition
results from screening by adjacent residential structures, as described above for the
neighborhood adjacent to the cemetery site. Because of the variable elevation and
orientation of homes in the Spyglass Hill development, however, it is considered likely
that as many as 5 to 10 houses may encompass views of the entire project site as a middle
ground feature.
Summary of Sensitive Viewers
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that sensitive views of the project site
occur from nearby residential structures to the north, east and south. Views from more
distant homes and other land uses in these areas are not considered sensitive due to
intervening distance and screening from vegetation and/or structures. In addition, views
from the adjacent cemetery site to the east are not considered sensitive due to the short-
term and intermittent nature of associated viewers, as well as the fact that the highest use
areas (e.g., the funeral chapel) encompass extensive vegetation screening.
Potential Project Impacts and Mitigation
Construction - Related Impacts
No significant aesthetics impacts would be associated with project construction due to
the nature and duration of proposed activities. That is, project construction would be
short-term, with an anticipated duration of six to nine months. In addition, the level of
construction activity during this period would be low at any given time, with no extensive
grading, building construction or equipment use proposed (refer to Section 4.0, Project
Description).
Long -Term Impacts
Potentially significant long -term aesthetic impacts are associated with the alteration of the
existing project site visual character, and the related effects to local sensitive viewers..
That is, the proposed floating cover would impart a somewhat more industrial
appearance than the existing open reservoir. Photographs E and F on Figure 9 provide an
example of views associated with a covered reservoir (El Toro Reservoir) in Mission
37
E
E. View from church parking lot south of El Toro Reservoir.
�Y
M1
F
F. Westerly view from water tanks east of Trabuco Road.
Photographs of an Existing Floating Cover on the El Toro Reservoir
BIG CANYON RESERVOIR COVERING PROJECT
Figure 9
Viejo, with this site encompassing similar dimensions and surrounding land uses as the
Big Canyon Reservoir. As described above under Existing Aesthetic Conditions, the
current visual character of the Big Canyon reservoir varies substantially due to fluctuating
water levels, with existing views often encompassing the concrete covered reservoir
lining (refer to Figures 7 and 8). The number of sensitive viewers is also a factor in
determining the potential significance of aesthetic impacts from a specific area. That is,
potential aesthetic impacts related to the proposed project are more likely to be
considered significant if they involve larger numbers of sensitive viewers,
In light of the above discussion, potentially significant aesthetic impacts are attributed to
areas which encompass a substantial number of sensitive viewers and include the
reservoir surface as a prominent foreground to middle ground visual component.. As
described above under Existing Aesthetic Conditions, sensitive views of the project site
are limited predominantly to nearby residential properties, with associated potential
impacts outlined below.
Views from the West. The proposed project will not significantly affect existing views
from the west. This conclusion is based on the lack of prominent reservoir surface views
from this direction, as well as the fact that existing views of the treatment plant are
largely screened and will not be substantially altered by project implementation. In
addition, no comments on the proposed project were received from residents or land users
in this area during a public scoping meeting held on January 27, 1994 (see Appendix).
Views from the South. Implementation of the proposed project will impact views of the
reservoir from the described multi - family dwelling units located along Pacific View
Drive. These impacts are not considered significant, however, due to the developed
nature of existing views in this area, the small number of affected residents with
unobstructed views (i.e., two multi - family dwelling units) and the fact that no comments
were received regarding views from the south during the January 27, 1994 public scoping
meeting (see Appendix).
Views From the North. The proposed project could result in potentially significant
impacts to views from single - family homes to the north of the project site. These views
are associated with homes located along the southern boundary of an adjacent residential
development. Approximately 10 of these homes have full or partial foreground views of
the reservoir surface, with an additional 5 to 10 homes encompassing partial views. As
M.
described under Existing Aesthetic Conditions, all of these views include intervening
landscaping located along an adjacent embankment. Potential impacts to views from the
north would be mitigated below a level of significance through the use of additional
landscaping along the noted embankment and /or the reservoir site perimeter.
Specifically, such landscaping should include vegetation of appropriate density and
height to effectively screen the reservoir surface, but not affect background views of
Newport Bay and Catalina Island. Mitigation measure No. 7 would require the City of
Newport Beach to prepare a detailed landscaping plan as part of the project design to
incorporate the noted concerns (see also Appendix A). It is concluded that the
implementation of this plan would reduce the described potential impacts below a level of
significance.
Views from the East. The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts
to views from single - family homes to the east. These views are associated with homes
located along the eastern boundary of the Pacific View Memorial Park Cemetery site (and
north of the mausoleum structure, see Existing Aesthetic Conditions). Approximately 15
homes in this residential development have unobstructed foreground to middle ground
views of the project site at distances of around 1,000 feet. Potential impacts associated
with these views would be reduced below a level of significance through the use of
screening landscaping. Such landscaping would be located within the reservoir site
and/or the adjacent cemetery property, and would incorporate appropriate location,
density and height parameters to screen the reservoir site but not impair scenic
background views. As noted above for views from the north, recommended Mitigation
Measure No. 7 would require that the City prepare a detailed landscape plan as part of the
project design to incorporate the stated concerns. The implementation of such a plan
would reduce potential aesthetic impacts to the described views below a level of
significance.
No significant aesthetic impacts would be associated with residential development
located further to the east or the Pacific View Memorial View Cemetery site. For
residential development, this conclusion is based on the small number of potential
unobstructed viewers (i.e., approximately 5 to 10) and the substantial intervening distance
to the project site (i.e., 2,000 feet or more). In addition, the above noted landscaping to
be located within the reservoir and/or cemetery sites would likely provide at least partial
screening for these views. No significant visual impacts would be associated with the
adjacent cemetery due to the short-term and intermittent nature of related viewers, as well
K%
0
as the presence of extensive vegetation screening in the highest use areas (e.g., the funeral
chapel). In addition, the landscaping requirements described above for impacts to
residential views from the east would also screen views from intervening portions of the
cemetery.
Mitigation Measures
7. Landscaping Plan
a. The City Utilities Director shall ensure that the plans and
specifications for the project include preparation of a landscaping
plan designed to screen views of the reservoir from adjacent
residences. The landscaping plan shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect in consultation with representatives of the affected
neighborhoods, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Environmental Coordinator prior to commencement of construction.
b. Prior to acceptance of improvements, the Utilities Director shall verify
that all landscaping has been installed according to the approved
plan.
19. Recreation
Proposed project activities and facilities would be limited to the existing reservoir site
and would not impact the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities in the
area.
20. Cultural Resources
All project- related facilities and operations would be located in areas subject to previous
development, with no impacts to prehistoric or historic archaeological resources
(including sites, structures and objects), or unique ethnic cultural values. Project
construction would not significantly impact religious activities at local churches (with no
construction proposed on Sundays), although some effects could occur to funeral services
at the adjacent Pacific View Memorial Park Cemetery. As described in Section 6
(Noise), however, such impacts are not considered to be significant.
40
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1. Based on the above analysis, the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment for issues including air quality, water quality, noise, risk of
accident, transportation, human health and aesthetics. All of these potential
impacts, however, would be reduced below a level of significance by proposed
design requirements and mitigation measures.
2. No long -term environmental goals would be compromised by the proposed
project. As described above in Section 6.0, the proposed project contains a
number of design requirements and mitigation measures that would reduce all
potentially significant impacts below a level of significance. In addition, the
project would result in beneficial long -term effects for several issues including
water quality and insect control.
3. There is a potential for cumulative impacts on water supply from simultaneous
implementation of the Big Canyon Reservoir covering project and the proposed
San Joaquin Reservoir covering project, and visual effects from a potential facility
expansion at the Pacific View Memorial Park Cemetery. In order to avoid
significant cumulative impacts, the City of Newport Beach will coordinate its
construction schedule with the Metropolitan Water District to ensure that water
supplies to the City (via the San Joaquin and/or Big Canyon reservoirs) are not
interrupted. No significant cumulative traffic impacts are anticipated in
association with the San Joaquin Reservoir project, due to the fact that associated
construction activities (if operating concurrently with those for the proposed
project) would utilize different access routes. In addition, potential facility
expansion at the Pacific View Memorial Park Cemetery could cumulatively affect
views from a number of local homes. Potential impacts of that project will be
assessed at the time a proposal is submitted to the City.
4. Assuming implementation of the described design requirements and mitigation
measures, no substantial direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings would
be expected.
41
0
7.0
California Department of Health Services (CDHS)
0
1994 Letter from Franklin T. Hamamura, CDHS District Engineer, to Jeff
Staneart, City of Newport Beach Utilities Director, regarding system No,
3010023 annual inspection, January 24.
El Toro Water District
1994 Personal communication with Bob Hill, El Toro Reservoir Engineer,
January 5.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan)
1992 Revised Draft EIR for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project,
Metropolitan Report No. 1017, June.
Pacific View Memorial Park Cemetery
1994 Personal communication with William Bowers, General Manager,
January 20.
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region
1994 Personal communication with Pavlova Vitale, Environmental Specialist,
January 4.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April (Amended through November, 1993).
42
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Newport Beach
John H. Douglas, AICP - Environmental Coordinator
Michael J. Sinacori, P.E. - Deputy Utilities Director
HELIX Environmental Planning. Inc.
David W. Claycomb, AICP - President
Tamara S. Ching - Senior Environmental Planner
Dennis R. Marcin - Environmental Specialist
CI]
9.0 LIST OF CONTACTS
City of Newport Beach
Jeff Staneart - Director, Utilities Department
Michael Sinacori - Deputy Director, Utilities Department
John Douglas - Principal Planner, Planning Department
Ron McLure - Utilities Supervisor
George Murdoch - Operator, Big Canyon Water Treatment Plant
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Tom Ryan - Environmental Specialist
Jack Safely - Engineer
El Toro Water District
Bob Hill - Engineer
Boyle Engineering Corporation
Robert Carley - Principal Engineer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Santa Ana Region
Pavlova Vitale - Environmental Specialist
Pacific View Memorial Park Cemetery
Bill Bowers - General Manager
Harbor Day School
Janet Starzyk - Secretary
Lincoln Elementaa School
Bruce Crockard - Principal
Robert Marley - Pastor
City of Poway Water Treatment Plant
Dan Harrison - Plant Supervisor
M
0 0
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING MINUTES
APPENDIX A
Public Scoping Meeting Minutes
The City of Newport Beach held a public scoping meeting for the Big Canyon Reservoir
Covering Project on Thursday, January 27, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. Public notices of the
meeting were mailed to approximately 250 property owners located within 1,000 feet of
the reservoir property.
The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and was attended by three people.
three additional property owners contacted the City by telephone to express their
concerns, although they were unable to attend the meeting. In order to provide these
residents with an opportunity to learn about the project and voice their concerns, City
staff met with four individuals representing three homes located adjacent to the reservoir
property on the morning of February 10, 1994.
The following is a summary of the comments received during the two meetings described
above. Where appropriate, these comments have been addressed in the environmental
analysis in Section 6.0 of this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment.
Comment,No.1: The City should address the effect of the reservoir covering project on
adjacent property values.
Comment No. 2: The City should look into ways of making the reservoir cover more
attractive, such as painting it with a mural.
Comment No. 3: Two residents indicated that they would not like to see painted designs
or murals on the reservoir cover.
Comment No. 4: Some of the existing trees in the cemetery already help to screen the
reservoir from viewers located to the east. Perhaps more trees could be planted around
the reservoir.
Comment No. 5: For the homes located north of the reservoir, the City should plant
trees adjacent to their rear yards to screen the reservoir from view, but should not block
the more distant view of the City or Catalina Island. The City could either use
landscaping that would stop growing at the appropriate height or could keep the
landscaping trimmed to the correct height.
Comment No. 6: Will there be any water floating on the cover after a rain?
Comment No. 7: The cost - effectiveness of the cover should be an important
consideration.
Comment No. 8: The view of the reservoir at night is pretty with the moon reflecting on
the water.
Comment No. 9: Bugs are a problem in the summer.
Comment No. 10: The water in the reservoir is attractive, the side slopes are ugly.
Comment No. 11: How well does the hypalon cover hold up over time and what are the
maintenance requirements?
Comment No. 12: Drainage channels on the reservoir cover would break up the
monotony of the view over time.
Comment No. 13: The City has done a good job with decorative walls and landscaping
in other areas.
Comment No. 14: Can the concrete footings be the same color as the reservoir cover?
Comment No. 15: Can the landscaping along the north side of the reservoir site be
placed on City property (rather than private property) to avoid maintenance requirements
for the homeowners' association?
Comment No. 16: Can adjacent homeowners be involved in the preparation of the
project landscape plan?
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
• EXHIBIT B •
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Big Canyon Reservoir Covering Project
I. OVERVIEW
This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources
Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to
be followed by the City and its contractors to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted
as part of this project will be carried out. The attached table summarizes the adopted
mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project.
H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which
is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes,
ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or
during construction and verified by plan check and /or inspection; and (3) through
monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring
procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below.
A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design.
Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the
official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent actions and
approvals (e.g., approval of plans and specifications, award of a construction
contract), the file will be checked to verify that the proposed action is in confor-
mance with the approved project description. 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 actions and approvals, the file will be checked to verify that the
proposed action is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies,
standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction
conforms to all 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 conduct periodic reviews or inspections as required by the
adopted monitoring program.
F,\ ... \U-nL\B1G-CYN\MM-00VFR.
C
y
O..
y
a E
O d
Z e
O
z
¢a
a=
z
O
i
Z
O
a
E
E
s
a
.s
s
W
'C
>
C
d
a_
e.
0
m
e p
Ee
F>
0
0
og
r �
_
0
c
E
E
n
V
4
4'
O
_o
O u
m
o L
L o
°zm
a $ v
0
u
K `o
o y
o "
e
a
m
o: c L Q m i$ °c � ° 8= = E 8 q
u� RiS �W�o mm pmr3� �L"C
u e 2 v a c
E C v fi m�
& � A- m CY 3 > e' 2S.
4
U = ss
y a �
3 m $ a a
v
a
\
}
|
k�
,Z
A�
.�
}
\)
§\
§/
2
§
§
,
2
ƒ
$
>
ƒ
a
f
■2!
§k7
j)
z=
\
§
�
�
t
B
�$
§/
!#
§!, ;■! 22�
:!!Ro.8 �|i k7;
kii !2)
22��1M!!2!�] |01
�k� \��!\�!!2 7&f�
( }kk.mo
)
�
B
\
\
!
)�
§%
§}
$J
§{§!
;
§
§
,
\
)
■
|
■
�
/)
w!
,■
±
�
#
�
Z
Pa
$
■® %
)! k
./
|, |�
k§ �§
t«t -6 EE E
�
-
j 2
-
kk!#, &I |a
�
� §
£
£§
2
e$k
|\
{Ikk
,!■!!!�§
0 bb
�{a
./
|, |�
k§ �§
t«t -6 EE E
�
�
�-
kk!#, &I |a
�
ik
£
£§
./
|, |�
k§ �§
t«t -6 EE E
!2992,,!
- $i) %`0
!&3 §� -!■
kk!#, &I |a
\ | \M =CY
|!k!t!§`
{Ikk
,!■!!!�§
0 bb
�{a
;«!Al2k§
!! | § -k��■
�k)2|!!2
E
!!�E ,
J5§
f
, ;,l�ial77
'i Ili
2
\ �
$,
2a
o�
[f.
2!�
m$
$|�
§{�
R!'
Z
(
§
,
(
k
_
ƒ
ƒ
!)
�>
jk
*_
§
�
�
Z
)
!
/
le
-f2E-
2 | |(��
0efm$!
,a,E
|!-
k \ / \ \\
0
2 !
]
!{ !\ }
§
-!
0i{
Cc
! f ■ q;£ ■ -° § | ,
k±f k
) ,0u k � ■ #f � -+ ( !!
�O` ` kƒ k {�k 01 )k v � ` )k ))
0 � !/ a§ a] )| !k ![ !)
_ - ■!�
a ;lid ; ■!; a !; 2 « = c
; w -
;
(.
-f2E-
2 | |(��
0efm$!
,a,E
|!-
k \ / \ \\
0
2 !
]
!{ !\ }
§
-!
0i{
Cc
! f ■ q;£ ■ -° § | ,
k±f k
) ,0u k � ■ #f � -+ ( !!
�O` ` kƒ k {�k 01 )k v � ` )k ))
0 � !/ a§ a] )| !k ![ !)
_ - ■!�
a ;lid ; ■!; a !; 2 « = c
; w -
;
Attachment B
�l1 MWa
METROPOLITAN WATER OISTR/CT OF SOUTHERN CAl /FORMA
Office of The General Mnnagor BAY 10
Mr. John H. Douglas
City of Newport Reach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768
Dear Mr. Douglas:
Negative Declaration for the
Bia Canvon Reservoir Covering Protect
we have received the proposed Negative Declaration and
initial study for the Big Canyon Reservoir Covering Project. In
order to meet current and future water quality standards, the
project proponent proposes to construct a floating reservoir
cover for the Big Canyon Reservoir and convert its existing
chlorination treatment process to a chloramination process. The
comments herein represent the Metropolitan Water District's
(Metropolitan) response as a potentially affected public agency.
Metropolitan has reviewed the Negative Declaration and
Initial Study and has some concerns regarding the proposed
project's timing of outage and how it would affect our system
operations and peaking at the San Joaquin Reservoir. The
Negative Declaration and Initial S-do not address any
potential impacts to Metropolitan's reservoir with respect to
these issues. It will be necessary to coordinate with Mr. Eddie
Rigdon at (714) 528-7231 to discuss these issues further.
Metropolitan supports the proposed project's goal of
meeting water quality standards. we appreciate the opportunity
to provide input to your planning process. If we can be of
further assistance,-please contact me at (213) 217 -6272.
Very truly yours,
athleen M. Kunyst
Manager, Environmental Affairs
AMR: 1 ed/ s: \wraaha cakmaWeCM
350 SOLdi Grand Avewe, Los Angeles, California 90071 a Mailing address: 8aac 54153, Las Angeles, Catifamia 40054.9153 • Telephone (213) 217-M