Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3270(B) - Amendment No. 1; PSA for Geotechnical Construction Monitoring Services for Bonita Canyon Sports ParkSTOP NOTICE RECEIVED LEGAL NOTICE TO WITHHOLD CONSTRUCTION FUNDS'01 NOY —5 A 9 :02 (Public or Private Work) (Per California Civil Code Section 3103) E :, Cttr,c To: C I -+U O+ KllewPDe2 T aepvc_ `INan1e of owner. pbhbc Doily o' edn5lme ➢on IerM lrold¢q 3 Eu�pD z7 t3L r>• (Addi¢SS 11 du ¢qed loadank nr sdvmpS dnd loan assn use address al pranc t111014inq lunUj X'S alaL aNd dpi Project 1iatfiL�p�{7bY�S�- INamei r- , 11 IFd11g5S1 ;G§ ea;aam nu% TAKE NOTICE THAT t`iq U ! l 19 t--,Al (-:7) IJ I rU(�_ ! Name of the 11,111 or hrm MINIM the Slop n01e LdeFped eml +ac:dre must ose Re'ldrne undel rnlfl' ca:naGa s ll[ense 1, lcued;. whose address is ze-11 L. aoizo"np 5t pt g2,�0(o-A504 ;krlpss di pe6W n•hw c4urvru)S1p hoom has performed )aborand furnished materials for a work of improvement described as follows: �7ylia l.klO�7717D�i5 �f12( i."mme anE Incaapn of ine '1ro1ecl wnne wax veers *n.usnem The labor and materials furnished by claimant are of the following general kind: W EF f (,t7i i !V ST Ill-L L117 1 6 :Nlod Ol)d. rser "", eompmeni. or rnarenals!wrnsnedmaWeeAtn be fwwsAeO Ay claumnrr ) Total value of the whole amount of labor and materials agreed to be furnished is. .. .. ... .. The value of the labor and materials furnished to date Is .. ... ........ ..............._. .... ....... ........ ...... ..__.._____..__._ 5 4S ?1 S3 I Claimant has been paid the sum of ...... .... ....... ...... ................ ......... S S 9-3 and there is due. owing and unpaid the sum oC .... ....... ........ .... ....... .... ...... ....... _.... .._..................... ... .... S �Fl ! �0 • — You are required to set aside sufficient funds to satisfy this claim with interest. court costs and reasonable costs of litigation, as provided by law. You are also notified that claimant claims an equitable lien against any construction funds for this project which are in your hands Date ) t Copies Sent To., ❑ Mayor O Council Member ❑ Manager Attor ey. El FIRM NAME M VERIFICATION N"Iof . il.i. - r'rrai Teen r ✓re.;:m vMAy nle..' I say. I am the A• e- r Pzliy,S i Ji,✓r.L--r In the loregoing Slop Notice. I have read said Stop Notice and know the contents [hereok the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the loregoing Is true and correct Executed on ld l3 i, .,+1420. at ,one n15 ueedne r.+d =. vpl•ndl 111d1Y1d1.a11Do IS SIDRamla Il 11 e 01 Slrlp nollre "1 11:1¢1 California. REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF ELECTION (Private Works Only) (Per California Civil Code Section 3159. 3161. or 3162) It an election is made not to withhold funds pursuant to this stop notice by reason of a payment bond having been recorded in accordance with Sections 3235 or 3162. please send notice of such election and a copy of the bond within 30 days of such electron in the enclosed preaddressed stamped envelope. This information must be provided by you under Civil Cade Sections 3159. 3161. or 3162. Signed: IClalnlanl 11119..lop.. Soll_dddreise,(151d ' nVPd 2:1Y¢I011ei See reverse side for additional information. VVOLCOT IS I OFM 894. 5 TOP NOTICE —flex 590 Ipnce pass 31 Felule you us¢N1ls form read 11. [in ,n all hlank6 ano mdce w0ateve: vov lees n9 appdsd1e am! neie55ary In Veen lea"'Celal tp90'b'OLCOTi4 ^dl; Ilansaclon' Cansol a lawyer d you dou01 Ilse farms hhesS lof your OuIVOSe eno Use Nee oeS makes nn ninh5enla1on nr wartime, enphS,i nr nnplred . vQ Insl to if a nlefcha0llolle, Or fllnes5 Of 1h15 ire nl ([If an fnlerlded use of Inflow 0 0 0 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council -3a�a3 March 14, 2000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITrZM NO 13 ... FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK, CONTRACT NO. 3270 - APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVAL RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the plans and specifications 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids for the construction of the project. 3. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION: On May 24, 1999, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with EPT Landscape Architects for the preparation of plans and specifications for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Key staff members from the Community Services, General Services, Utilities Division, Building, and Public Works departments met regularly with EPT to review the progress of the project and provide input to the consultant on design plans and specifications. The Community Services and Public Works staff met several times with representatives from the community. PROJECT COST: EPT requested preliminary cost estimates from contractors they have worked with in the past. The following summarizes their current estimated construction costs based on input from the contractors: Base Bid (Including Freeway Reservation Trail area) $5,973,000 Additional Bid Items West Park Tot Lot 60,000 West Park Tennis Courts 65,000 West Park Basketball Court 44,000 Mid Park Restroom Facilities 296,000 Total Project Estimated Construction Cost $6,438,000 • SUBJECT: BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK —CONTRACT NO. 3270 — APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVAL March 14, 2000 Page 2 These construction cost estimates do not include necessary construction support services. The Public Works Inspection /Engineering staff will perform construction management for the project. (Initially, it was anticipated outside construction management would be necessary for a park of this magnitude). General Services and Utilities staff will also assist in the inspection needs. Outside specialty services for geotechnical testing are required and are estimated to be $50,000. The property was found to be an archaeological active site and a Native American representative will be required on -site during all mass grading operations. The representative's costs are yet to be determined. PROJECT SCHEDULE A five -week bid period has been provided with the bid opening scheduled for April 27th This will allow the contractors adequate time to prepare their bids in the most competitive manner. Assuming good bids are received, an Award of Contract can be considered at the May 16`" Council meeting. The project construction will last from June 2000 until May 2001, at which time all the plant materials and turf will have been planted. Depending on the late spring and summer growing period, field use could begin as early as the fall of 2001. FUNDING The bond proceeds from the Irvine Company development of the Bonita Village (given to the City for the development of the park), increased from the original $3.2 Million to $5.9 million. In addition, Council has approved $60,000 for the area formerly known as Freeway Reservation Park, which is now the open space area south of the West Park. Council also approved two separate grant applications for Federal and State environmental enhancement funds. The State application was not approved, and the Federal grant is still pending. Portions of the Freeway Reservation funds were used to hydroseed the MacArthur berm slopes and will be providing the necessary erosion control for this winter season. Based on the existing funding, Staff anticipates the City will only be able to afford the base bid without any additional alternatives. The following is a summary of the current available funds. Account Number 7441- C4120434 7014- C5300035 Account Description Bonita Canyon Sports Park Freeway Reservation Park Amount $5,909,000 $48,000 Total: $5,957,000 9 11 1] 0 • SUBJECT: BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK —CONTRACT NO. 3270 —APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVAL March 14, 2000 Page 3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: In accordance 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 only area of concern identified in the initial study was potential impacts in the area of cultural resources. No other impacts were identified which require further analysis or mitigation. A complete discussion of these issues is contained in the initial study. CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS: The project area has been identified to have cultural or archeological resources located on the site. This area has been mitigated by the Irvine Company as part of he Bonita Village development. However, a requirement for our park project will be to have a Paleontologist on -site during excavations and grading. In addition, a registered Archeologist will be required during the entire project. If cultural or archeological resources are discovered, no further grading will occur in the area until adequate provisions are in place to protect the resources. On December 21, 1999, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and public notification was distributed to the residences within 500 feet of the proposed project site. The City has received three formal letters from residents. Two letters were accompanied by additional letters or signatures of support. (See attached letters). West Park Resident Concerns West Park Resident concerns were communicated to the City through their Board of Directors. Input was provided regarding the heights of the berms along MacArthur and the elevation of the playing fields relative to backyards. Based on the resident input, the soccer fields were lowered and the berms were raised. This modification satisfied resident concerns. (Formal response attached). Port Cardiff Concerns Port Cardiff residents raised concerns relating to sports -field lighting, potential traffic signals, excess sports fields, parking, and overall park impacts to the neighborhood. After providing assurances that there will be no night - lighted fields and an explanation of efforts made to involve the community in the planning process of the park, Port Cardiff residents seemed to be satisfied. (Formal response attached). 11 0 0 SUBJECT: BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK —CONTRACT NO. 3270 — APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVAL March 14, 2000 Page 4 Port Sheffield Concerns Port Sheffield residents contacted the City regarding parking and noise impacts. They were concerned that park users would be allowed to park along the southerly side of Ford Road, adjacent to the rear of their residences. Ford Road is an arterial road and parking will only be allowed in selected areas - west of Mesa View, on the park side of Ford Road. This would be accomplished by restriping the road to a single lane traveling west on Ford Road, west of Mesa View. Parking restrictions will be reviewed in more detail as the park nears completion. The main parking lot on the East Park is sized to handle both the east and west fields. With the assurance that no parking restrictions would remain in force on the Harbor View side of Ford, the Port Sheffield residents were satisfied. Based on the above described Initial Study and comments received from the public, Staff recommends the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Attached). Respectfully submitted, 696 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director By: Micha . Sinaco , P.E. Utilities Engineer Attachments: Mitigated Negative Declaration Letter from Mark Zucker, President Harbor View Homes Association (West Park residents) Letter from Martin Natland (Port Cardiff residents) Letter from Jon P. Martino (Port Sheffield residents) Formal response to Mark Zucker Formal response to Martin Natland F:\ Users \PBW\Shared\ COUNCIL \Fy99 -00 \March -14 \Bonita Canyon C- 3270.doc 0 14 AfY OF NEWPORT BEACK Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 ,yt}G Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3311 � tie NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Sl ❑ Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review period: P. {a 7 WY L. �y <y�/y/�U; L!m. ?i. + + :vl�`G: DcPUTt From: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: December 21, 1999 to January 21, 2000 Name of Project: Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project Project Description: The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project. The proposed park will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon Communities. The park is divided into an eastern and western portion. Bonita Canyon Park East is located north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road, between Prairie Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Improvements will include three (3) youth baseball fields, one (1) multi - purpose baseball /soccer field, three (3) youth soccer fields, a 101 101, pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas, restroom and equipment storage facilities, on -site parking for 240 vehicles, and open space with undulating earth berms. Bonita Canyon Park West is located at the southeast intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is located adjacent to and runs parallel to MacArthur Boulevard, south of its intersection with Bonita Canyon Road. Improvements will include three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot, picnic areas, pedestrian walking trails, a basketball court, two (2) tennis courts, restroom and equipment storage facilities, and on -site parking for 115 vehicles. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is ® attached ❑ on rile at the Public Works Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision - maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these pacts. 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 this document. If you havc e an questions o ould like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3311. December 21, 1999 M' ael Sinacori P. . Public Works Department Date: Ll 0 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the adoption of a Negative Declaration for Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project on property located at the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canvon Road. The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project. The proposed park will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon Communities. The park is divided into an eastern and western portion. Bonita Canyon Park East is located north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road, between Prairie Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Improvements will include three (3) youth baseball fields, one (1) multi - purpose baseball/soccer field, three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot, pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas, restroom and equipment storage facilities, on -site parking for 240 vehicles, and open space with undulating earth berms. Bonita Canyon Park West is located at the southeast intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is located adjacent to and runs parallel to MacArthur Boulevard, south of its intersection with Bonita Canyon Road. Improvements will include three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot, picnic areas, pedestrian walking trails, a basketball court, two (2) tennis courts, restroom and equipment storage facilities, and on -site parking for 115 vehicles. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration . has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the applications noted above. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development as proposed, and with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 -day public review period is December 21, 1999 to January 21, 2000. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Public Works Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659 -1768 (949) 644 -3311. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council will consider adoption of the Negative Declaration on the 8th day of February, 2000, at the hour of 7_00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3311. • 0 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF INTENT Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title: Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project File No. Location: Southeast corner of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Road DivisionfDepartment Responsible for Proposed Project: Public Works Department Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person: Michael J. Sinacori Telephone: (949) 644 -3342 • Description: The project property is located in the City of Newport Beach, in southern Orange County. The site is situated inland from coastal Newport Beach, less than one mile south of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. (Reference Exhibit A). The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project. The proposed park will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon Communities. The park is divided into an eastern and western portion. Bonita Canyon Park East will run parallel and south of Bonita Canyon Road. Prairie Road fronts the park to the east and MacArthur Boulevard to the west. Improvements will include three (3) youth baseball fields, one (1) multi - purpose baseball/soccer field, three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot, pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas, restroom and equipment storage facilities, on -site parking for 240 vehicles, and open space with undulating earth berms. (Reference Exhibit B). Bonita Canyon Park West will be located along the eastern frontage of MacArthur Boulevard, from its southeast intersection with Bonita Canyon Road, to a point approximately to 440 feet to the south. Improvements will include three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot, picnic areas, pedestrian walking trails, a basketball court, two (2) tennis courts, restroom and equipment storage facilities, and on -site parking for 115 • vehicles. (Reference Exhibit Q. 0 • II. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND COMMENT PERIOD • • 0 The public review and comment period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is from December 21, 1999 through January 21, 2000. Lead Agency must receive all written comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration by 5:00 p.m. on January 21, 2000. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and all supporting references and technical studies are on file and may be reviewed in the office listed above. The decision- making body will review this document and other sources of information before considering the proposed project. III. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY NOTICE The project site is not listed on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code regarding the presence of hazardous materials and /or related contamination. Date: December 21. 1999 Page 2 0 0 BON ITA CANYON PARK - EXHIBIT A as F- S W • • • • d a� 3: y, s � _ C z H C O 3 wz Z nO �F w G F r+/ 1L v J W r ^r1 vLJ �L I� U) z 0 z v z 0 VAMb rn z m w O z i- I v v 0 'u V 75 • U P� rr 2 X W • E lJ I ��t \-71 UNoe i .: 2 V Q W n F G O c. 3 C' W OZ n G u� G V tz] C 5 G F v� FN�S/ FBI I� H W d H z O U 0 P P P 5 W O Z U O U u a cq H 0. S W • • • • .ROA'� P�iAiE - o i r v 0 � , a 1; u r f 2 u Q y 3 ;• Z 04 �O u� C QU C a a w n I/ H Un W I O� s� V �U H � z� o� • • K-1 0 VJJNOe :r U O oz wr CF CZ vLLJ z>-4 • Q 0 F-4 fG n5 V U� 7� 0 • • 0 0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the proposed BONITA CANYON PARK FACILITY PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Lead Agency The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Applicant The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared by: David Bartlett Associates 6082 Jade Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92674 December 21, 1999 0 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Bonita Canyon Park 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768, 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael J. Sinacori, P.E., (949) 644 -3342 or Dave Bartlett, Project Consultant (714) 898 -0600 4. Project Location: Bonita Canyon Park East is located on parcels of land north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road between Prairie Road and MacArthur Boulevard; Bonita Canyon Park West is located adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard south of Bonita Canyon Road, Newport Beach, CA • �. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach ( Public Works Department P.O. Box 1768 9 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Michael J. Sinacori, P.E., u 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Detached Single Family Attached/Recreational Environmental Open Space Governmental Educational Institution Facilities 7. Zoning: PC 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project property is located in the City of Newport Beach, in southern Orange County. The site is situated inland from coastal Newport Beach, less than one mile south of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), at the southeast Negative Declaralton for 16e Proposed Bonita Canyon Perk Facility Project Page_' Pi r 1 U L 0 0 corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. (Reference Exhibit A). The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project. The proposed park will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon Communities. The park is divided into an eastern and western portion. Bonita Canyon Park West is located adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Park East is located north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road. Both park parcels combine to provide the City of Newport Beach a dynamic and innovative passive and active recreational feature. The park program for Bonita Canyon Park East includes the following: (a) Three 200 -foot youth baseball fields (b) One multi - purpose baseball /soccer field (c) Three youth soccer fields (d) Two restroom and equipment storage facilities (e) Parking on the site for 240 vehicles (f) Tot lot (g) Pedestrian walking trails (h) Green open spaces with earth berms (i) Picnic area The park program for Bonita Canyon Park West includes the following: (a) Three youth soccer fields (b) Restroom equipment and storage facilities (c) Tot lot (d) Picnic area (e) Pedestrian walking trails (f) Parking for 115 vehicles (g) Basketball court (h) Two tennis courts 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The project properties are located in an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach, in southern Orange County. The site is situated inland from coastal Newport Beach, less than one mile south of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. (Reference Exhibit A). Bonita Canyon Park East is located north of Ford Road and south of Bonita Canyon Road, between Prairie Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Surrounding land uses include Bonita Canyon Road, single - family residences, and the Church of Latter - Day saints to the north. Ford Road and single - family residences are located to the Mega ire Declaration for die Proposed Bonin Canjon Park Facdai Project Page 3 • • south. The existing Pacific Bell Office Building and the proposed site for Bonita • Canyon Park west are located to the west. A vacant parcel that is proposed for a future church and child day center is located to the east. (Reference Exhibit B). • • Bonita Canyon Park West is located at the southeast intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is located adjacent to and runs parallel to MacArthur Boulevard, south of its intersection with Bonita Canyon Road. Surrounding land uses include MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Bonita Canyon Road and the existing Pacific Bell Office Building to the north, and single - family residences and open space to the south. Single - family residences and the proposed site for Bonita Canyon Park East are located to the east. (Reference Exhibit Q. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., pennits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) No other public agencies are involved with the project. Neyarire Declaration for the P,rpo ed Bonita Conran Park Foeilin P,(, /err Page 4 BON ITA CANYON PARK - EXHIBIT A • 0 CJ ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems Resources ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral ❑ Hazards ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Negalive Declaration for the Proposed Bonita Canyon ParA Facility Project Page 5 ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation 9 • • DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: fo I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ -"111L Mi ael J.Sinacoi5 P.E. J_ Prepared by: (Signature) Negative Declaration for the Proposed Hoehn Caaj on Park Facda) Project Page 6 tZ -2.t -Ott', Date - Date • • • • r Environmental Checklist Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated L LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( 4 ) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( 1, 5, 7 ) C) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 4, 6 ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( 4, 6 ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low - income or minority community)? (4,5,6) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( 4, 6 ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( 4 ) Less than No Significant Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Nega(Ae Declararion for the Proposed Bonito Cam on Park fncilitY Projecr Pnge 7 • i Potentially Potentially Less than No • Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated IL POPULATION AND HOUSING (cont.) C) Displace existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ especially affordable housing? ( 4 ) III. GEOLOGIC Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1, 3, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Seismic ground shaking? (1, 3, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ C) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ liquefaction? ( 1, 3, 8 ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ hazard? ( 1,3 ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( 1, 3) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( 1, 3 ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( 1, 3) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ h) Expansive soils? ( 1, 3 ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ i) Unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ features? ( 1, 3 ) IV. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( 3 ) • Negative Declaration for the Proposed Bonita Carryon Park Faciliq Project Page 8 0 FI Potentially Significant Impact IV. WATER (cont.) b) Exposure of people or property to ❑ water related hazards such as flooding? ( 1, 3 ) C) Discharge into surface waters or ❑ other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( 1,.3 ) d) Changes in the amount of surface ❑ water in any water body? ( 1, 3 ) e) Changes in currents, or the course ❑ or direction of water movements? (1,3) f) Change in the quantity of ground ❑ waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( 1, 3 ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ groundwater? ( 1, 3 ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ (1,3) i) Substantial reduction in the ❑ amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( 1, 3 ) 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated P ■❑ F El t C Negative Declaration for the Proposed Boaaa Canyon Park Facility Project Page 9 Less than No Significant Impact Impact ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ • Negative Declaration for the Proposed Bonita Canon Park Facility Project Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than \o Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (3,7) b) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ pollutants? ( 3, 7 ) C) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ temperature, or cause any change in climate ?( 3, 7 ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( 3) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ • VL TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ congestion? ( 3, 4, 5 ) b) Hazards to safety from design ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? ( 3, 4, 5 ) C) Inadequate emergency access or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ access to nearby uses? ( 3, 5 ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ site or off -site? ( 3, 5 ) • Negative Declaration for the Proposed Bonita Canon Park Facility Project Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VI. TRANS PORTATIONICIRCULATION (cont.) C) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or bicyclists? ( 3, 5 ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( 3, 5 ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ impacts? ( 3, 5 ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in impacts to: • a) Endangered, threatened or rare ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,6) b) Locally designated species ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ (e.g. heritage trees)? ( 1, 6 ) C) Locally designated natural ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( 1, 6 ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ riparian and vernal pool)? (1,6) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ corridors? ( 1, 6 ) Negative Declaration for the Proposed Bonita Canroa Park Facility Projeet Page I 1 • Cl Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact • fmpact Unless Impact N9itigation Incorporated VHI. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ conservation plans? ( 3, 4, 5 ) b) Use non - renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ wasteful and inefficient manner? (3,4,5) C) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? ( 1, 3, 4, 5 ) IX. HAZARDS Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( 3 ) b) Possible interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (3) C) The creation of any health hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or potential health hazard? ( 3 ) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ sources of potential health hazards? ( 3 ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ flammable brush, grass, or trees ?( 3 ) • Negative Proposed Bonila Dee(aralio,i for the Canon Park Facilir) ' Projccr Page 12 • • • • Potentially Significant Impact X. NOISE ❑ ■ Would the proposal result in: ■ a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ (3,4,5) b) Exposure of people to severe ❑ noise levels? ( 3, 4, 5 ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered - ovemmcnt services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( 3, 5 ) ❑ b) Police protection? ( 3, 5) ❑ C) Schools? ( 4, 5 ) ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ including roads? ( 3, 4, 5 ) e) Other governmental services? ❑ (3,4,5) XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? ( 1, 4, 5) ❑ b) Communications systems? ( 1, 4, 5) ❑ Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ■❑ L ■1 ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ■❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ Negative Declaration for dte Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project Page 13 l J • XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS (cont.) R Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Local or regional water treatment ❑ or distribution facilities? ( 1, 4, 5 ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 1, 4, 5 ) ❑ e) Storm water drainage? ( I, 4, 5 ) ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? ( 4, 5 ) ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ (4,5) XIII. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: • a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ highway? ( 1,4, 5 ) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ aesthetic effect? ( 1, 4, 5 ) C) Create light or glare? ( 4, 5) ❑ d) Affect a coastal bluff? ( 4, 5) ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological ❑ resources? ( 1, 5 ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ (1,5) C) Affect historical resources? ❑ (1.5) n U Negative Declaration jor the Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project Page 14 ❑ ■ ❑ a ❑ ■ Negative Declaration jor the Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project Page 14 ❑ ■ ❑ a ❑ ■ Negative Declaration jor the Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project Page 14 J E 11 r XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( 1, 5 ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( 1, 5 ) XV. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( 4, 5 ) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ opportunities? ( 4, 5 ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE A) Does the project have the ❑ ❑ potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? Negoloe Declaration for the Proposed Bonito Can von Park Focility Project Page 15 Less than No Significant Impact Impact ❑ ■ • • Potentially Potentially Less than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (cont.) B) Does the project have the potential ❑ to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? C) Does the project have impacts ❑ that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and effects of probable future projects.) D) Does the project have environmental ❑ effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIL EARLIER ANALYSES. ❑ ❑ No Impact ■ 0 L Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Negatiee Declaration for the Proposed Bonita Can) on Park Facility Project Page 10 • • E 0 C) Mitigation measures. For effects that arc "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. Negative Declaration c, the Proposed Bonita Camon Park Facility Project Page 17 ! -- • 0 0 SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Background /Project Location The project property is located in the City of Newport Beach, in southern Orange County. The site is situated inland from coastal Newport Beach, less than one mile south of (lie San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), at the southeast comer of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. (Reference Exhibit A). As noted previously, The project proposes development of the Bonita Canyon Parks East and West. The proposed parks will be located adjacent to the Harbor View and Bonita Canyon Communities. The parks are divided into an eastern and western portion. Bonita Canyon Park East will run parallel and south of Bonita Canyon Road. Prairie Road fronts the Park East site to the east and MacArthur Boulevard to the west. Bonita Canyon Park East will include three (3) youth baseball fields, one (1) multi- purpose baseball /soccer field, three (3) youth soccer fields, a tot lot, pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas, restroom and equipment storage facilities, on -site parking for 240 vehicles, and open space with undulating berms. (Reference Exhibit B). Bonita Canyon Park West wilt be located along the eastern frontage of MacArthur Boulevard, from its southeast intersection with Bonita Canyon Road, to a point approximately to 440 feet to the south. Improvements to Bonita Canyon Park West will include three (3) youth soccer fields, a small skateboard course, a tot lot, picnic areas, pedestrian walking trails, a basketball court, two (2) tennis courts, restroom and equipment storage facilities, and on -site parking for 115 vehicles. (Reference Exhibit Q. ;C'egaI wc Declarafioa for the hf po.sed Honim Canrno ParA Facilln Project Page 18 • 0 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Identification of Environmental Effects The following analysis reflects the findings contained in the preceding Environmental Checklist. Land Use and Planning a) Would the proposal conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project site is surrounded by an established residential neighborhood. The Newport General Plan has designated the Bonita Canyon Park East project area between Mesa View Road and Prairie Road as Governmental Educational Institution Facilities. The proposed Bonita Canyon Park East project site that runs cast and west between Bonita Canyon Road and Ford Road, between Mesa Road to the east and the proposed Bonita Canyon Park West site to the west, has a Single- Family Attached and Recreational Environmental Open Space designation. Bonita Canyon Park West which will be located along the eastern frontage of MacArthur Boulevard, from its southeast intersection with Bonita Canyon Road, to a point approximately to 440 feet to the south, has a Single Family Detached designation within the General Plan. • The zoning designation for the entire subject property is Planned Community District. The proposed project and related improvements do not conflict with either the adopted land use designations or zoning in that the community park facility will be integrally related to the population and surrounding uses it is intended to serve. b) Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact: The site is located within the South Coast Air Basin under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The contractor selected to undertake the sewer facilities improvements will comply with the AQMD's regional air quality planning goals and with specific regulations of the 1994 Air Quality Management Plan that apply to such construction projects. under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that the project site obtain coverage under the City's General Construction Pen-nit for stormwater discharge. No other agencies have jurisdiction over the project; therefore, no policy impacts will result. C) Would the proposal be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? No Impact: The land in question is designated open space within an established • community. As indicate in (la) above, the neighborhood surrounding the project Nvg,,wh r Declaralion (or the Proposed Ronita Canyon Park Foc it, t. Project Page 19 • 0 0 is comprised of residential development that will ultimately benefit project implementation. During construction improvement, however, the residents in the affected neighborhood will be subject to short-term, construction related effects increases in noise and air quality, construction - related traffic, etc.); these impacts are short -term in duration and considered nuisances rather than significant impacts associated with land use compatibility. d) Would the proposal affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? No Impact: The proposed project area is located in an developed area. No agricultural activities exist on the project site. Project implementation will not affect either agricultural resources or operations. e) would the proposal disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? No Impact: The project site is designated open space within an established community. The project will not change the physical arrangement of the community, but rather result in the replacement of a portion of a passive open space area with an active recreational area. There is no possibility that the project could disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. II. Population and Housing a) Would the proposal cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact: The proposed project is a park. It does not include any element that would increase employment or housing in the area and thus increase the population of the area. b) Would the proposal induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? No Impact: The project is an active community park facility designed to serve the existing population. It would not induce growth in the area. C) Would the proposal displace existing housing especially affordable housing? No Impact: The project site is designated "Open Space" in the General Plan and is currently vacant. There is no existing housing on the site and none is planned for the site. None of the related construction activities for the park will result in the displacement of existing housing, including affordable housing. Ncgntfn'e Declaration for the Proposed Unuitu (onion Park Facility Project Page 20 [I1. Geophysical a) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture? No Impact: According to the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, the only active fault zone to occur within the City limits is the Newport Inglewood structural zone. Although surface fauhing does not appear to be a potential hazard within the areas where the improvements are proposed, the Newport- Inglewood structural zone is seismically active and is capable of producing a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. It is not likely that the proposed park improvements will be adversely affected as a result of fault rupture. No significant impacts are anticipated. h) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? No Impact: As noted previously, the site is proposed an active recreational area and related facilities. The project site is located within the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone and would, therefore, be subject to the seismic shaking effects of activity along that zone. The Public Safety Element categorizes the project area as one of moderate ground shaking potential (i.e., Category 3) and unadvisable for the location of critical facilities. The proposed active recreation park area and related facilities are not critical facilities but will be designed in accordance with applicable criteria and standards for such facilities. c) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact: Although the area is subject to potential moderate ground shaking from earthquakes occurring with region, the potential impacts associated with ground shaking are considered less than significant. The General Plan does not identify any ground shaking or liquefaction potential for the site. No geologic, seismic or flooding constraints for the project site are identified on the General Plan. d) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? No Impact: The proposed project does not have a significant potential to subject persons or property to seismically induced seiche or tsunami. Although the subject property is located approximately two miles east of Upper Newport Bay, the project site's elevation, as well as various topographic and structural impedances would restrict the movement of seismically- induced water movement. Although not impossible, the potential for flooding by seiche or tsunami is highly 0 improbable given the history of such occurrences in the City. No volcanic Negmive Ueclaralion Jor dre Proposed Bonita Camion Park Fa,iLtr Project page 'I • 0 1] 0 • hazards are present in the City or the region. e) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? No Impact:: The Public Safety Element indicates that the project site is not comprised of any natural or manmade slopes having the potential for failure or mudslide in the event of seismic activity or other triggering mechanism, such as rainfall. The project would not increase the potential of landslide or mudslide. Therefore, no significant impacts will result from site development. t) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Less than Significant Impact: During construction of the proposed park and related facilities, excavation and grading will be required. Although only a temporary impact, the erosion potential will increase in the winter months (i.e., southem California's wet season) should construction occur at that time. Ultimately, the site will be landscaped and no exposed earth surfaces will exist on -site. Structures, asphalt, and landscaping will prevent soil erosion from wind and rainfall. All grading activity would be in accordance with the City Excavation and Grading Code and thus any impacts would be reduced to an insignificant level. g) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of land? No Impact: The Public Safety Element states that no areas of significant subsidence potential were identified in Newport Beach during a city -wide geological assessment. Ground subsidence is not anticipated as a result of project implementation. h) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? No Impact: The project area and the surrounding properties are identified in the Public Safety Element as being in a zone where possible moderately too highly expansive soils are unlikely (i.e., Category 3). The soils into which the proposed park and related facilities will be laid will be adequately prepared to ensure that any potential subsidence will not affect those facilities. i) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Less Than Significant Impact: As Indicated on the USGS 7S- minute Negative Decle m(on for the Propo,ced Honila Cannon Part Foellily Project Page " 0 9 Laguna Beach quadrangle, no unique geologic or physical features exist in the project area. With only minor, temporary alterations to the site's topography resulting from site construction, no impacts to unique geologic features will occur. IV. Water a) Would the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or in the rate and amount of surface runoff.' Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed park and related walkways, and parking areas will introduce impermeable surfaces to the project properties. The asphalt paving and walkways will decrease absorption rates and increase the rate of surface runoff into an existing partially channeled natural drainage channel on the north part of the site adjacent to Bonita Canyon Road. However, implementation of the proposed project will result in similar runoff volumes as were experienced during the sites' undeveloped status. On -site storm drain facilities subject to review by the City Engineer will be included in the project design and will ensure that runoff quantities are maintained at levels that wit/ not exceed the design capacities of off -site flood control facilities. b) Would the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? No Impact: The project area is not located in an area that is subject to potential flood hazards. Further, project implementation will not result in exposing existing residents and /or property, including the proposed park and related facilities, to flooding. C) Would the proposal result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less than Significant Impact: Drainage from paved surfaces will occur as sheet flows and be directed into existing streets until its ultimate discharge into the City's storm drain system. Development of the property could result in additional surface water runoff and an increase in the amount of urban pollutants that enter the storm drainage system. Because the site is located in an urbanized area, these storm flows will not be discharged directly into surface waters and will not result in significant impacts to water quality. Further, the project will be required to comply with applicable construction activity and long -terns NPDES permit requirements through the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for urban runoff pollutants. The WQMP will implement all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area management Plan to ensure that potential adverse effects on water • quality are minimized. Negarhr Ucrla, anion for the Proposer/ Doniro Canyon Park Pariliq Projec l Page 23 0 0 d) Would the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact: Project implementation will not significantly change the amount of surface water in any water body. The additional impervious surfaces or other similar features that are proposed would not result in a significant increase in surface runoff. e) Would the proposal result in changes in currents, or the watercourse or direction of water movements? No Impact: The proposed project is a park and related facilities with significant landscaping, as such, the surface runoff into an existing partially channeled natural drainage channel on the north part of the site adjacent to Bonita Canyon Road would not be significantly affected by project implementation. The site will be graded to generally maintain predevelopment drainage patterns. Post - development storm runoff will continue to drain toward adjacent street gutters and inlet structures. The project site is not in the immediate proximity of any surface water bodies and no changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements will occur. f) Would the proposal result in change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? No Impact: Extensive landscaping of the proposed park will allow for groundwater recharge in the unpaved areas of the project site. g) Would the proposal result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact: No groundwater resources will be affected. Therefore, the direction or rate of flow of groundwater will not be affected by project implementation. h) Would the proposal result in impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact: As indicated in IV(g), impacts to groundwater will not occur. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater quality are anticipated. i) Would the proposal result in substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? No Impact: Because the project will not result in additional demands for water • resources, particularly those satisfied from groundwater supplies, no impacts to Negative Declaration for the Proposed Bonita Can pm Park Facility ProyecI Page ]A 0 0 groundwater supplies are anticipated. V. Air Quality a) Would the proposal violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact: The greatest potential for fugitive dust generation is during grading and excavation of the site. In addition to fugitive dust emissions, equipment exhaust will be released during temporary excavation activities and mobile source emissions from generated by workers commuting to the construction site. These short -term construction- related impacts, although not considered significant, may be a nuisance to nearby residents. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Once construction and operation of the park facilities are completed, no air quality impacts are anticipated. b) Would the proposal expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? No Impact: As indicated in VI(a) and Vl(d), construction and installation activities may result in the generation of fugitive dust and emissions from vehicles and construction equipment. Although these emissions may be considered a nuisance to residents who may be sensitive to exhaust emissions, odors, and dust, they will continue only through installation of the park facilities and will not constitute a significant impact to sensitive receptors. C) Would the proposal alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact: The proposed construction and installation of the proposed park facilities to serve the existing neighborhood will not result in the alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature of cause any change in climate. The excavation and installation operations are short-term in nature and will not have any affect on climatic conditions. d) Would the proposal create objectionable odors'? Less than Significant Impact: During allowable constriction work hours, various types of construction equipment necessary to undertake grading, excavation and installation of the park structures and related facilities will be used. Most of the construction equipment will be diesel powered. The emissions from most of the equipment will cause a diesel odor that may be noticeable during working hours within the immediate construction site. This may create objectionable odors and emissions during the short-tern construction period. Any perceptible impacts from individual construction activity exhaust wilt be confined • to occasional whiffs of characteristic diesel exhaust odor, but not in sufficient Negaln e Dec[oranon (or the Proposed Bonita (Cannon Park Facility Project Pagc _'5 0 0 concentrations to expose any nearby receptors to air pollution levels above acceptable standards. These odors, which arc not considered to be significant, will cease after completion of construction. After completion, the public park would not generate objectionable odors. VI. Transportation /Circulation a) Would the proposal result in impacts to increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact: The project would generate vehicle trips within the City of Newport Beach and increase traffic in the project area during sporting activities. However, the project may reduce regional vehicle trips because the residents of Harbor View and Bonita Canyon Communities will no longer have to travel outside their communities for usage of recreational facilities. b) Would the proposal result in impacts to hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or from incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? No Impact: In order to ensure the safety of park patrons and surrounding residents crossing Bonita Canyon Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and existing local streets, safety measures such as crosswalks, traffic signals and other safety • devices will be installed. C) Would the proposal result in impacts to inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? No Impact: The project has direct emergency access to MacArthur Boulevard, Bonita Canyon Road, Ford Road, as well as existing local streets. Construction activities associated with project implementation may result in the loss of access to existing residences in the project area. Although this potential loss of access is temporary in nature (i.e., construction- related), it will be the source of a constant nuisance and inconvenience. As such, it must be addressed in a construction - staging plan to ensure that access to each residence can be maintained. d) Would the proposal result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? No Impact: Upon completion of the project, 355 on -site parking spaces will be provided. e) Would the proposal result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian and bicyclists? No Impact: There is a potential hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists during • construction activities. However, this is a short-term impact that is not considered ,Negatne Declaration for dte Propose,l Bonita Cavil on Park Facilm Project Page ?6 0 0 to be significant and will cease after completion of the project. Upon completion • of the project, a pedestrian trail linkage to neighboring parkland as well as Bonita Canyon and Newport Center will be completed. F) would the proposal result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle ranks)? No Impact: Implementation of the proposed public improvement project does not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Additionally, bike pathways currently exist along Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. g) Would the proposal result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impact: The construction and installation of the park and related facilities will not affect either rail, waterborne or air traffic facilities. The project site is not near any rail, waterbome or air traffic facility or function. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. VI 1. Biological Resources a) Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, • animals, and birds)? u No Impact: The project area, including the surrounding neighborhood, is developed. Impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats were previously mitigated as required by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Planning Area 26 (Bonita Canyon) Zone Change and subsequent development. b) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact: The project site is free of any heritage trees. Therefore, no significant impacts to heritage trees will occur. C) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact: Impacts to locally designated natural communities were previously mitigated as required by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Planning Area 26 (Bonita Canyon) Zone Change and subsequent development. Negain e Derlaration for the Proposed (ion ita Canyon Park Facility Projecl Page 27 0 0 d) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? No Impact: The project site is free of wetland habitat. Therefore, no significant impacts to heritage trees will occur. e) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact: Impacts to locally wildlife dispersal or migration corridors were previously mitigated as required by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Planning Area 26 (Bonita Canyon) Zone Change and subsequent development. Vlll. Energy & Mineral Resources a) Would the proposal conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact: Project implementation will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans or policies. No impacts are anticipated. b) Would the proposal use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? No Impact: All energy requirements associated with project implementation will occur during construction and will not significantly impact energy resources. No impacts are anticipated. C) Would the proposal result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact: The proposed park and related facilities project does not affect any existing mineral resource. Therefore, project implementation will not result in the loss of availability of a known regionally significant mineral resource. No impacts are anticipated. IX. Hazards a) Would the proposal involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? No Impact: The project would not use hazardous substances other than pesticides and herbicides associated with maintenance of the park facility. These • substances will not be stored on site and will he used in a manner consistent with Negative Dcelarntion (nr the Proposed Bonita Carrion PmA Fac(li(r Project Page 28 0 0 normal park landscaping practices. b) Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact: MacArthur Boulevard is identified as major evacuation routes in the City of Newport Beach. Project implementation will not pose any impacts to the utilization of these and other routes identified in the City's Public Safety Element. No significant impacts are anticipated. C) Would the proposal involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? No Impact: The proposed project is a park and related facilities to serve the surrounding residents and the City of Newport Beach. Aside from construction activities, which may constitute a nuisance, no health hazards or potential health hazards will be created if the project is implemented. d) Would the proposal involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact: The proposed project is a park and related facilities to serve the existing surrounding residents and the City of Newport Beach. Aside from construction activities that may constitute a nuisance, no health hazards or potential health hazards will be created if the project is implemented. No significant potential hazards currently exist in that neighborhood and /or have been identified in the Newport Beach. e) Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact: The project area is developed with single- family residential development. The project area will be characterized by landscaping common to park development and related sports facilities. Additionally, the construction of the park and the related irrigation and landscaping would reduce the fire hazard potential on the site. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees will occur. X. Noise a) Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels? Less than Significant Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed park would create noise and increase existing noise levels. However, noise exposure levels are not anticipated to be severe, given the nature of the noise to be created and the separation of the park and existing residential uses. Negative Declainaon for the Proposed Bonita Canton Pork Facility Project Page 29 However, to abate any potential nuisances from construction noise, the City's Municipal Code (Section t0.28_040) limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6;30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m_ to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. The City will ensure that construction time limits are enforced for the duration of construction activity on the project site. Players and spectators associated with the play field at the park will generate noise during the day and evening hours. Distance and tree and shrub massing to improve land use compatibility will attenuate some of this noise. The City will enforce the operational hours of the park and related recreational activities. b) Would the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? No Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed park would create noise and increase existing noise levels and this may expose nearby residents to unacceptable noise levels. Constriction equipment generates noise levels in the range of 60 to 90 dBA. The ambient noise levels currently are typical of those in quiet residential areas (i.e., approximately 60 dBA Leq). The introduction of construction in this area will expose residents of the area to intermittently higher noise levels, including those, which approach 90 dBA, depending on the type of equipment used during construction. Although the increase in noise in the project area will be greater than that which currently exists, it will be temporary in nature • and cease upon completion of the project. \I. Public Services a) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in fire protection? No Impact: Project implementation will not result in any adverse impacts to fire protection. Once construction of the facilities is completed, no impacts to fire services are anticipated. b) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in police protection? No Impact: The project does not propose development that would affect the existing level of police protection. Once construction of the facilities is complete, no impacts to police services are anticipated. C) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in schools? Neknfive /)ectoranon for )hc Proposed Bonita Coal on Park Faeiht)� Rnjeo Page 30 No Impact: The project does not propose development that would affect existing school facilities. As previously indicated, no growth- inducing impacts Neknfive /)ectoranon for )hc Proposed Bonita Coal on Park Faeiht)� Rnjeo Page 30 will occur as the proposed project is intended to serve existing development in an urbanized area of the City. No new development is anticipated as a result of project implementation that would result in the generation of new students. Therefore, no impacts to school facilities are anticipated. d) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less than Significant Impact: No significant impacts to existing roadways are anticipated as the Public Works Department currently maintains all public roadways within the City of Newport Beach. The City will need to address potential impacts related to the need for additional field maintenance personnel from it General Fund. e) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in other governmental services? Less than Significant: The project will require approval of Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impacts are anticipated. No other governmental services will be affected by project implementation. 0 kll. utilities & Service Systems a) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. No Impact: SCE Company is required by law to provide service to any development within its legally defined service area- No need for new systems or substantial alteration of the existing system Is foreseen. Park demand for natural gas is anticipated to be little or none. b) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communications systems? No Impact: The telephone company provides service to residential developments adjacent to the project site, No need for new systems or substantial alteration to the existing system is foreseen. C) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment distribution facilities? No Impact: The project would not have any impact on local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. An existing water main runs along Bonita Negalire Declaralion for Me Proposed Bonita Carn'on Palk Facilltr Projcct Page 3 / \J 9 0 Canyon Road. The project would not have any impact on local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. d) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sewer or septic tanks? Less than Significant Impact: The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides wastewater collection services for the project area. The City's Engineer will estimate the sewage flow generation expected of the proposed project and calculate facility sizing within the park site. It is anticipate that the existing system will be adequate to provide sewer service to the project site. The City will be required to provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project. e) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will result in the introduction of hardscape onto the project site that will result in an increase in runoff. The landscaping which will be included in the project design may partially absorb this runoff. The grading of the site may result in some limited changes in drainage patterns, however, the grading will be designed in keeping with the sprit of the existing topography, which will limit the amount of change in drainage patterns. The project will be served by existing catch basins that feed into the City's lateral storm drain lines and ultimately into Upper Newport Bay. f) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal? No Impact: The proposed park is not anticipated to result in significant impacts related to solid waste. g) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies? No Impact: The proposed park is not anticipated to result in significant impacts related to regional water supplies. XIII. Aesthetics a) Would the proposal affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? No Impact: There is no designated scenic vista or scenic highway in the project vicinity. Negative Declaration for the Proposed Bonito Camon Pork Facility Project Pate 3 1 b) Would the proposal have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect'? No Impact: Existing views from surrounding residential areas are already and will continue to be partially screened by vegetation and landscaping. The changes in background views from these residential areas will not be substantial because of the distance the site is viewed from, the existing developed character of the surrounding land uses and the screening benefits frorn introduced landscaping. Additionally, temporary visual impacts of construction activities would effect foreground views from existing residences adjacent to the site along MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. The temporary construction activities would include grading and berming, installation of recreational elements, and landscape construction. These construction impacts will be short term and temporary and are not considered significant. C) Would the proposal create light or glare? Less than Significant Impact: New light sources will be created with the addition of parking lighting, and night lighting for recreation uses such as ball fields and basketball and tennis courts. These new light sources would be of similar intensity to existing light sources in the adjacent developed areas in the City. Therefore, these additional sources of lighting are not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts on adjacent land uses although they will represent new sources of light in this area. Outdoor lighting and fixtures will be designed • and located so that all direct rays from the lights are contained within the project area and adjacent residential areas are protected from spillover light and glare. d) Would the proposal affect a coastal bluff? No Impact: The subject property is not located near a coastal bluff. XIV. Cultural Resources a) Would the proposal disturb paleontological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: Although no surface paleontological resources have been identified on the project area, highly sensitive rock unit are present subsurface on the property. These units are likely to yield fossil materials. Mitigation Measure No. 1: Prior to the issuance a preliminary or precise grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the applicant shall provide a letter from a paleontologist. The letter shall state that this individual has been retained by the City of Newport Beach, and that the consultant will be on call during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities.. The consultant shall be selected from the role of qualified • paleontologists maintained by the County of Orange Environmental Management Negatirc Doc lwvtmn %or thr Proposed Bonita ('anYon Park Fac'161r Projccl Pogr 33 • 0 Agency. The paleontologist shall meet with Community Development staff, and shall submit written recommendations specifying procedures for cultural /scientific resource surveillance. These recommendations shall have been reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the grading permit and prior to any surface disturbance on the project site. Should any cultural /scientific resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director if Community Development is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources. b) Would the proposal disturb archaeological resources'? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: A very important archaeological site may exist within the project boundary. That site CA- Ora -209, was previously tested and determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation Measure No. 2: Prior to the issuance a preliminary or precise grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the applicant shall provide a letter from a archaeologist. The letter shall state that this individual has been retained by the City of Newport Beach, and that the consultant will be on call during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities.. The consultant shall be selected from the role of qualified • archaeologist maintained by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. The archaeologist shall meet with Community Development staff, and shall submit written recommendations specifying procedures for cultural /scientific resource surveillance. These recommendations shall have been reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the grading permit and prior to any surface disturbance on the project site. Should any cultural /scientific resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director if Community Development is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources. C) Would the proposal affect historical resources? No Impact: The previous 1996 Planning Area 26 Final Environmental [mpact Report listed existing historic sites in and adjacent to PA 26, a description of each site, its importance and the future status of the site. None of the historic sites were identified on the project site. d) Would the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No Impact: The site does not currently possess unique ethnic cultural resources • and is not considered culturally significant. There is no indication that either the Negodre Declaration for the Proposed [fonita C',IIn on Park FOCI li III Project 1'age 34 • • 10 subject property or the adjacent properties are considered to have unique ethnic cultural value. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to ethnic cultural resources if the proposed project is implemented. e) Would the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact: Improvement of the property for the proposed park facility will not result in the restriction of any current sacred or religious uses. There is no indication of such cultural value associated with the subject property. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. XV. Recreation a) Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact: Bonita Canyon Park will provide much needed park and open space to the residents of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. b) Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact: The addition of a new park facility will not have a significant impact on existing recreational opportunities. Awgadar Det'laration fir the Proposed Runito Canon Park Faeilin P,ojeer Page 35 0 0 SECTION 4: LIST OF REFERENCS 0 The public may request City assistance in obtaining and/or reviewing any of the documents referenced below. The documents listed below are on file with the City of Newport Beach and may be reviewed or obtained by contacting: City of Newport Beach Public Work Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Michael J. Sinacori, P.E., (949) 644 -3342 City of Irvine. Planning Area 26 (Bonita Canyon Zone Change) Final Environmental Impact Report and Supporting Documentation (May 1996). 2. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Noise Element (Amended 1987). 3. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Public Safety Element (Amended 1975). 4. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Land Use Element (Amended 1994). • 5. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. • Other sources of information have also been used in the preparation of this environmental analysis. Additional written correspondence not cited in this document is also available for review. The resources listed below may be reviewed by contacting: D. Bartlett Associates Attn. Dave Bartlett 6082 Jade Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92674 (714) 898 -0600 6. Personal Site Observation. 15 and 22 May, 1999. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. 8. US Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Map Series. Newport Beach and Tustin Quadrangles. Negative Declaration for the Proposed Bonita Canyon Park Facility Project Page 36 0 0 • MITIGATION MONITORING PROGAM for the proposed BONITA CANYON PARK FACILITY PROJECT • • Mitigation Measures Trigger (T) and Implementation (1) City Dept. or Other Agencies for Review /Approval Cultural Resources CR - 1 /CR -2 The City will prepare written T: Grading Permit Director of Community recommendations specifying procedure for I'. Grading Permit Development paleontological and archaeological resources surveillance during ground disturbing activities.These procedures will includeidentification of the need for pre - disturbance surveys and data /resource recovery, monitoring during ground disturbing activities and procedures to address handling of previously unknown resources during ground disturbing activities. Negative Declaration for dre Proposed Bonita Canon Park Facility Project Poge37 0 11 January 16, 2000 Mr. Mike Sinacori Mr. Don Webb City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92658 Mr. Sinacori and Mr. Webb: • Harbor View Homes Home Owner's Association Board of Directors My name is Mark Zucker and I am writing to you as the President of the Board of the Harbor View Home Owner's Association. Our Board has been kept informed of the ongoing planning and development of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park by several of our homeowners. We all greatly appreciate your allowing us to actively participate in the planning process. Attached are letters that I have received from some of our residents whose homes back to MacArthur Blvd. and the new West Park area. They have expressed to me their concerns about the noise and have offered some suggestions about possible mitigation. They believe that by raising the height of the berm as well as leveling it, that the amount of noise coming off MacArthur could be lessened. They have also presented me with concerns about a lack of privacy • which may result from the grade level of the park being higher than their backyards thus allowing visibility from the park into their yards. We would greatly appreciate any measures the city could take to help satisfy the concerns of these residents. It would appear upon my personal inspection of the park as currently graded, that the berm could be raised if there was enough dirt available without sacrificing the park's playing field areas. Perhaps, as was suggested in some of the letters, the field grade level could be reduced and that dirt could be reused to increase the berm height. Not knowing the architectural considerations that you must review, we are asking for your expertise as to the best possible way to help address our concerns. I think we are all realistic enough to know that you cannot eliminate all the road noise or protect the residents from park goers who are determined to peek into their yards. But your attention to these issues now will certainly provide a significant benefit to our residents for the future. It appears that your intent is to present the final plans to the City Council for approval at the February 8" meeting. We were also told that you have offered to meet with the residents at the site to discuss any possible mitigation measures. If you are able to satisfy those residents that have expressed concem to us prior to the February 8" meeting, then we will gladly offer our total support to this wonderful project at the February 8th City Council meeting. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter, Best v isttes, Mpprrk Z cker Prbcid nt • Harbor View Homeowner's Association CAhvhoa\bomtapk.dm r...�4r JAN 19 ?r�� f -RELIC VuV:;KS 4RWORT BE: CH. C. -.' �. 0 0 W NN & ASSOCIATES 1601 DOVE STREET SUITE 115 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 ROBERT L. WYNN (949) 752 -6923 MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT (9491644 -8576 FAX(949)833 -1810 Mr. Mark Zucker, President January 12, 2000 Harbor View Home Owners Association Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Zucker: The City of Newport Beach has just completed the plans and specifications for the proposed Bonita Canyon Sports Park and Don Webb and Mike Sinacori were kind enough to give me a copy of the grading sheets for the Park. After reviewing the plans I believe the Park will be a great asset for the City and our sub- division. After a two hour meeting with my neighbors to explain my understanding of the grading plans and Park with the constrained budget it was the unanimous opinion to request the City to review the possibility of raising the berm adjacent to MacArthur another • two to three feet. A higher berm next to MacArthur will provide sound attenuation. MacArthur is receiving higher volumns of traffic each year and the car noise is bothersome especially during the night time hours. I have double pained all of my windows facing MacArthur and the noise is still bothersome. Also, it was suggested that the soccer field elevations be lowered two to three feet and this may provide the dirt needed to raise the berm at MacArthur. The soccer fields are two to three feet higher than the elevation of my rear yard which will make it easier for people at the soccer fields to view my rear yard and give me less privacy. I believe this grading and fill (berm) can be done at little additional cost at this time and it would be applauded by all of my neighbors. Hopefully the Association can understand this concern and support this relative small change and cost to make the park even better than now planned. I know all my block neighbors would support and be happy with the change. Thank you. Sincerely, a V'/4r� Robert L. Wy n 1617 Port Ab ey P1. . 1) January 14, 2000 0 Mr. Mark Zucker Harbor View Home Owner's Association Re: Bonita Canyon Sports Park, West Park Area Dear Mark: We are requesting the support and assistance of the Homeowner's Board on one final aspect of the design for the new Bonita Canyon Sports Park in the West Area. As you know, the folks on the PBBR Commission as well as those in the Public Works Department have allowed us generous access into their design process. They have graciously accepted our input and have incorporated many of our suggestions into the design of the park. The park will be, without question, a rich asset to our city and will be used extensively by the residents of Harbor View Homes. However, there is one aspect relative to noise and privacy we would like you to address with the park's planners. The city recently provided us with a copy of the grading plans for the West Park Area. After a review of the plans in a neighborhood meeting, the residents whose homes back up to MacArthur feel strongly that the berm, as drawn on the plans, does not provide sufficient sound protection from MacArthur Boulevard. We would like the city to investigate the possibility of increasing the height of the berm as well as eliminating any openings or low spots in the berm. As you know, these homes were built over 30 years ago. They were not built to withstand the levels of noise now generated from MacArthur Boulevard. The windows in these homes are old aluminum framed and single pane. The homes have only minimal insulation to meet the code of 30 years ago. The rear property walls range from only 4-6 feet high and provide minimal, if any, sound attenuation. Since the widening project was completed this past year, MacArthur Boulevard has 50% more lanes and is closer to the homes than before. The noise from the traffic comes in very loud waves as cars travel at 60 MPH in all 6 lanes in both directions during the morning and evening rush hours. With the incredible amount of new development happening all around this immediate area, we only expect this problem to worsen. At this time, only the residents who are affected by the noise are asking for this additional mitigation. However, we believe that once the park is built and our kid's sports practices and games begin on the field, many more people will become concerned about the noise level if the city doesn't address the problem. It is too loud at this time, to comfortably sit through an hour of soccer practice at 5pm in the afternoon. Coaches will have to yell to be heard. We believe the additional noise mitigation effort will help to make this park an enjoyable place to spend time. The public review period for this project expires on January 21, 2000 and the park plans as they currently exist, will go before the City Council for approval on February 8, 2000. We request that you act promptly in communicating our concerns to the city so as not to cause any delays in the park's approval process. Respecfully • `ehlp a d Nancy Greene 1701 Port Abbey Place Newport Beach, Ca 92660 January 12, 2000 Mark Zucker, President Harbor View Home Owners Association RE: Bonita Canyon Sports Park — West Park Area Dear Mark: 0 As the owners of 1700 Port Sheffield Place, we have been closely following the plans for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, especially the plans for the West Park Area located directly behind our home. While we strongly support the overall concept of the Bonita Canyon Park and look forward to the added benefits it will bring to our family and to the entire community, we would like to suggest a slight variation to the proposed grading and elevation of the West Park Area. Until we had the opportunity to review the grading plans, dated January 4, 2000, we were under the impression that the grading for the park would create a sound barrier berm along MacArthur Blvd and would reduce the elevation of the park so that our backyard would not clearly visible from the park. The proposed park grading, according to the Jan 4t' plans, however, leaves the playing fields exposed to the noise and pollution from MacArthur Blvd traffic and leaves our backyard fully- exposed the park's higher elevation. We propose a simple solution that will maintain the security and privacy of the . adjacent Harbor View backyards while improving the atmosphere of the park. We suggest additional grading to lower the park elevation to a level approximately equal to the elevation of backyards of the Harbor View homes backing up to the park. The excavated dirt from this additional grading can be used to build a sound reduction berm along MacArthur Blvd. As our Home Owners Association President, please present our suggested improvement to the City of Newport Beach as soon as possible so that city staff can consider this adjustment to the grading plan prior to the February 80' city council hearing. Very truly yours: f1700 m and Jean B an Port She Feld Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 759 -8590 0 0 to Nilson Family January 17, 2000 Mr. Mark Zucker President Harbor View Homeowner's Association Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mark: I am writing as one of the residents of the homes along the outer edge of Harbor View adjacent to the proposed plan for soccer fields and a sports complex at the comer of MacArthur Blvd and Bonita Canyon. Though generally supportive of the plan, I am very concerned about one critical aspect. As you know, and I am hopeful the Newport Beach CU Council will become well aware, the widening of MacArthur Blvd. and the new development in the immediate area has greatly increased the incidence of increased traffic and consequently the noise level. In the three years that we have been here we have witnessed this first hand. Because of the widening of MacArthur, we are now closer to the traffic than we had been. Anyone, who has ventured out into the field as I have with my children many times, knows that at times the noise level can be deafening. 1 ant very concerned that the quiet enjoyment of the soccer fields and sports complex will be severely compromised unless something is done to address the noise. As a city and community asset, this sports complex is an inspired idea and I commend the City Council for approving its plans and funding. However, it would be a shame to lose completely neighbor support because of a failure to address an eminently solvable design flaw. All that is needed is some more dirt. We propose that the height of the berm along ;MacArthur be increased and those low spots clearly visible be filled -in. At those points where the berm dips and traffic can be seen, the noise screams right through to the houses. It is even louder standing where the soccer fields will be. Mark, I appreciate your carrying this message to the City Council for us all. I do not see why thev should obiect to a little attention to detail that will mean the difference between a very successful city project and one that is, well. opposed. Please let me know what type of response you get to our request so that we can organize for the February 8 meeting should we need to. Best Regards, Cra�Ai/lson 1621 Pori Abbey Place • NewPorl Beach • CA 92660 11 0 ?,-� / 3 Z e o - % �✓�'c� v�Gw�CJ T/ ��-g. /gym.' `�� 0 xe- ��.-i? � =✓ _ /��� -� /ice.:_ � _ � �..� :%L- .__,_i/ C ✓ \' �� ��� ��1 �i'E� y =-.�✓z -?ice �r.� � ��t` / v -Z' .� /ice : %c_c— �/✓1��,� � � � � �_% //C� --,/� �/ ,� Nr • January 14, 2000 Mr. Mark Zucker, President Harbor View Home Owner's Association Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 Re: The raising of the berm adjacent to MacArthur Road, 2 to 3 feet (Bonita Canyon Park -West Park Area) Dear Mr. Mark Zucker, Greetings. I am a homeowner writing to express my concern over plans pertaining to the proposed grading of Bonita Canyon Sports Park. As plans for a new Sports Park have commenced, the initial grading sheets for the park present a situation with two inevitable results: an increase in road noise and a decrease in privacy. The noise increase will create an unnecessary burden to all residents who live near MacArthur road, especially those who live directly behind the park. Secondly, the decrease in privacy may lead to undesirable consequences, including more disturbances from vagrants, delinquents, and perhaps criminals. My home is located directly behind the land being used for the new Bonita Canyon Sports Park. In the past I have had juveniles throw oranges at my home "just for kicks ". An increased exposure of my house to the public will encourage more of this reckless behavior. Consequently, there will be an increase in the liability of the property, to myself, the Association, and the City of Newport Beach. Upon consideration of these facts, I strongly believe that the raising of the berm adjacent to MacArthur Road to 2 to 3 feet would be the most appropriate action to take. The raised berm will decrease the noise from MacArthur traffic (soon noise from the people taking advantage of the facility). It will also establish a sense of privacy and protection to residents. The implementation of the berm increase would be ideal and most cost effective at this time when construction of the park is occurring. It will provide a lasting benefit to the residents who use the park and the to residents who live behind it. As President of our Home Owner's Association, please support our suggestion. Very truly, • Nam Yong Lee Resident, 1601 Port Abbey Place Jon Martino 1824 Port Sheffield Place Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Tuesday, February 15, 2000 Michael J. Sinacori CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Sinacori: E E This letter is to confirm that Steve Nelson, owner of 1830 Port Sheffield Pl., and I met with you today to discuss our concerns about the parking for the new soccer field scheduled to be constructed at Ford Road and Mesa View. At this meeting we told you we are concerned about • noise and parking. We recommended that parking be restricted along the south side of Ford Road with No Parking Signs. We discussed your suggestion that parking might be allowed on the North side of Ford road. This would be acceptable with us. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us to discuss our concerns. Please keep me posted if anything should change. You can reach me at (949) 718 -9163. Sincerely, Jon P. Martino r1 LJ M January 22, 2000 Port Cardiff Neighbors I am Martin Nalland and live at 1971 Port Cardiff. 1 tried circulating the attached letter by hand but could not find people at home. I am asking that you edit it, sign it, and get it back to me before 1/28/2000, this Friday. I need your input to make sure all of our interests are represented. The attached concerns come from weeks of talking with sonic of the neighbors, if what is said here is OK then just sign your name and address and put it in my mail box. If you have additional comments, make them in ink sign, and also get back to me. If the City does not get any comments from us by 2/8/00, then we have no recourse later when we actually see what its all about. I will be sending the list of concerns in on 2/1/2000, so if you have some ideas that the City should hear about please get them to me by Friday. Thev will be meeting on 2/8/00 to consider adoption of the plan they submitted to the neighborhood in early January. I have a copy of their plan here if you did not get one. 1 think this is a fine use for the land but the design, should respect the concerns of the adjacent homeowners, since we will be the ones affected daily. Thank you for yota time. Chapman Park use still disputed :_. CITIES::1leSltlents view in June whether the when the league moved i. say the, council's So league is being a good neigh- years ago.. Two more'Sv' bor. added over time withouk off lution§, for: ball-play- But residents near the five- cial approval... "' "' • - acre park say the parking so- `.`.'T.: ing traffic. O Last June, the ICa g lution is a step in the wrong gue-ri against the. original direction. quested permission 'to'b'uil restrooms and .a snack'stant intent for the' land.. ' They say the site wasn't in Neighbors rallied :agaiMp tended for such heavy use and Some .'Sought to' lirniteIh By ERIC CARPENTER they want their park back, league to two fields y .The Orange County Register' t 'I'd hke to see it as a place I °111 four field's shtu' ld renW FULLERTON.,'- Xo"mpro- where' families could go and for.:, now) council„ameinbei mise is hard to come by when. have some quiet time,,., said . 'said; but alternafe sites shout, 'iiCcomes'to Chipman Parki.:; Roger Toy, who'grew 'up ;.be considered`as th6`leagp After,, four decades pP dis, around the park in the 19606. c continues to gcowh,,.p putes'and six months of negoh League .officiaJi withdre ,ations, the battle between rest- f -, ITheobatttie bate a on no yin °their building plans ,They Ire tit 66 who surround }h- par §, t p yi out the but di usfn" loihey- ah and ;East Fullerton x {Little? throughout the county that pits ers and willpinstall morras] Leagtie remsms un "settled + rapidly „_. expanding youth cans,iq [he park' t� S The City Council approved a.' sports .leagues against: rest= + I ;feel we've a re std EEi plan.Tuesday for; more park dents who want gwet parks: issues and ehmtnated tnan`b1 .rig tgeasethe crush of cars on? `" Two' . diamonds were ap- the concerns "- aid lea t`c game days, and agreed to re ;, Proved :;for ,Chapman Park president Neil'Swans�n =� 4 , f!4w* t� i • Date. 1/8/2000 To: City Council, Newport Beach From: Adjacent Home Owners in Harbor View Homes Re: Bonita Canyon Facility Park Project Thank you for providing us with a Conceptual Plan for the Sports Park between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Road. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the planning of this wonderful facility. In polling the neighbor hood regarding your Plan, the following concerns come to the surface. 1. LIGHTING. We would not like to see the parking lots or playing fields lit by overhead fighting, such as exists at the Lincoln School field off San Joaquin Road. We would suggest ground level lighting for the parking lot if necessary. Are there regulations for parks of this magnitude which require lighting? If so, we would like the same variances applied here that have been applied to die playing fields at San Miguel and Spyglass, where there is no lighting. 2. TRAFFIC LIGHTS. We would like to avoid traffic lights along Ford Rd adjacent to the homes, especially at the intersection of Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive East. You have planned the only parking lot entrance to be there and this would probably necessitate a light. Could the parking lot entrances be placed off Mesa View, Prairie, end of San Miguel, and Bonita Canyon Road? The problem with a light at the Newport Hills East intersection is that the entrance is not long enough to accommodate more than 6 cars. At the red light, school and business traffic in the mornings will backup past the side streets blocking them. If there were an emergency, access would be difficult. 3. EXCESS SOCCER FIELDS. We question the need for additional soccer fields west of Mesa View Drive. There are already going to be 3 at Bonita Canyon Park West and one in the East Park Also, there are soccer fields at Anderson School, Lincoln, and on San Miguel. There is no room for off - street parking for that area either. It would be better to leave that area in native 0 • a • • habitat contiguous with that around the rocky waterfall area. Maybe a foot or bike path could be made through that area continuing to the Back Bay. 4. PARKING. We would recommend parking for the ball diamond at the West End of East Park in a narrow lot on the east side of Mesa View. If there is not enough space there then a narrow lot could be placed across Mesa View to the west. For the rest of the park, we recommend a parking lot opposite the end of San Miguel, or along Prairie, since these areas are not residential. 5. OUR VISION. We had hoped that this whole area would be made into an open park with trees and grass to serve the communities and provide a buffer zone for the surrounding dense communities. We hope that the proposed Sports Park will not be a seven- day -a -week Olympic event with continuous traffic, lighting until 10 PM, and loud cheering crowds. We are expecting occasional weekday use before dark and heavier weekend use after 9 AM, ending before 7 PM. • We are concerned that the proposed center area will become an after -hours hangout for people with nothing better to do. Are there control measures that can be implemented to frustrate this from happening? REVISION 1, 1/8/200, FILE: bonitaprl E ,R March 1, 2000 E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT . 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644 -3311 Mr. Mark Zucker, President Harbor View Community Association Att: Holly Bullock Village Way Management Co., Inc. 22 Mauchly Irvine, CA 92618 RE: Bonita Canyon Sports Park Response to Comments for Environmental Review Dear Mr. Zucker, We are in receipt of your letter dated January 16, 2000. Since receipt of your letter, • members of the Public Works and General Services Departments met several times with Mr. Chip Green and Mr. Robert Wynn. The concerns identified in your letter (and the letters to you from your neighbors) regarding raising berm heights along MacArthur and lowering the soccer field elevations to a height equal to that of backyard elevations were discussed extensively. In an effort to accommodate resident concerns, the berm heights are proposed to be raised in several areas and the field has been redesigned and lowered in accordance with your request. It is our understanding that several subsequent meetings have taken place as plans have been revised and distributed to Mr. Green and Mr. Wynn. We believe that all parties within your group are satisfied. We would like to thank you and your neighbors for actively participating in the park design. It is through input from residents that we accomplish an end product that will be the pride of your neighborhood and the City of Newport Beach. If you have should have any additional questions or comments, I can be reached at (949) 644 -3342. Sincerely, ' ael J. Si Cori, P.E. Utilities Engineer and Project Manager \ \mis l \sys \users \pbw \shared \contracts \fy 99 -00 \bonita canyon park c- 32701response to comments - neg declharbor view homeowners response.doc q0 v March 1, 2000 0 r] CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O. 130\ 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3311 Mr. Martin Natland 1971 Port Cardiff Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Bonita Canyon Sports Park Response to Comments for Environmental Review Dear Mr. Natland, We are in receipt of your letter dated January 22, 2000. Since the receipt of your letter, members of the Public Works and General Services Departments met several times with Mr. Chip Green and Mr. Robert Wynn. The concerns raised by you and your neighbors regarding lighting, traffic signals, excess soccer fields, parking and your overall vision for the park, have been discussed in great detail over the past two years. I understand Mr. Green has spoken with you about the public planning of this park. This letter will serve as the formal response to verbal discussion by Mr. Green and myself. Lighting will be provided throughout the park in the form of low -level bollard trail lights. There will also be lighting within the parking lot areas that should not impact the neighboring residents. As we discussed, there will be no field lighting for any nighttime sports use of the park. Traffic signals are not proposed at the intersection of Newport Hills East and Ford Road at this time and we do not believe that traffic volumes will warrant the need for a signal. Ford Road, westerly of Newport Hills Drive West, is scheduled for resurfacing shortly after the park is completed. The City may consider adding a four -way stop at this intersection, but that decision will be made outside the park planning process. If you are interested in the details of this issue, please contract us later this summer. You felt there were excess soccer fields in the park design. The layout of the park, including the number of baseball and soccer fields, was discussed at several public meetings. The final decision on the number of fields was reached at these meetings. We believe the community has spoken on this issue and the park (as designed) will satisfy as many user groups as possible. 0 Parking for the mid -park area was a concern. It was feared that users would park on Port Cardiff instead of the provided parking in the main lot. Although there was a small parking lot along Ford Road planned for this area initially, funding constraints required a� the parking lot to be deleted during the community meetings in an effort to build more park improvements. If the spaces provided in the main parking lot are not sufficient and an additional lot is needed, a subsequent capital project could be considered. The City is also considering allowing parking on the north side of Ford Road west of Mesa View. This decision will also be made as part of the future Ford Road improvement project. Your vision of a park as open space without any sports was not considered in this area. The City is planning a wilderness connection trail between the Central Park area and the planned Arroyo Park off Bison Avenue. In addition, landscaped walking trails will be provided throughout the entire Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Overall sports park use will be limited to daytime hours. We would like to thank you and your neighbors for taking an active participation in the park design. It is through this input that we will truly accomplish an end product that will be the pride of your neighborhood and the City of Newport Beach. If you have should have any additional questions or comments, I can be reached at (949) 644 -3342. Sincerely, J Michael J. Sinacori, P.E. Utilities Engineer and Project Manager F: \Users \PBW \Shared \Contracts \FY 99 -00 \Bonita Canyon Park C- 3270 \Response to Comments - Ne9 Dec \Port Cardiff Responses.doc 0 • �k