city of laguna beach initial study and mitigated negative

Prepared for: City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Prepared by: Hodge & Associates 45300 Portola Avenue, #2842 Palm Desert, CA 92261

City of Laguna Beach Initial Study and

Mitigated Negative Declaration

Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project

December 2018

City of Laguna Beach page ii Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project

Foreword

Pursuant to the provisions of California Public Resources Code §21082.1, the City of Laguna Beach has directly managed the preparation of and independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The entire document including discussions, environmental analysis, conclusions, and proposed mitigation measures contained herein reflects the independent judgment of the City of Laguna Beach as to those issues at the time of publication.

City of Laguna Beach page iii Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Responsible Agencies and Agencies Consulted ............................................................................... 1 1.3 Environmental Process and Agency Use of Document .................................................................... 1 1.4 Organizations Affiliated with the Project ......................................................................................... 2

2. Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Project Construction ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 12 3.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 20 3.5 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 23 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 26 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 29 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 31 3.9 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................... 38 3.10 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 39 3.11 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 40 3.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................. 46 3.13 Public Services ............................................................................................................................... 47 3.14 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 49 3.15 Transportation/Circulation ............................................................................................................ 50 3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 52 3.17 Utility and Service Systems ............................................................................................................ 53 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................... 55

4. Source List ................................................................................................................................................ 56

Appendices Appendix A – Initial Study Environmental Checklist Appendix B – Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C – Geotechnical Investigation for Stairway Replacement Appendix D – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Tables Table 1 – South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts ......................................................................................... 12 Table 2 – Typical Construction BMPs ................................................................................................................. 33 Table 3 – Laguna Beach Noise Standards ........................................................................................................... 40

Exhibits Exhibit 2-1 – Regional Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................5 Exhibit 2-2 – Project Vicinity Map .........................................................................................................................6 Exhibit 2-3 – Site Improvement Plan .....................................................................................................................7 Exhibit 2-4 – Cross Sections ..................................................................................................................................8 Exhibit 2-5 – Conceptual Planting Plan, Cliff Drive ................................................................................................9

1. Introduction 1.1 – Incorporation by Reference

City of Laguna Beach page 1 Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project

1. Introduction

The City of Laguna Beach (hereinafter “City”) has prepared this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to evaluate the potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur from the proposed construction and operation of the Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project (hereinafter referred to as the “proposed project”). This introductory section briefly describes the agency use of the document and related studies. A detailed project description is presented in Section 2 – Project Description of this document.

Pursuant to §15367 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency responsible for preparing this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the potential impacts associated with the proposed project.

1.1 Incorporation by Reference Certain documents are incorporated by reference into this environmental document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. Where a document is referenced, its pertinent sections will be briefly summarized in the discussions in this environmental document. These documents are also identified in Appendix A – Initial Study Environmental Checklist of this document.

1.2 Responsible Agencies and Agencies Consulted Responsible agencies include all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project (CEQA Guidelines §15381). Responsible agencies in respect to this project may include:

• California Coastal Commission

1.3 Environmental Process and Agency Use of Document This environmental document has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code, §§21000-21177), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Laguna Beach CEQA Implementation Handbook. This environmental document is intended to be used as a decision-making tool for the City in considering and taking action on the proposed project. Responsible Agencies (i.e., regulatory agencies) may elect to use this environmental analysis for discretionary actions associated with the implementation of the proposed project.

This document is intended to provide decision makers and the public with information concerning the potential environmental effects associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project, and potential ways to reduce or avoid possible environmental impacts. The environmental analyses presented in this document primarily focus on the changes in the environment that would result from the project. This environmental document also evaluates all phases of the project including construction and operation.

1. Introduction 1.4 – Organizations Affiliated with the Project


1.4 Organizations Affiliated with the Project Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Laguna Beach is the lead agency for this project. The proposed project will be subject to a public hearing which will be heard by the City of Laguna Beach. Contact persons for the entities involved in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are:

City of Laguna Beach Alpha Santos-Guinto, Public Works Technician City of Laguna Beach Public Works Department 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 497-0729 e-mail: [email protected] Environmental Consultant Hodge and Associates William Hodge, President 45-300 Portola Avenue, #2842 Palm Desert, CA 92261 (949) 614-6645 e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2. Project Description 2.1 – Project Description


2. Project Description

2.1 Project Description The Project Description for this environmental document provides an understanding of all components of the project. The following sections describe the project location, surrounding site uses, and existing site characteristics, as well as project details.

2.1.1. Project Location and Boundaries

The Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project is located within the City of Laguna Beach where High Drive stops short of Cliff Drive. The area is surrounded by coastal and recreational amenities, and the stairway is flanked by existing residences. The street end features a public stairway connecting the two streets, allowing pedestrian access to the north end of Heisler Park, Divers Cove, and the coastline from Coast Highway. The stairway is located about 50 feet from the north end of Heisler Park. The existing stairway is in need of replacement to provide a safe pedestrian access within the site constraints that complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Regional Vicinity Map, Exhibit 2-1, and the Project Vicinity Map, Exhibit 2-2, illustrate the geographic location of the project.

2.1.2. Existing Site Characteristics

The project site is located along the coast of Laguna Beach, surrounded by urban development and in immediate proximity to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The project site is primarily used by the public, including residents and visitors to the City of Laguna Beach, to access Heisler Park from Coast Highway. The site is abutted by private residential improvements to the north and south. The surrounding and nearby uses to the site include a mix of residential, recreational, and commercial establishments along Pacific Coast Highway and the coastline.

2.1.3. Project Characteristics

To enhance public access to and along the coast of Laguna Beach, the project consists of removing the existing deteriorating wood and concrete stairs and replacing the stairway with a wider concrete walkway in a similar orientation to provide access that is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act as much as possible. The replacement stairs will be built of concrete to minimize maintenance and promote longevity. A center retaining wall will be constructed that ties into the private retaining wall to the south to ensure slope stability and act as support to the stairs. An improved drainage system includes a grate on High Drive that will direct captured water and debris from Coast Highway to a curb outlet on Cliff Drive. The project will add native plants and slope-stabilizing plants to the complement the existing slope vegetation. Minor light bollards at the beginning and end of the walkway will be installed. All work will be accomplished within the existing public right of way.

The City of Laguna Beach’s General Plan land use designation and zoning around the project site are Village Residential and Local Business (on Pacific Coast Highway). The proposed project uses are

2. Project Description 2.2 – Project Construction


consistent with the surrounding land use designations. Project plans of the proposed access amenities improvement are presented in Exhibit 2-3 through Exhibit 2-5, which are the project exhibits presented to the City of Laguna Beach Design Review Board.

2.1.4. Approvals Required

The project requires compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

2.2 Project Construction The project’s design was included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program in fiscal year 2017-2018 with scheduled construction in the 2018-2019 fiscal year. Construction is expected to commence on the project in Spring 2019 and be completed by Summer 2019. Construction duration is expected to be approximately 50 working days.



= Project Site

Exhibit 2-1 – Regional Vicinity Map



= Project Site

Exhibit 2-2 – Project Vicinity Map



Exhibit 2-3 – Site Improvement Plan



Exhibit 2-4 – Cross Sections



Exhibit 2-5 – Conceptual Planting Plan, Cliff Drive

3. Analysis 3.1 – Aesthetics


3. Analysis

3.1 Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project is located within the City of Laguna Beach at the end of High Drive and mid-block on Cliff Drive. The project includes removal of the existing wood and concrete stairs, installation of a wider concrete stairway, a retaining wall, and an improved drainage system that includes a grate on High Drive and a curb outlet on Cliff Drive. The project will also introduce stabilizing plants and succulents into the landscaping and install minor pedestrian lighting at the beginning and end of the walkway. All work will be accomplished within the existing public right of way.

The stairways are designed to substantially follow the footprint of the existing public stairway with a small increase in size to improve pedestrian traffic.

The project site is designated as a street right of way per the City’s General Plan (Figure LU-1 of the General Plan). This designation allows for a range of public uses including the trails and stairways.

The Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan identifies Pacific Coast Highway as a scenic corridor. The project site itself is not a designated scenic vista. The site is currently developed with a public stairway. The rebuilt stairway will facilitate public access to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. Project construction activities will not be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. The project does not result in any significant impacts to a scenic vista.

The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan considers shorelines and important visual resources. The retaining wall will have a cobblestone finish to match the aesthetics of the cobblestone planters across the street in the north end of Heisler Park.

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees or rock outcroppings. As previously noted, the project is designed to rehabilitate and replace an existing public stairway. Every effort will be made to protect trees existing adjacent to and near the stairway. Additionally, the project will have no impacts on views that are within a state scenic highway. Construction equipment will not be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Therefore, the project will not result in significant impacts relative to this topic.

c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less Than Significant Impact)

Construction activities (e.g., construction equipment, vehicles, supplies/materials, workers) will be visible to the existing surrounding uses (e.g., nearby residences). These visual impacts associated with the construction of the project are short-term and not considered significant.

3. Analysis 3.1 – Aesthetics


The proposed project will not result in a visually offensive sight to viewers. The facility connects High Drive to Cliff Drive via a public stairway. The retaining wall will have a cobblestone finish to match existing decorative cobblestone planters across the street from Cliff Drive at the north end of Heisler Park. The proposed anodized aluminum handrail will match the existing railing along Cliff Drive from Heisler Park to Divers Cove. Therefore, the proposed project is considered visually compatible with the immediate area and will not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The stairway will include two small light bollards that direct light to the beginning and the end of the concrete walkway to enhance pedestrian safety. Because the site is already developed, there will be minimal additional lighting created by the project. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

3. Analysis 3.2 – Air Quality


3.2 Air Quality There will be no impacts from the operations of the project in the area of air quality because the project is replacement of a public stairway that is designed for pedestrian traffic only. There are no vehicle trips associated with the Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project. Other impacts associated with the project include those that will occur as a result of minor grading and construction activities. With implementation of mitigation measures consistent with the rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the City of Laguna Beach, all short-term construction impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. Additionally, with implementation of recommended mitigation, the construction-related air emissions are below significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The following sections provide an analysis of the existing air quality, potential project impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant Impact)

The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic.

The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air sheds with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised, and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for nitrous oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate matter are shown in Table 1. Substantial reductions in emissions of NOX are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM10 and PM2.5 are forecast to slightly increase.

Table 1 – South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts Forecast Emissions in Tons per Day Pollutant 2012a 2015b 2020b 2025b 2030 NOX 512 451 357 289 266 VOC 466 429 400 393 393 PM10 154 155 161 165 170 PM2.5 68 67 67 68 170 a 2012 base year b With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of CEPAM

The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for



particulates (PM10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal 1-hour ozone standard, which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8-hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated.

With re-designation of the air basin as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the 1-hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8-hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to “slip” from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM2.5 standard.

Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary “bump-up” from a “severe non-attainment” area to an “extreme non-attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme designation will allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on “black-box” measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump-up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non-attainment designation from “severe-17” to “extreme.” This reclassification sets a later attainment deadline (2024), but also requires the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls.

In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA has disapproved part of the SCAB PM2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA has stated that the current attainment plan relies on PM2.5 control regulations that have not yet been approved or implemented. It is expected that a number of rules that are pending approval will remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues are not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The 2012 AQMP included in the ARB submittal to EPA as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) is expected to remedy identified PM2.5 planning deficiencies.

The federal Clean Air Act requires that non-attainment air basins have EPA-approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal 1-hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked around 7 years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the 1-hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now forced to develop an AQMP for the long-since-revoked 1-hour federal ozone standard. Because the 2012 AQMP contains a number of control measures for the 8-hour ozone standard that are equally effective for 1-hour levels, the 2012 AQMP is believed to satisfy hourly attainment planning requirements.

AQMPs are required to be updated every 3 years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013. An updated AQMP must therefore be adopted in 2016. Planning for the 2016 AQMP is currently ongoing. The current attainment deadlines for all federal non-attainment pollutants are now as follows:

8-hour ozone (70 ppb) 2037 Annual PM2.5 (12 µg/m3) 2025 8-hour ozone (80 ppb) 2024 (old standard) 8-hour ozone (75 ppb) 2032 (current standard) 1-hour ozone (120 ppb) 2032 (rescinded standard) 24-hour PM2.5 (35 µg/m3) 2019



The key challenge is that NOX emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional NOX control measures are adopted and implemented, attainment goals may not be met.

The proposed project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing pedestrian stairway improvement projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts, and programs relative to population, housing, employment, and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less than significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis.

Because this project is a rehabilitation of a public stairway and amenities for pedestrian use, the long-term emissions from the operation of the project have been determined to be below the significance thresholds, and therefore the project will not result in a significant impact. The emissions from the project are consistent with the AQMP assumptions. Also, construction of the project will not produce emissions greater than the SCAQMD thresholds.

Due to the limited earthwork and minimal size of the stairway facility, the project will not generate significant short-term air quality impacts. The project itself would not result in any conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The project does not propose any use that would generate stationary emissions (e.g., factory emissions) or generate increased traffic beyond that occurring in the area at this time. All potential pollutant concentrations are below the Significance Thresholds established by the AQMD.

Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to sensitive receptors. However, due to the close proximity of construction near a site that is close to residences that will continue to be occupied during construction activities, the following conditions of approval (below) are recommended to further reduce short-term impacts associated with grading and construction emissions in compliance with the SCAQMD.

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

The project will contribute to short-term air quality impacts from construction activities. The following describes the short-term project-related impacts to air quality that would occur as a result of grading and construction of the project. No operational air quality impacts will result from project implementation. Any impact potential will derive exclusively from construction activities.

Sensitive Receptors

Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease).



Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. The proposed project site is surrounded by residential uses. These uses are considered the closest sensitive receptors.

Construction Activity Impacts

Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new structures. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions.” Emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (e.g., soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural.

Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal “default” factor based on the area disturbed, assuming that all other input parameters into emissions rate prediction fall into midrange average values. This assumption may not be totally applicable to site-specific conditions on the proposed project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project-specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision.

Average daily PM10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are shown in the CalEEMod 2013.2.2 computer model to be about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities.

Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates, or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called PM2.5) was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM2.5 range. PM2.5 emissions are estimated to comprise 10% to 20% of PM10.

In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust comprises mainly large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture, or landscape foliage rather than any adverse health hazard.

CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model by which to calculate construction emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The project proposes to demolish and replace the public stairway at Cliff Drive and High Drive. Although exhaust emissions will result from on-site and off-site equipment, the exact types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty.



Given that the demolition and grading footprint is small and the duration is expected to be two months, peak daily construction activity emissions are less than their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds.

Mitigation Measure 1– During construction activities, the project applicant (and the construction contractor) shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, covering all stock piles with tarps, applying soil stabilizers to inactive areas, preparing a high wind dust control plan and implementing plan elements and terminating soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph, stabilizing previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed, providing water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials, minimizing in-out traffic from construction zone, cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand or loose material; sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from construction site to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune and establishing a preference for contractors using Tier 3-rated or better heavy equipment; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project-related emissions.

Mitigation Measure 2 – During construction activities, the project applicant (and the construction contractor) shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities.

Long-Term Air Quality Impacts

The primary source of long-term air quality impacts are emissions generated by motor vehicles. Therefore, there will be no long-term impacts based upon the fact that the project is replacement of an existing public stairway that would not generate new vehicle trips. No operational air quality impacts will result from project implementation. Any impact potential will derive exclusively from construction activities and will be short term.

c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a designated non-attainment area. The project does not represent significant growth, because it is a replacement of a public stairway designed for pedestrians to support better access to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean for the current area population. The project will not result in any short-term (construction-related impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level) or long-term air quality impacts. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts cumulatively to air quality.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project will result in an increase in pollutants from that which currently exists on-site as a result of construction activities. Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest



sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease).

Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. The proposed project site is bounded by residential uses. These uses are considered the closest sensitive receptors.

However, construction-related impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. All potential pollutant concentrations are below the Significance Thresholds established by the AQMD. Conditions of Approval are recommended (Section 3.2.a) to further reduce short-term impacts associated with grading and construction emissions in compliance with the SCAQMD.

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The proposed project (replacement of a public stairway) will not create any objectionable odors. However, during construction-related activities some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are not unusual and do not pose a health risk, but are rather a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects. However, the project does not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

3. Analysis 3.3 – Biological Resources


3.3 Biological Resources a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifica-

tions, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The City’s General Plan/Open Space-Conservation Element describes robust vegetation and wildlife in the City’s open space and undeveloped areas, including threatened or endangered species that are known to occur in the City.1 However, the General Plan targets “High Value” and “Very High Value” areas for protection and areas bordering those areas for special study of potential impacts from development on the high value areas. The project site is in a completely developed area that includes an existing public coastal access stairway that is proposed for renovation. The new stairway will be placed in substantially the same footprint as the existing stairway. The project site has been previously developed in conjunction with City’s efforts to create access to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The project site is biologically simplified and is of low faunal carrying capacity. The project site at present does not contain any sensitive habitat or protected species, nor is it near high or very high value areas depicted in the City’s General Plan.

The project proposes to preserve existing trees as much as possible during construction. The project will replace and enhance the site with additional slope-stabilizing plants from native species. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)

See response to 3.3(a) above. No impacts to riparian or other sensitive natural communities are anticipated.

c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)

The site does not contain wetlands. The project does not propose any activities that would potentially impact wetlands. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands will result from the proposed project.

d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

See response to 3.3(a) above. A mitigation measure has been added to cover the possibility of nesting birds on the project site during the nesting season from March through August. With implementation of this measure, all impacts are less than significant.

1 City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Open Space-Conservation Element, pages 3-43 to 3-74.

3. Analysis 3.3 – Biological Resources


Mitigation Measure 3 - If construction takes place during the bird nesting season from March to August, a site survey will be conducted to detect the presence or absence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected, work will be diverted or noise reduction measures will be implemented to reduce noise to below 60 dBA.

e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The implementation of the project (replacement of a public stairway) will not conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting said resources (e.g., trees). No protected trees were observed at the site. Fencing to protect existing landscaping and trees that are outside project limits but are located within the public right of way will be installed as protection during construction activities.

Therefore, the project will not conflict with any policies or ordinance pertaining to biological resources.

f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact)

The project does not involve any activities that would impact biological resources that would be subject to a conservation plan. The project site is not designated or included in a habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts to this topic are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project.

3. Analysis 3.4 – Cultural Resources


3.4 Cultural Resources The project site is developed and is located at 601 Cliff Drive at High Drive west of Pacific Coast Highway. The project area is designated as a street right of way in the City of Laguna Beach General Plan that has been developed with a wood and concrete stairway that needs to be replaced. Surrounding land uses include residential neighborhoods and Heisler Park. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing stairs and construction of a new concrete stairway. Development of the location would necessitate some ground disturbance. Because the project site has already been disturbed, it is anticipated that impacts to cultural resources will be less than significant. A Cultural Resources Assessment by Eukon Group was completed on November 14, 2018 and is included as Appendix B of this document. A cultural records search was conducted to identify all previously recorded cultural resources (prehistoric and historic) within the area of potential effect (APE). This involves a review of all previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites recorded within a half-mile radius of the project site, and a review of all cultural resources surveys, historic maps, and excavation reports. On October 27, 2018, Historian Brent Johnson walked the project site and the surrounding area to further develop an understanding of the Area of Potential Effect. The assessment found that some known cultural resources sites could be impacted by the project.

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

The City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element recognizes that cultural resources exist in the City. The Cultural Resources Assessment identified that the project site is already developed with a public stairway and that leads to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The Cultural Resources Study identified three properties with cultural resources within the APE of the Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project. One of these properties is the Mason-Radach Residence at 451 Hawthorne Road, .5 miles north of the project site. The other two properties identified are located approximately 1,800 to 1,900 feet east/southeast of the project site. Those two buildings are the Laguna Beach Gallery, the Museum of Art at 307 Cliff Drive, and the Las Brisas Restaurant (formerly Victor Hugo’s) about 1,800 feet from the project site. The field survey revealed that the three properties are not impacted visually within the area of potential effect, so there will be no impairment to the historic viewshed resulting from the new concrete access stairs.

The study also examined 22 area-specific reports on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, which is located at California State University, Fullerton. These reports were examined to determine if any addressed the project site itself and whether any cultural resources might be present. While none of these reports addressed the project site, an archaeological archival study for the Heisler Park Renovation and Preservation Project identified a prehistoric campsite within the north end of the park. The park is across the street from the project site. The campsite was identified as a habitation site that could include burials, remains of hearths, and other prehistoric artifacts. The report notes that finding evidence on the project site of this habitation would be significant because little is known about this site, its occupants, or its temporal placement.

The cultural resources study recommends mitigation during the demolition and grading phases of the project to determine if any artifacts are present or unearthed during demolition and grading activities



associated with the new concrete public stairway project. Mitigation Measure 4 below that would reduce potential impacts in the Area of Potential Effect to a less than significant level.

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

While the project site is already developed with stairway facilities, there will be demolition of the existing concrete and wood stairway and some minor grading to accommodate the new stairway structure. Because there are identified cultural resources within the area of potential effect (APE) of the project, a mitigation measure is recommended that would protect and identify any resources uncovered during project activities. Consistent with the City’s General Plan, a mitigation measure is presented below to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources in the event said resources are discovered or disturbed during minor grading or construction activities associated with the implementation of the proposed Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project. The mitigation measure is presented below to ensure that any potential significant impacts to cultural resources can be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 4 – During demolition and construction activities, the City shall retain an archaeological professional to determine if archaeological and/or paleontological resources are encountered. The contractor shall retain a qualified archeologist to perform full-time monitoring during demolition and ground disturbance in connection with the public stairway construction to guard against inadvertent impacts to cultural resources and/or human remains. If cultural resources are encountered during renovation, the certified archaeologist and/or a qualified paleontologist approved by the City shall evaluate the finds, determine their significance, and develop and carry out a program of mitigation as appropriate. Discovered cultural and/or paleontological resources shall be offered to the City of Laguna Beach or its designee on a first-refusal basis.

c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

The project site is located within a developed area. The proposed project will necessitate limited demolition and grading activities and site preparation. Although the grading and site preparation are limited due to the nature of the proposed stairway replacement project site only, there still exists the potential to encounter unknown and undiscovered paleontological resources. Therefore, a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4) presented in Section 3.4(b) above is recommended to ensure that potential significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4) above, potential significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

The project site is currently developed and includes an existing stairway. There is no record of Native American remains discovered during prior archeological investigations around the site. However, Mitigation Measure 5 below is proposed in case Native American remains are discovered during ground



disturbance related to replacement of the stairway facilities, since a nearby archaeological survey revealed the potential for human remains in the area.

Mitigation Measure 5 – If human remains are discovered during the Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project activities, the Orange County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately so the Native American Heritage Commission can be contacted, triggering consultation on disposition of the remains, including contact with the Most Likely Descendent.

3. Analysis 3.5 – Geology and Soils


3.5 Geology and Soils The proposed project would not result in impacts to geology and soils in the area of liquefaction zones; the project proposes no habitable structures. A geotechnical report for the project was prepared by Geofirm of Laguna Beach dated April 5, 2018 and is included as Appendix C. The Safety Element of the City’s General Plan also includes an evaluation of public safety that addresses geology and soils of the City. The site would be susceptible to levels of seismic ground shaking typical for much of Southern California. The site is not located within a potential liquefaction zone.

a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. The rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The City, as well as most of Southern California, is located in a region of historical seismic activity. No known active fault systems are located within the limits of the City or the project site. Therefore, no part of the City has been delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, Laguna Beach is located in a region with several active faults. The most significant faults potentially affecting the City on a regional basis are the Newport-Inglewood fault, the Whittier-Elsinore fault, and the San Jacinto fault. There are also distant faults that could affect Laguna Beach by generating a powerful shock, such as the San Andreas fault and the San Jacinto fault, two great faults that have shown activity in historic times. The Newport-Inglewood fault runs north-south approximately 3 miles west of the City. Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, the project will not result in any significant impacts in relation to a rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact)

There are active or potentially active fault systems that can affect the Laguna Beach area, including the project site. The most significant known active faults include the Newport-Inglewood fault and the Whittier-Elsinore fault. The closest approach of an active fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood fault, which is located about 3 miles to the west. The potential for damage resulting from seismic-related events exists within the City as it does throughout Southern California. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, ground failure, ground displacement, tsunamis, and seiches. The site is expected to be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking from a regional seismic event within the project life of the proposed public stairway replacement. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone have the greatest potential for causing earthquake damage related to ground shaking at the project site. However, the project includes no habitable structures that would be impacted by a seismic event, and it will be designed and built to code.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant Impact)

According to the Seismic Hazard Zones Map in the Laguna Beach General Plan, Safety Element, the site is not located within a potential liquefaction zone. However, the proposed project is a rebuilding of a public stairway connecting Cliff Drive to High Drive, replacing an existing stairway as part of the project.



Therefore, all potential impacts relative to this topic are considered less than significant and no increase from what exists on the site today.

iv. Landslides? (Less Than Significant Impact)

According to the Seismic Hazards Zones Map of the Laguna Beach General Plan, Safety Element, the project site is not located within a potential landslide zone. However, the proposed project replaces a public stairway that exists on the site today. Therefore, all potential impacts relative to this topic are considered less than significant and no increase from what exists on the site today.

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

The proposed project would maintain the natural contours and slopes of the property to replace a public stairway that would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil from that which the site experiences currently as an existing public stairway. The adjacent homes and improvements will be protected during construction if they are within the area of influence from the project. The replacement stairway would be constructed on the site of the existing stairway. With implementation of recommended mitigation, no significant impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will result due to the project.

Mitigation Measure 6 – During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the project’s geotechnical report.

c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less Than Significant Impact)

It is not anticipated that significant impacts associated with geology and soils will occur as a result of implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 above. Per the geotechnical report for the project, bedrock can be encountered within less than 2 feet of the surface and gross slope instability is not anticipated. The geotechnical firm also provided recommendations for stability in the event caissons are used to support the new stairway.

d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project proposes replacement of an existing public stairway and includes no habitable structures; therefore, no significant impacts relative to this topic are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the project. Per the geotechnical report for this project, the site can be characterized as dense terrace deposits overlying bedrock. Bedrock was encountered within less than 2 feet of borings conducted by Geofirm.



e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact)

The proposed project involves replacement of an existing public stairway; as such, the project does not involve issues pertaining to soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

3. Analysis 3.6 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions


3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The project site is currently developed with a public stairway and the project will replace that structure. Construction activities are the primary greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project. The size and duration of the project would generate minimal greenhouse gas impacts that are less than significant. Because the project is a public stairway, there will be no vehicular emissions once the project is constructed.

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact)

“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately one-half of GHG emissions globally. Because this project is a pedestrian facility, it does not generate any emissions from combustible engines. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, SB 375, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07.

AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California’s reputation as a “national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship.” It will have wide-ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide-ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions, are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of AB 32 include:

• Requires monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions.

• Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources.

• Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25% to 40%, from business as

usual, to be achieved by 2020. • Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality

standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants.



Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is underway. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR, now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry-specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e., company owned) and indirect sources (i.e., not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on-and off-road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off-site electricity generation and non-company-owned mobile sources. The public stairway replacement project will have no direct sources since it is a pedestrian facility and does not create combustible emissions.

In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March 2010. The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist was modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:

• Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or

• Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.

Section 15064.4 of the Code of Regulations specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.

Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative, or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as Claimed, as was used in the ensuing analysis.

The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise.

3.6.1. Construction Activity GHG Emissions

The build-out timetable for the project is estimated to be approximately 2 months. That timeline was compared to other projects on which impacts were modeled using the Claimed computer model that predicts what annual emissions would be associated with those construction activities. The closest duration construction project was four months. For a 4-month project, the impacts were considered less than significant. The proposed project is proposed to have a two-month construction schedule. Therefore, greenhouse gas impacts will be less than significant.



b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant Impact)

As discussed above, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. The Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project is not expected to emit significant greenhouse gases during the relatively brief period of project construction. Additionally, the improvements are solely a pedestrian facility designed to serve pedestrians not automobiles. Therefore, impacts in this area are less than significant.

3. Analysis 3.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials


3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed project is not a generator of hazardous materials, and will not result in any significant impacts from hazardous materials being transported from the project. The project site is currently developed with a public stairway, and the proposed project will replace that structure. Construction activities are the primary sources of hazardous materials during the project’s construction phase.

The subject project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code §65962.5. There are also no sites within a quarter mile of the project site. The proposed project will not create any significant hazard to the public or environment relative to hazards and hazardous materials.

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Impact)

The project proposes to replace a public stairway at Cliff Drive and High Drive in Laguna Beach. The project does not generate the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project involves the construction of a public pedestrian stairway on the project site. Proposed Mitigation Measure 7 below would control any hazardous materials used during project construction. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials since it is a public stairway.

b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

The project will not be a generator of hazardous materials. No significant hazardous materials would be stored or handled on-site associated with the operational characteristics of the project. However, construction equipment will be operating on the project site that could involve temporary storage of hazardous materials on the site. The construction of the project will include short-term use of construction equipment that will emit emissions. Additionally, in relation to construction activities, the proper use and maintenance of equipment, along with the use of general common sense, greatly reduces the potential for contamination. A mitigation measure is presented below that addresses hazardous materials related to short-term construction activities. The proposed mitigation measure is designed to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 7 – During the project the City shall ensure that demolition, grading or clearing plans include the following measures and that the measures shall be followed by the construction contractor and the crew:

a. The storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and oils and fueling of construction equipment shall be a minimum of 45 meters (150 feet) from any drainage, water supply, or other water feature.

b. Hazardous materials stored onsite shall be stored in a neat, orderly manner in appropriate containers and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure.

c. Whenever possible, all of a product shall be used up before disposal of its container.

3. Analysis 3.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials


d. If surplus product must be disposed of, the manufacturers or the local and state recommended methods for disposal shall be followed.

e. Spills shall be contained and cleaned up immediately after discovery. Manufacturer’s methods for spill cleanup of a material shall be followed as described on the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each product.

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact)

There are no existing or proposed public schools within one-quarter mile of the site. The proposed public stairway will not create hazardous emissions or involve hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, there is no impact in this subject area.

d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact)

The location of the site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code §65962.5. As mentioned above, there are no cleanup sites within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the project itself will not result in any impacts relative to hazardous materials sites.

e) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact)

The project involves replacement of an existing public access stairway. There is nothing in the project that would impede implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. The project will not result in any impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan.

f) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact)

The project is not located in a developed area that is identified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. It is not adjacent to wildlands such as some of the City neighborhoods adjacent to the Laguna Greenbelt wildland areas. The proposed project includes no habitable structures that would require Uniform Fire Code standards. The project includes rehabilitation of a public stairway that connects High Drive to Cliff Drive. The project does not propose any features that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with wildland fires.

3. Analysis 3.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality


3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project will not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and the immediate area, and is designed to follow the existing natural contours of the property. Rainwater would be absorbed into the landscaped areas adjacent to the stairway or would run down the natural existing drainage courses to the beach. During the rainy season, water and debris from High Drive and North Coast Highway currently flow towards the end of High Drive, overwhelming the existing drainage system and causing slope erosion adjacent to the stairway. An improved drainage system will be installed to capture this flow and direct water by extending the concrete curb and gutter on Cliff Drive.

The project also provides enhanced landscaping in the High Drive and Cliff Drive access locations. The project will not result in any significant substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site. Slope stabilizing native plants will be installed to protect the slope from erosion. The proposed project does not include any water wells, and no on-site groundwater would be used.

The project may result in short-term construction impacts to water quality, though replacement of the public stairway is planned during the dry season in Southern California. Short-term impacts may occur as a result of construction when equipment enters or departs the access area on Cliff Drive or High Drive during project grading activities, but are not considered significant, with the implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). These impacts can be reduced by procedures that protect the quality of storm water runoff on community streets, such as site construction entrance erosion and sediment control programs, enforcing prohibitions on illegal discharges, controlling spills, and enforcing the prohibition on certain discharges. Water quality implementation of the project will include compliance with the adopted Drainage Area Management Plan2 and adoption of Best Management Practices for handling any runoff from the proposed project entrances.

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

The Cliff Drive to High Drive site is developed and will continue to remain so when the public stairway facilities replacement project is completed. Portions of the City of Laguna Beach (including the project site) are located in the Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed. The project area is under the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) San Diego Region for issues related to water quality. The San Diego Region includes cities and municipalities in a portion of south Orange County (includes Laguna Beach), and Riverside County and San Diego County. Each of the nine Regional Boards within California is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan, or Basin Plan. Each Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan: 1) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters; 2) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state’s anti-degradation policy; 3) describes implementation programs to meet the objectives and protect the beneficial uses of all waters in the region; and 4) describes surveillance and monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of the Basin Plan.

2 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), July 1, 2003, County of Orange



There is a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which is implemented by the cities (including Laguna Beach), County of Orange, and Orange County Flood Control District. The DAMP was prepared in compliance with specific requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. The DAMP includes a wide range of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and control techniques to further reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system.

The City of Laguna Beach is preparing the Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed Workplan that is updated each year. Previous water quality studies prepared by “Heal the Beach” and the County of Orange have found that the water quality in the Pacific Ocean along the Laguna Coastal Streams Watershed consistently ranks among the cleanest in Southern California with regard to ocean plan objectives.

The construction activity includes any work associated with minor grading and construction of the stairway project. This includes clearing the existing stairway from the location covered by the project. Due to the minor soil disturbance associated with construction activity, there is a potential for some sediment to be transported from the construction site into receiving waters such as the Pacific Ocean. Other potential pollutants include metals (vehicles and heavy equipment).

In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing 1 acre or more of soil comply with the State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ). However, the total Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project will disturb less than 1 acre of soil. Nevertheless, the project will be conditioned to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction activities. The purpose of implementing BMPs is to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting storm water and to keep all erosion products from moving off-site into receiving waters. Certain discharges of non-storm water, such as irrigation, and pipe flushing and testing are permitted as long as they do not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard; violate any provision of the General Permit; or require a non-storm water permit (such as that issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board [SDRWQCB]). Typical construction BMPs required by the NPDES permit and the pollutants they target are shown in Table 2. Due to the type of project proposed (public stairway replacement) not all of the typical construction BMPs identified in Table 2 are applicable to the project (e.g., storm drain inlets).

Pollutants associated with this type of project include sediment (soil disturbance), nutrients (fertilizers, eroded soils), metals (vehicles), oil, and grease (vehicles).



Table 2 – Typical Construction BMPs

Construction BMPs for Incorporation, Where Applicable, into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Se

dim

ent

Nutri

ents

Path

ogen

s

Pest

icide

s

Meta

ls

Othe

r

Soil and slope stabilization utilizing the appropriate combination of natural and synthetic mattings, geotextiles, mulches, and temporary and permanent seeding.

X X X

Temporary desilting basins constructed where necessary and consisting of ponds with outflow pipes designed to retain or detain runoff sufficiently to allow sediment to settle.

X X X

Storm drain inlet protection utilizing an appropriate combination of barrier devices such as sandbags, straw rolls, hay bales, fiber rolls, gravel, silt fencing, screens, and temporary drain signs (raising awareness and limiting construction wastes from entering the storm drain system).

X X X Trash

Energy dissipation devices installed where necessary and consisting of physical devices such as rock, riprap, and concrete rubble intended to prevent scour of downstream areas.

X X X

On-site dust control and street sweeping employed when and where necessary, paying close attention to paved areas and areas susceptible to wind erosion (such as soil stockpiles).

X X X Trash

Stabilized construction entrance consisting of pads of aggregate and located where traffic enters public rights-of-way; when and where necessary, wash racks or tire rinsing may be employed (tire rinse waters being directed through on-site sediment control devices).

X X

Diversion structures consisting of devices such as silt fencing, temporary or permanent channels, V ditches, earthen dikes, downdrains, straw bales, and sandbag check dams should be utilized where necessary to divert storm water flows from disturbed areas.

X X Trash

Adherence to Groundwater Extraction Permit by conducting required testing, monitoring, and discharge provisions for activities, including dewatering and foundation dewatering.

X X

Construction housekeeping practices consisting of practices such as barricading catch basins and manholes during paving activities; utilizing plastic sheeting, secondary containment, or bermed areas for construction materials when necessary; removing construction debris in a timely fashion; designating and lining concrete washout areas; and berming or locating sanitary facilities away from paved areas.

X X X Trash

Fertilizer, pesticide, and soil amendment management, including not over applying such materials.

X X

Source: California Storm Water BMP Handbooks (2003) Implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure 8 below, which outlines requirements to prevent violations of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure 8 – Prior to the commencement of any grading activities, the contractor shall provide the City of Laguna Beach Public Works Department with a list of Best Management Practices that will be implemented prior to construction. The project shall comply with and implement all the applicable requirements of the NPDES permit.



b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project site is located on developed land, and the subject property will remain developed after implementation of the stairway replacement project. The project will not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Landscaping will utilize water efficient landscaping and irrigation, but it is not anticipated to have significant impact on groundwater supplies or recharge. The project site is not in a recharge area. It is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impact on groundwater.

c) Would the project substantially alter existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project will not result in a significant change to the drainage pattern of the property. The proposed project would not involve the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site. The public stairway replacement project is planned to follow the natural contours and slopes of the property. A drainage inlet grate will be constructed on High Drive and a curb outlet will be constructed on Cliff Drive to facilitate post-construction storm water runoff. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to erosion or siltation on-site or off-site.

d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project does not involve any alteration of the existing and/or planned drainage system (pattern) of the project area. The replacement of the public stairway will not alter the course of a stream or a river. The project does not propose any alterations to the existing or planned storm drain system in Laguna Beach. Therefore, no impacts to this topical area will occur as a result of the project.

e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The City of Laguna Beach is primarily built out and contains an existing storm water drainage system. The project is consistent with the capacity of the existing storm drain system in the City of Laguna Beach. The Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project follows the natural contours of the property and would not alter the current natural drainage of the developed site. Mitigation Measure 8 above would ensure that any potential impacts associated with runoff (and water quality) during grading and construction of the project will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Therefore, no impacts associated with runoff will occur as a result of the proposed project.



f) Would the project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? (Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants {e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash}.) (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project will comply with all existing requirements regarding water quality. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will substantially degrade water quality.

g) Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Mitigation Measure 8 would reduce any runoff and alteration of receiving waters during construction. Therefore, this impact is mitigated to a less than significant level.

h) Would the project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project increases and enhances landscaping at the public stairway project location. Therefore, the proposed project will result in a decrease of impervious surfaces and associated runoff for a less than significant impact.

i) Would the project create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates and volumes? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project will not create a significant environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff rates and volumes. Project is designed to maintain the footprint of existing facilities to enhance access for pedestrians. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact.

j) Would the project result in increased erosion downstream? (No Impact)

The project as designed will not result in increased erosion downstream. The project is a replacement of the existing public stairway that connects High Drive and Cliff Drive. Therefore, there is no impact.

k) Would the project result in an increase of any pollutant for which a downstream water body is already impaired, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? (Less Than Significant Impact)

As mentioned above, Mitigation Measure 8 requires Best Management Practices to be implemented that will contain runoff of pollutants during construction. There are no impaired bodies of water in the area. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

l) Would the project exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions to downstream environmentally sensitive area? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project will not result in increased runoff downstream from what exists today. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.



m) Would the project have a potentially significant adverse impact on surface water quality of either marine, fresh or wetland waters? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project is implementing BMPs to protect downstream marine environments. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

n) Would the project have a potentially significant adverse impact on ground water quality? (No Impact)

The project will have no impacts on ground water quality with BMPs during construction.

o) Would the project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives, policies or degradation of beneficial uses? (Less Than Significant Impact)

With the implementation of BMPs, the project will have less than significant impacts on applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or policies.

p) Would the project impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 8 above, the project will have no impact on the downstream aquatic habitat.

q) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project involves the replacement of an existing public stairway. The project involves existing facilities and will not otherwise degrade water quality.

r) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact)

The site is located outside the 100-year flood plain, and the project proposes replacement of existing public facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts relative to the 100-year flood hazard will occur as a result of the proposed project.

s) Would the project place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact)

The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone area. There will be no habitable structures introduced as a result of the project. The project proposes to replace the existing public stairway at Cliff Drive and High Drive in the City of Laguna Beach. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with a 100-year flood hazard area.

t) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact)

The project is not located in an area that would expose people or structures to flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam. Therefore, no impacts relative to this topic will occur as a result of the proposed project.



u) Would the project experience inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Less Than Significant Impact)

Because the site is located near the Pacific Ocean on the coastal bluffs, it is anticipated that the project site could potentially experience impacts associated with inundation by tsunami. A tsunami run-up would likely reach only part way up the stairway, depending on its size. The Tsunami Inundation Map (Laguna Beach Quadrangle, 2009) produced by CalEMA shows the projected inundation line does not reach the public staircase. The project itself does not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding, or flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam since it is a replacement of a public stairway that already exists. Additionally, the City of Laguna Beach has emergency procedures in the event of a major event (e.g., flooding, earthquake, evacuation plans). Therefore, impacts associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would not be associated with the proposed project.

3. Analysis 3.9 – Land Use and Planning


3.9 Land Use and Planning The proposed project will not result in any significant impacts relative to land use and planning. The project site is already developed with a public stairway to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed project (replacement of the public stairway) is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Because the site is already developed, the project does not physically divide an established community. The proposed project is not subject to any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact)

The project site is currently developed with a stairway. The project provides replacement of a public stairway at Cliff Drive and High Drive. Development of the proposed project will not physically divide an established community, because the access area currently exists and is designed to connect coastal areas to the public; therefore, no impacts relative to this topic are anticipated.

b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact)

The public stairway is located within the public right of way that connects Cliff Drive and High Drive. Therefore, there is no General Plan land use designation of the site. The proposed project will provide connections between neighborhoods and transportation facilities on Pacific Coast Highway to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Open Space Element and Conservation Element that calls for retaining and improving existing public access facilities in the City. The project is also compatible with surrounding land uses. It is not anticipated that the proposed project will result in any significant impacts relative to land use.

c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact)

The project is not subject to any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts relative to this topic will result due to the proposed project.

3. Analysis 3.10 – Mineral Resources


3.10 Mineral Resources The proposed project does not involve any use that would result in any impacts to mineral resources. The site is developed with an existing public stairway within the public street right of way at Cliff Drive and High Drive. The site is not designated by the City (or the State of California) as containing any mineral resources of local or regional importance. No significant impacts to mineral resources will occur as a result of the project.

a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)

The site is currently developed with a stairway that promotes public access to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The project site is not located within a known and/or designated mineral resources area. Therefore, no significant decrease of natural resources is anticipated as a result of the project.

b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (No Impact)

The City’s General Plan does not delineate any locally important mineral resource in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to a locally important mineral resource.

3. Analysis 3.11 – Noise


3.11 Noise The proposed project will result in some short-term noise associated with construction activities including demolition of the existing stairway, construction traffic, and installation of the minor site improvements (e.g., replacement stairway, landscaping and minor drainage facilities). The project is a proposed replacement of the Cliff Drive to High Drive public stairway that is consistent with the City of Laguna Beach General Plan. The project construction activities will comply with the City of Laguna Beach’s Noise Ordinance and proposed mitigation measure during construction activities. Once the project is constructed its use will be available for pedestrians only so the facility will not generate any traffic noise. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts for noise with mitigation incorporated.

a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

The Noise Element of the General Plan contains the City’s policies on noise. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)-based standards are generally applied to transportation-related sources because local jurisdictions are pre-empted from exercising direct noise control over such things as vehicles on public streets, aircraft, and trains. The City of Laguna Beach therefore regulates the traffic noise exposure of the receiving property through land use controls.

For this project, land use controls are unnecessary, because the facility is a public stairway that is available to assist pedestrians travelling between High Drive and Cliff Drive. The project does not involve a habitable structure that might require noise attenuation measures to meet City noise standards. Therefore, noise related to the operation of the new public stairway is not a factor.

Laguna Beach Noise Ordinance Standards

The City of Laguna Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance (Section 7.25.040 of the Municipal Code), which identifies exterior noise standards, specific noise restrictions, exemptions, and variances for sources of noise within the City as shown in Table 3. The Noise Ordinance applies to all noise generated on one land use that impacts an adjacent use, typically stationary noise sources. As such, the Municipal Code provides standards against possibly intrusive noises sources.

Table 3 – Laguna Beach Noise Standards

Noise Zone* Type of Land Use Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, Leq.

7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. I Residential 60 dBA 50 dBA II Commercial 65 dBA 65 dBA III Residential portion 65 dBA 55 dBA IV Downtown specific plan area—CBD1, CBD2, CBD

visitor commercial, CBD central bluffs and civic arts district

70 dBA 70 dBA

V Other uses 70 dBA 60 dBA *Noise levels shall not exceed the noise standard for the applicable Noise Zone for any 15-minute period.



The exterior noise standards are property line noise limits that often reflect changes in noise sensitivity by time of day. The ordinance recognizes that residential uses are more noise-sensitive than commercial or manufacturing/industrial land uses. For residential uses, the nighttime noise standard is 50 dB Leq. Daytime noise standards are less restrictive than nighttime standards.

Regulation of noise from construction activities is not pre-empted from local jurisdiction control. However, the City of Laguna Beach, like most California governmental agencies has not adopted any specific standards relating to construction noise. According to Section 7.25.080 of the City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code, permissible hours of construction are between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No work is permitted on Saturdays, Sundays and Federal Holidays. The presumption is that by restricting construction activity noise generation to hours of lesser noise sensitivity, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code lists the following exemptions from adherence to noise standards:

• The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons performing such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; or

• A determination by the city manager or a department director that the maintenance, repair or improvement is immediately necessary to maintain public services; or

• If the maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours; or

• The city council has approved project specifications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day which would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section.

• A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response).

Baseline Noise Levels

Existing noise levels in Laguna Beach derive mainly from vehicle traffic on more heavily traveled roadways. Recreational activity noise is very localized (such as near Main Beach), but Laguna Beach is overall a quiet community. In areas of proposed access improvement, surf noise is often the loudest noise source. Measured traffic noise levels at 50 feet from the PCH centerline are near 70 dB CNEL when traffic is moving freely. Distance spreading losses reduce this level by 3 to 5 dB for each doubling of distance. Intervening structures between areas of proposed bluff-top improvements and major traffic sources readily reduce noise levels by an additional 10 dB. Baseline noise levels at the homes closest to the stairway improvements are thus estimated to be 40 to 50 dB CNEL unless the surf is high.



Standards of Significance

Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances. The preferred exterior noise exposure for the City of Laguna Beach for residential uses is 65 dBA CNEL in usable outdoor space such as backyards, decks, and patios.

Impacts may also be significant if they create either a substantial permanent or temporary increase. The terms “substantial” or “excessive” are not defined in most environmental compliance guidelines. Noise analysis methodology is accurate only to the nearest whole decibel and the human ear can only clearly detect changes of around 3 dBA; changes of less than 3 dBA, while audible under controlled circumstances, are not readily discernible in an outdoor environment. Thus, a change of 3 dBA is considered as a perceptible audible change. Most people can readily hear a change of 5 dBA in an exterior environment; therefore, in many municipalities and for Caltrans projects, an increase of 5 dBA or greater in the noise exposure of sensitive receptors is considered a substantial change:

The following noise impacts are applicable for this project and would be considered significant.

1. If construction activities were to audibly intrude into adjacent residential areas during periods of heightened noise sensitivity.

2. If construction activities were to generate vibration levels that could be considered a nuisance or could cause cosmetic structural damage.

Construction Noise Impacts

Temporary construction noise impacts vary because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Because of issues with terrain, access, and scope there is a minimal quantity of heavy construction equipment anticipated for the proposed project activities

To approximate noise levels resulting from the project, a recently developed construction noise analysis tool, the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used. The RCNM was developed for linear roadway projects. The proposed activities could be considered a linear project. The noisiest construction activities for the proposed improvements would be the removal of some hardscape elements such as retaining walls and paving. This task typically requires jackhammers and debris loaders. If three pieces of demolition equipment were to operate within 100 feet of a residence, the RCNM model predicts that the total noise level could be as high as 77 dB Leq for the combined noise signature of a jackhammer, backhoe and air compressor. It is unlikely that three pieces of large equipment could operate simultaneously adjacent to an individual residence for a period of time and therefore this scenario is representative of maximal noise.

The jackhammer represents the dominant noise source for this project and adds +10 dB to the noise signature over an air compressor and backhoe. Jack hammers are only used to demolish existing masonry which is a short term activity. Without the jackhammer expected noise levels would be reduced to approximately 70 dB. Because each piece of equipment will only spend a short duration in proximity to any single residence equipment noise nuisance would be sporadic and brief. Additionally,



construction noise is generally stationary and would therefore attenuate by 6 dB for every doubling of distance from any receptor. Therefore, noise levels at a single receptor are greatly reduced as work progresses away from any individual residence.

Exterior to interior noise attenuation in modern stucco homes with double paned windows is approximately 30 dB. Therefore, an exterior noise level of 75 dB would be reduced to an interior noise level of 45 dB. Such a noise level would not interfere with conversation. With closed windows and doors, off-road equipment nuisance noise could be reduced acceptable levels when the jackhammer is not in use. During brief periods of jackhammering a perceived temporary nuisance could be created at an adjacent residence even with closed windows.

Long-Term Noise Impacts

The stairway replacement project is not expected to create any measurable increase in visitors. No new vehicle traffic is expected in the area. No measurable noise impact will result from project implementation. Any impact potential will derive exclusively from construction activities.

Short-Term Noise Impacts

Short-term construction noise intrusion and vibration impacts will be limited by conditions on construction permits requiring compliance with the City of Laguna Beach Noise Ordinance. Allowable hours of construction are between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No work is permitted on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. In addition, to ensure that no potential significant noise impacts result due to the construction of the proposed project (and consistent with City requirements), the following recommended mitigation measure will reduce noise levels to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 9 – During construction activities, the following construction practices are recommended:

a. Stockpiling and staging activities should be located as far as practicable from dwellings. b. All mobile equipment shall have properly operating and maintained mufflers. c. Require that construction activities employ feasible and practical techniques to

minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of hours in which work other than emergency work may occur.

d. As a condition of approval, non-emergency construction activities adjacent to existing noise-sensitive uses shall be limited to daylight hours between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No work is permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays.

e. Construct temporary enclosures around exceptionally noisy activities. For example, shields can be used around pavement or cement breakers such as jackhammers.

f. Select quieter demolition methods when possible. g. Notify adjacent homes near any hardscape demolition activities as to time and place to

allow residents to adjust their schedule to avoid noise disruption.

Therefore, based on the above analysis and recommended mitigation measure, it is not anticipated that the project will not result in any significant impacts to noise.



b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

See response to Section 3.11.a) above and recommended mitigation measure. The project will require site demolition/preparation and construction activities.

Typical background vibration levels in residential areas are usually 50 VdB or lower, which is below the threshold of human perception. Perceptible vibration levels inside residences are typically attributed to the operation of heating and air conditioning systems, door slams, or street traffic. Construction activities and street traffic are some of the most common external sources of vibration that can be perceptible inside residences.

Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground-borne vibration include discernible movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Vibration-related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building because structures amplify ground borne vibration. Within the “soft” sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped out. Ground borne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors.3

Ground borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance.

Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows:

65 VdB - threshold of human perception 72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events 80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events 94-98 VdB - minor cosmetic damage

To determine potential impacts of the project’s construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by the construction equipment anticipated for project use at various distances are presented below.

Equipment Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)* 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet

Jackhammer 79 73 67 Small bulldozer 58 52 46 *FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006

3 Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006



Air compressors generate little vibration. The on-site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a jackhammer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 73 VdB at 50 feet from the source and decays to 67 VdB by 100 feet. At 50 feet from possibly adjacent homes, residents might be able to marginally feel a faint tremble, but vibration levels are far below the damage threshold.

Therefore, the construction activities are typical for the type of development proposed (replacement stairway) and as such nearby uses (e.g., existing residences) will not experience excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.

c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact)

No measurable noise impact will result from project implementation. The project itself will not result in any permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. Mitigation relative to the noise levels associated with the project construction has been presented in response to Section 3.11.a) above.

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Since the project will involve construction activities on the site, there will be short-term increases in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 9 above is presented to reduce construction noise impacts. The project will comply with applicable noise regulations of the City’s Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the project will not result in significant noise impacts with implementation of recommended mitigation measure.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)

The project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, there is no impact.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)

The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there is no impact in this area.

3. Analysis 3.12 – Population and Housing


3.12 Population and Housing The proposed project does not involve the construction of residential development. The project consists of the demolition and rebuilding of the public stairway connecting High Drive and Cliff Drive in the Heisler Park area. Due to the type of project (demolition and replacement of stairway), the project does not induce substantial population growth in the area. The area where the project site is located is developed. Additionally, the project will not displace existing housing. The project does not result in any significant impacts to population and housing.

a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact)

The project consists of reconstruction of a public stairway within the existing street right of way. The project site is located in an area surrounded by urban development where infrastructure exists. No significant new infrastructure will be required for the project. The project will not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, beyond that already contemplated per the City’s General Plan, county and state population/housing projections.

b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)

The project does not involve elimination of any existing housing. The project site is developed with an existing public stairway. Therefore, the project will not displace any existing housing.

c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)

The project site is already developed with a public stairway. The proposed project will not have any impacts involving demolition of existing housing necessitating construction of new housing. The project will not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people and/or housing. The project will not displace people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing.

3. Analysis 3.13 – Public Services


3.13 Public Services The project will replace a public stairway at High Drive and Cliff Drive in the City of Laguna Beach. Public services are already being provided to the project area and to the subject site. The project is designed to facilitate public access to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean by replacing the existing stairway. The project will not result in any significant impacts to public services.

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services?

Public services are already being provided to the City of Laguna Beach and to the project site. It is not anticipated that the project would result in substantial adverse impacts to public services, because it is already being serviced by public services and would not result in an increase of beach visitors.

i. Fire protection? (No Impact)

The Laguna Beach Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency response services for the City. Response times to the site are dependent on various factors. Response time is generally five minutes or less. Emergency calls receive the quickest response times with alarm calls and non-emergency calls having longer response times respectively. The availability of personnel and extenuating circumstances may further affect response times. The closest Laguna Beach fire station to the site is located on Forest Avenue in the downtown village next to City Hall. The project site is located near Pacific Coast Highway at High Drive. The project will replace the existing public stairway at High Drive and Cliff Drive. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will result in any significant impacts relative to fire protection services and/or facilities.

ii. Police protection? (No Impact)

Law enforcement services are provided by the Laguna Beach Police Department. The site is already developed with a stairway, and therefore, demand for police protection is not anticipated to be significantly impacted as a result of the project. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and will not substantially increase demand for police services. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.

iii. Schools? (No Impact)

The project site is located in the Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). Due to the type of project (replacement of existing public stairway at Cliff Drive and High Drive), the project will not result in any increase in generating students or impact the LBUSD. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts to schools.

iv. Parks? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element Policies (p. 3-14) identifies that retaining and improving existing public beach access in the City is a priority. The project will actually facilitate public access to coastal resources such as Heisler Park by replacing an existing stairway. Due to

3. Analysis 3.13 – Public Services


the type of uses proposed (public stairway) the project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities.

v. Other public facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project site already features an existing public stairway connecting Cliff Drive to High Drive. The project will rebuild that facility in the City of Laguna Beach. The project development does not result in any significant impact to public facilities. Public facilities already occur adjacent to the project area such as existing City beaches, recreational areas, public transportation, utilities and public services. Therefore, no significant impacts relative to the other public facilities are expected to occur as a result of the project.

3. Analysis 3.14 – Recreation


3.14 Recreation The project will not result in any significant impacts to recreation. The proposed project will replace a public stairway at Cliff Drive and High Drive in the City of Laguna Beach. The stairway already exists to connect the public with Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The project will have no impact on existing recreational facilities in the City of Laguna Beach. Since the project will rehabilitate an existing connection between recreational uses and the public and does not propose any uses that would contribute to an increased use of existing recreational facilities in the City of Laguna Beach, the project will have no impact on recreation.

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact)

The project itself will not generate residents (or increase the population) and, therefore create a demand for parks and recreational facilities. The project proposes replacing a public stairway that ties together Cliff Drive and High Drive. The project will not result in any potential significant increase in demand of the use of existing recreation facilities.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? (No Impact)

The project replaces a public stairway. The project will provide a beneficial impact by providing continuing opportunities for travel on-site among recreational areas (City Beach) that currently exist. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts to this topical area.

3. Analysis 3.15 – Transportation/Circulation


3.15 Transportation/Circulation The project involves demolition of and rebuilding a public stairway that connects Cliff Drive and High Drive near Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Laguna Beach. Specifically, the existing stairway would be replaced. As such, there should be no transportation or circulation issues triggered since the proposed improvements are designed to serve existing area population and non-motorized uses. Short-term construction-related impacts are temporary, and recommended mitigation will further reduce these impacts. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on transportation and circulation.

a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

The proposed project will demolish and replace an existing public stairway that connects Cliff Drive and High Drive. The project is not expected to create vehicle trips beyond those that currently exist in the area. The project is consistent with applicable plans that promote pedestrian paths and create opportunities for the smooth movement of pedestrians in recreation-rich coastal areas.

The project will result in minor short-term construction-related traffic in association with construction workers, delivery of construction equipment, and earthwork/grading site preparation activities. The proposed project will require minimal grading (cut/fill of earth material). Given the proximity of the project site to Pacific Coast Highway, a mitigation measure is presented below requiring a construction traffic control plan to reduce potential short-term construction related impacts if construction is staged off Coast Highway at High Drive. Though most of the construction activity is located off-road in the area of the existing public stairway, it may be necessary to use High Drive to access the project site. Therefore, with implementation of the following mitigation measure, no significant impacts relative to traffic are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the proposed project.

Mitigation Measure 10 – Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the contractor shall develop a traffic control program for review and approval. The plan shall consist of prior notices and adequate sign-posting. Proper detours and warning signs shall be installed for project construction activities. The plan shall identify truck haul routes and truck hauling operations, if necessary.

b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Impact)

The project will not generate any new vehicle trips. Although Pacific Coast Highway is on the network, the project is also exempt from the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) traffic impact analysis, which has a threshold of 2,400 average daily trips (ADT) or less than 1,600 ADT directly onto the CMP Highway System. Therefore, the project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard.

3. Analysis 3.15 – Transportation/Circulation


c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact)

See response to Section 3.15.a) above. The project does not propose any modifications to the existing driveways and/or street system. The project as proposed does not result in any impacts relative to design features or incompatible uses.

d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact)

See response to Section 3.15.a) above. The proposed project does not result in any type of development or action that would result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed replacement of the public stairway that connects Cliff Drive to High Drive will facilitate access to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. Pacific Coast Highway is a designated evacuation route, but the proposed project will not impact the street’s use as an emergency evacuation route. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to emergency access.

e) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (No Impact)

The proposed project is the demolition and rebuilding of the public stairway that connects Cliff Drive and High Drive near Pacific Coast Highway. The stairway will be directly accessible from the adjacent residential neighborhoods and visitor-serving commercial uses located along Pacific Coast Highway. Parking areas already exist in proximity to the stairway. No significant impacts relative to conflict with existing policies are anticipated with implementation of the project.

3. Analysis 3.16 – Tribal Cultural Resources


3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources The Tribal Cultural Resources Section documents the presence of Native American cultural resources on the project site and notification/consultation efforts with local tribes.

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

- Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) (Less Than Significant Impact), or

The project involves an existing public stairway at Cliff Drive and High Drive in the City of Laguna Beach. The project will demolish the existing staircase and construct a new concrete staircase in its place. The project site is located near an identified habitation site in Heisler Park.

The City sent letters November 27, 2018 to Native American Tribes known to have a connection with the Laguna Beach area. However, the potential for encountering tribal resources during the ground disturbance phase of construction activities exists based upon the findings of a Cultural Resources Study of the area. Therefore, a mitigation measure was included in Section 3.3, Cultural Resources of this document that requires that a qualified Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor be present during ground disturbance activities, which will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

- A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less Than Significant Impact)

Any cultural resources found on the site as a result of the mitigation measure under Cultural Resources shall be the subject of consultation with the appropriate interested groups, including most likely descendants if appropriate.

3. Analysis 3.17 – Utility and Service Systems


3.17 Utility and Service Systems The project site is located in a developed area in the City of Laguna Beach that is surrounded by urban development and in immediate proximity to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The developed area surrounding the site is already being served by existing utilities and public services. The proposed project will not require any modification to on-site utilities to serve the proposed replacement of the existing public stairway. The project can be accommodated by the existing infrastructure (including capacity) of existing utility and service systems in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to utility and service systems.

a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (No Impact)

The project site is in an area of Laguna Beach that is served by the City. The project involves demolition and rebuilding of the existing public stairway that connects Cliff Drive and High Drive off Pacific Coast Highway. The project will not generate wastewater treatment requirements. The access facilities are for non-motorized uses and would preserve the natural topography and existing water runoff patterns of the developed sites. Therefore, the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements.

b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project will be designed (i.e., improvements on-site) to minimize impacts to the site. The project does will require a water source for irrigation of native plants. However, due to the developed nature of the existing site, it is not anticipated that the project would result in any significant impacts.

c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project does not require or result in the construction of new major storm drainage facilities. It does include installation of a storm water grate on High Drive that would connect to a curb outlet on Cliff Drive. The project will replace an existing public stairway that is designed to utilize the existing topography with minimal impacts to the project site. Due to the developed nature of the existing site, it is not anticipated that the project would result in any significant impacts from the storm water drainage facilities.

d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (No Impact)

The project replaces a public stairway at Cliff Drive and High Drive in the City of Laguna Beach. The project proposes replacing an existing stairway that follows the natural topography of the site and would require minimal water supplies or irrigation facilities to support native plants proposed in the landscape plan. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts relative to water supplies.

3. Analysis 3.17 – Utility and Service Systems


e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (No Impact)

The City of Laguna Beach Water Quality Division has adequate capacity at the existing treatment facilities to continue to provide sanitary treatment to land uses in Laguna Beach. The project does not propose any new land uses that would require wastewater treatment and will not impact the City’s ability to provide sewage collection and treatment within the project area. The project is designed to replace an existing public stairway that does not generate waste or wastewater. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impact to this topical area.

f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (Less Than Significant Impact)

The project involves demolition and rebuilding of an existing public stairway that will follow the natural topography of the site and not generate solid waste disposal needs. There may be trash receptacles located along the stairway for the project site. Any debris that may result from the project construction would likely be concrete or old stairway materials such as aluminum or steel that would be removed during construction of the access point facility.

Approximately 14 recycling, construction, and demolition debris and green waste processing locations are located throughout Orange County. The closest processing locations to the project site include Ewles Materials located in San Juan Capistrano. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) owns and operates three landfills. The project site will be served by a solid waste collection service that is contracted for by the City of Laguna Beach. Solid waste is transmitted by that collection service to various Class III landfills operated by the IWMD. Class III landfills accept non-hazardous municipal waste. The Prima Deshecha Landfill, located in San Juan Capistrano, is permitted to accept 4,000 tons of solid waste per day and is located on 1,530 acres, 1,000 of which is permitted for refuse disposal. Opened in 1976, the landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2040. The other landfills that receive solid waste are the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine and the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea.

The City of Laguna Beach adopted the 2016 California Green Building Standard Codes (CALGreen) on November 15, 2016. CALGreen requires recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65% of the non-hazardous construction and demolition project waste. The contractor must comply with CALGreen provisions and the City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.19 (Construction and Demolition Requirements), whichever is more stringent. Therefore, no significant impacts to this topical area are anticipated.

g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact)

See response to 3.16.f) above. The project itself will comply with applicable City of Laguna Beach requirements (e.g., CALGreen) as well as federal, state, and local statutes on solid waste disposal. No significant impacts to this topical area are anticipated.

3. Analysis 3.18 – Mandatory Findings of Significance


3.18 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 species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (No Impact)

On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Open Space/ Conservation Element did not identify any sensitive, rare or endangered plant/wildlife community in the area of the project site. The project will replace an existing public stairway at Cliff Dive and High Drive to serve the community’s mobility needs and facilitate access to recreational opportunities. Therefore, the project is consistent with the goals and polices of the City’s General Plan.

b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (No Impact)

The project is consistent with the City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element. The site is located in an area that is utilized for right-of-way purposes. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals.

c) Does the project have possible environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (No Impact)

No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. The project will not result in environmental effects which are cumulatively considerable since the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. The analysis contained in this environmental document evaluated existing conditions, potential impacts associated with the development of the project, and possible environmental cumulative impacts (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources). The project does not have any impact on projected growth or planned projects for the City of Laguna Beach or neighboring jurisdictions known as of the date of this analysis.

4. Source List


4. Source List

The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Laguna Beach, Public Works Department and Community Development Department, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.

1. Assembly Bill AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

2. Cultural Resources Assessment for Proposed Replacement of Public Stairs at Cliff Drive and High Drive, City of Laguna Beach, by Eukon Company, dated November 14, 2018.

3. California Environmental Quality Act as amended January 1, 2018. §§21000-21178 of the Public Resources Code, State of California.

4. City of Laguna Beach General Plan.

5. City of Laguna Beach Zoning Code Map.

6. Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act as amended January 1, 2018. §15000-15387 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, State of California.

7. City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Open Space Conservation Element, updated 2006.

8. City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Safety Element, adopted June 6, 1995.

9. City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Scenic Highways Element, adopted April 2, 1975.

10. City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Land Use Element, adopted February 7, 2012.

11. City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Noise Element, adopted March 15, 2005.

12. Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), adopted by County of Orange July 1, 2003.

13. GeoTracker

14. City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Transportation, Circulation and Growth Management Element

15. City of Laguna Beach, Water Quality Division Website

Appendix A – Initial Study Environmental Checklist

City of Laguna Beach Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project

Appendix A – Initial Study Environmental Checklist

1

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY/

CHECKLIST CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

1. Project Title: Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Laguna Beach Community Development Department 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, California 92651

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Alpha Santos-Guinto (949) 497-0729

4. Project Location: Cliff Drive at High Drive, City of Laguna Beach

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Laguna Beach, Public Works 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach 92651

6. General Plan Designation: Public Right of Way

7. Zoning: Public Right of Way

8. Description of the 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.) See attached

9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)

See attached

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board

2

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.

Aesthetics X Air Quality Biological Resources

X Cultural Resources Geology I Soils X Hazards & Hazardous Materials

X Hydrology/ Water Quality

Land Use/ Planning Mineral Resources

Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation X. Transportation/ Traffic Utilities / Service

Systems .. Mandatory Findings

of Significance

DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (I) 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date William Hodge, Hodge & Associates

2

Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant With

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

1. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but

not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a scenic highway?

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

X

2. AIR QUALITY (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

X

3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means?

X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

X

2



Impact




Impact No Impact

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?

X

4. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance

of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

X

5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction? X

iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or

that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

X

e) Have soils incapable of adequate!y supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

X

6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

X

2



Impact




Impact No Impact

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

X

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?

X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

X

e) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

X

f) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

X

7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements? X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

2



Impact




Impact No Impact

f) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? (Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants [e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash].)

X

g) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction?

X

h) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff?

X

i) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes?

X

j) Result in increased erosion downstream? X k) Result in an increase in any pollutant for which a

downstream water body is already impaired, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list?

X

l) Exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions to downstream environmentally sensitive area?

X

m)Have a potentially significant adverse impact on the surface water quality of either marine, fresh or wetland waters?

X

n) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on ground water quality?

X

o) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives, policies or degradation of beneficial uses?

X

p) Impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat X q) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X r) Place housing within 100-year flood hazard area as

mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

s) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

X

t) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

X

u) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? X 8. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or

regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

2



Impact




Impact No Impact

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

X

9. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral

resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

X

10. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in

excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?

X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

X

11. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either

directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

12. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical

impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

2



Impact




Impact No Impact

i) Fire protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii)Schools? X iv)Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X

13. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing

neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

X

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

X

14. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy

establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

X

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

X

d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs

supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

X

15. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

2



Impact




Impact No Impact

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

X

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?

X

g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

X

2

16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does this project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a

fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?

This project involves the replacement of a public stairway only. Any potential impacts have been mitigated. b) Does this project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental

goals? No. Project is replacement of an existing public stairway.

c) Does this project have possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of the individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects and the effects of probable future projects.)

No. Project is replacement of existing public stairway. d) Does this project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or

indirectly? Any potential effects have been mitigated to less than significant.

17. EARLIER ANALYSES.

Earlier analysis 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 items:

a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project.

19

18. SOURCE REFERENCES

1 --- Cite sources --- AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

2 Cultural Resources Assessment dated November 14, 2018

3 CEQA as amended January 1, 2018.

4 City of Laguna Beach General Plan

5 City of Laguna Beach Zoning Code Map

6 CEQA Guidelines as amended January 1, 2018

7 City of Laguna Beach Open Space Conservation Element

8 City of Laguna Beach Safety Element

9 City of Laguna Beach Scenic Highways Element

10 City of Laguna Beach Land Use Element 11 City of Laguna Beach Noise Element 12 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) 13 GeoTracker 14 City of Laguna Beach Transportation and Circulation Element 15 City of Laguna Beach, Water Quality Division Website

20

19. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measure(s) which were incorporated and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. The responsible person, Department, Agency, etc., that will be responsible for verification and the event or time of verification should also be specified.

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

Number Measure 1 Measure:

Monitorine: 2 Measure:






Monitorine:

Project Description To maximize public access to and along the coast of Laguna Beach, the project consists of the replacement of public stairs within the public right of way at the west end of High Drive at Cliff Drive. Project improvements will include removal of the existing wood and concrete stairs, installation of a wider concrete stairway, retaining wall, and drainage system, including a grate on High Drive and a curb outlet on Cliff Drive. The project will also introduce stabilizing plants and succulents into the landscaping and install pedestrian foot lighting. All work will be accomplished within the existing public right of way.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is located along the coast of Laguna Beach, surrounded by urban development and in immediate proximity to Heisler Park and the Pacific Ocean. The project site is primarily used by the public, including residents and visitors to the City of Laguna Beach. The surrounding and nearby uses to the site include residential uses and a mix of residential and commercial establishments along Pacific Coast Highway.

The Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project is located within the City of Laguna Beach where High Drive stops short of Cliff Drive. The street end features a public stairway connecting the two streets and allowing pedestrian access to Heisler Park and the coastline. The existing stairway is in need of replacement to continue to enhance pedestrian access.

Appendix B – Cultural Resources Assessment


Appendix B – Cultural Resources Assessment

EukonGroup 65 Post, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92618 949-55-EUKON Office

November 14, 2018 Alpha Santos-Guinto, Public Works Technician City of Laguna Beach, Public Works Department 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 Subject: Cultural Resources Record Search and Site Visit

Public Works CIP #559 (Remove and Replace Cliff Drive Access Stairs) 601 Cliff Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (West end of High Drive at Cliff Drive between north end of Heisler Park & Divers Cove)

SFC Communications, Inc. dba Eukon Group has conducted a cultural resources records search and site visit for the subject candidate, Public Works CIP #559 (Cliff Drive Access Stairs), located at 601 Cliff Drive, Laguna Beach, California 92651 (West end of High Drive at Cliff Drive between north end of Heisler Park and Divers Cove) (See Figure 1). The candidate is located in Section 23 of Township 7 South, Range 9 West (Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian) as shown on the Laguna Beach, CA USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map (see Figure 2). Scope of Work The City of Laguna Beach Public Works Department proposes improvements within the public right-of-way to include the removal of existing wood and concrete stairs, and replacement with a wider concrete stairway, retaining wall, drainage system (including grate on High Drive and curb outlet on Cliff Drive), slope stabilizing plants and succulents, and pedestrian foot lighting. Regulatory Framework CEQA is encoded in Sections 21000 et seq of the Public Resources Code (PRC) with Guidelines for implementation codified in the California Code Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et. seq. requiring state and local public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of proposed discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment. Historical resources are considered part of the environment and a project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The definition of “historical resources” is contained in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register are resources that must be given consideration in the CEQA process. CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the State. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on archaeological resources (PRC Sections 21000 et seq.). As defined in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resource Code a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly

Public Works CIP #559 2 Cultural Records Search & Site Visit

EukonGroup “It’s all about Communication”

demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a

demonstrable public interest in that information. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example

of its kind. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

In addition, CEQA Section 15064.5 broadens the approach to CEQA by using the term “historical resource” instead of “unique archaeological resource.” The CEQA Guidelines recognize that certain archaeological resources may also have significance. The Guidelines recognize that a historical resource includes: (1) a resource in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code §5024.1 (g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of §21084.1 of the Public Resources Code and §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the Guidelines, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code §21083.2, which refer to a unique archaeological resource. The Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. (Guidelines §15064.5(c)(4)). The CEQA Guidelines and PRC are applicable to the project site due to the potential presence of archaeological resources on-site, as demonstrated through the cultural records search report. Methodology A cultural records search was conducted to identify all previously recorded cultural resources (prehistoric and historic) within the area of potential effect (APE). This involves a review of all previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites recorded within a half-mile radius of the candidate, and a review of all cultural resource surveys, historic maps, and excavation reports. On October 23, 2018, Historian, Brent Johnson conducted the cultural resources records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), which is located at California State University, Fullerton. Current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NR), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) for Los Angeles County were reviewed to determine if any local resources have been evaluated for historic significance. In addition, archival maps were inspected for indications of historic structures in the area.



On October 27, 2018, Mr. Johnson walked the Project Site and surrounding area and made a photographic record of the Area of Potential Effect. Records Search Results The result of the records search indicates that three (3) cultural resources (Table 1) have been recorded within the ½ - mile search radius and twenty-two (22) area-specific survey reports (Table 2) are on file with the SCCIC for the search radius. In addition, one hundred nine (109) properties occurred on the Orange County Inventory of Historic Resources within the search radius (Table 3).

Table 1 Cultural Resources Identified Within One-Half Mile of the Candidate

Primary Number

Resource Proximity to Candidate

19-158323 The resource is recorded as the Mason-Radach Residence at 451 Hawthorne Road, Laguna Beach CA 92651. Located on the north of Coast Highway, east of High Street within Laguna Cliffs #2 Tract, this large two-story Craftsman residence was originally built in 1914 and was improved in 1924-26 and again in the 1930s. The building was evaluated by Jeanette McKenna in 2008.

The historic property is located approximately 0.50 miles north northeast of the Project Candidate.

19-158458 The resource is recorded as the Laguna Beach Art Gallery, Museum of Art at 307 Cliff Drive, Laguna Beach CA 92651. The building is described as a community center, social hall, and educational building that was completed in 1928. The Art Museum is designated Orange County Historical Landmark #06 and was assigned an NRS status code of 5D: Eligible for Local Listing as a contributor only.

The historic property is located approximately 1,880 feet east southeast of the candidate site.

30-158486 The resource is recorded as the Cliff Drive Vicinity and includes a strand of oceanfront homes along Cliff Drive and Marine that were originally summer vacationing beach homes built between 1907 and 1936. The assessor, Kathleen Les, assigned an NRS status code to the buildings of 5D: Eligible for Local Listing as a contributor only.

The historic property (Las Brisas Restaurant, formerly Victor Hugo’s) is located approximately 1,800 feet east southeast of the Project Site.

The three (3) primary resources identified within the one-half mile Area of Potential Effects were found to be outside of the Visual APE, which was confirmed by a historian site walk on October 27, 2018, and by street-level simulations using Google Maps, which indicated there will be no impairment to the historic viewshed resulting from the new concrete access stairs. Therefore, there is no effect in the Visual Area of Potential Effect.

Table 2 Area Specific Survey Reports Conducted Within One-Half Mile of the Candidate

Primary Number

Scope of Investigation, Assessor and Date Proximity to Candidate

OR-23 Final Report: Archaeological Excavation Crescent Bay Park, Site Ora-596, Laguna Beach, California. Prepared by Interdisciplinary Research, July 1979.

Did not assess the candidate



OR-283 Final Report: Archaeological Salvage Operation, Crescent Bay Drive Lot #40. Prepared by Interdisciplinary Research, April 1979.


OR-292 Archaeological Salvage Report, Crescent Bay Lot #17 – Site 4-Ora-596. Prepared by N.M. Magalousis, Interdisciplinary Research, August 1978.


OR-295 Archaeological Excavation Report Crescent Bay Lot #9, Site 4-Ora 596. Prepared by N.M. Interdisciplinary Research, September 1978


OR-305 The History of Archaeological Research on Irvine Ranch Property: The Evolution of a Company Tradition. Prepared by Adella Schroth, June 1979.


OR-320 Archaeologic Element – Environmental Impact Report, Lot No. 31, Tract 707, Crescent Bay Drive, Laguna Beach. Prepared by Jean Tadlock and W. Lewis Tadlock, May 1978.


OR-436 Final Report: Archaeological Excavation, Crescent Bay Park, Site Ora-596, Laguna Beach, California. Prepared by Interdisciplinary Research, July 1979


OR-512 Orange County, California- Indian Campsites Ora-1 through Ora-30. Prepared by John B. Romero, 1935.


OR-585 Irvine Coast Survey, Cultural Resources Inventory, Orange County, California. Prepared by Ronald D. Douglas and Edward B. Weil, Ph.D.


OR-965 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Brinderson/Emerald Bay Project, Laguna Beach, California. Prepared by Ronald M. Bissell, March 14, 1989.


OR-1127 Past to Present: Cultural & Scientific Resources, An Archival Inventory, Irvine Ranch Open Space Reserve, Orange County, California. Prepared by Jane Rosenthal, March 15, 1991.


OR-1769 Cultural Resources Records Search and Literature Review Report for a Pacific Bell Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility: CM 335-01 in the city of Costa Mesa, California. Prepared by Roger D. Mason, Ph.D. and Brant A. Brechbiel, June 1998.


OR-1926 Archaeological Survey Report of Aliso Water Management Agency Project Committees 7, 11-A, and 15. Prepared by Dr. Paul H. Ezell, Principal Investigator and Richard L. Carrico, Project Archaeologist, January 14, 1977.


OR-2225 The Irvine Company Planning Process and California Archaeology – A Review and Critique. Prepared by Hardy Strozier, 1978.


OR-2534 Annual Report to TIC from ARI. May 1, 1977 Did not assess the candidate OR-2815 Historic Property Survey Report for the Laguna Beach Urban

Runoff Diversion Project, Laguna Beach CA. Prepared by Richard Shepard, RPA, M.A., October 2002.


OR-2962 Results from the Archaeological Archival Study for the Heisler Park Renovation and Preservation Project, City of Laguna Beach, CA. Prepared by Beth Padon, Discovery Works, Inc., June 4, 2004.


OR-3059 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the North District Reservoir Project Near Laguna Beach, CA. Prepared by Roger D. Mason, Ph.D., Philippe J. Lapin, Brant A. Brechbiel, February 1998.




OR-3565 Brief History of the Ann B. Mason Residence (Also Known as the Wickiup) Located at 451 Hawthorne Road, in the City of Laguna Beach, CA. Prepared by Jeanette A. McKenna, September 25, 2008


OR-3570 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Monopine Pole Site, Viejo Reservoir, Laguna Beach, CA. Prepared by Jeanette McKenna, March 14, 2008


OR-4179 Laguna Beach Historic Resources Inventory. Unknown Author, 2008/2009


OR-4270 Results of a Phase I Archaeological Study for Proposed AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Site OC0326 (Laguna Cliffs Inn) at 475 North Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA. Prepared by Robert J. Wlodarski, April 20, 2013.


Twenty-two (22) area specific cultural records search and site visit reports were identified that reviewed historic resources within the search radius. Although none of these reports addressed the candidate site (concrete stairs) one of the reports (OR-2962, Discovery Works, Inc., 2004) was an archaeological archival study for the Heisler Park Renovation and Preservation Project, an area that is located directly south, across the street from the subject candidate. Archaeologist, Beth Padon, who authored the 2004 archaeological study wrote that Archaeological site, CA-ORA-4, is located within the north end of Heisler Park. The prehistoric site was originally recorded by John Romero as part of a Works Progress Administration study, who described the campsite as “rather extensive.” In 1949, R.J. Briggs characterized the camp at CA-ORA-4 as “a large number of middens.” Padon concludes her report with the following recommendation: “Because CA-ORA-4 was identified as a habitation site, it is possible that burials, remains of hearths, and other prehistoric artifacts could be found. Finding evidence of this recorded habitation site would be significant because specifically little is known about this site, its occupants, or its temporal placement. Orange County Historic Resources Inventory EukonGroup identified the location of evaluated historic buildings and structures located within the one-half mile APE of the project site to determine if there is a potential impact to these historic resources. The identified historic resources are included in the table below. (Table 3).

Table 3 Historic Resources Inventory for Orange County

Property Number Address Built NRS Status Proximity to Candidate

30-158483 1041 Marine Drive 1923 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158484 1051 Marine Drive 1923 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158485 1077 Marine Drive 1918 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158486 Cliff Drive Vicinity 1907 5S2 The Cliff Drive Vicinity

appears to include the candidate site.

30-158460 Heisler Park 1906 7N 50 feet south 30-158458 307 Cliff Drive-Laguna Beach

Art Gallery & Museum 1928 5D2 .4 miles east southeast

30-158459 361 Cliff Drive – Victor Hugo Inn, Las Brisas Restaurant

1938 5D2 .3 miles east southeast



30-158461 396 Cliff Drive 1924 5D2 .3 miles east southeast 30-158461 540 Cliff Drive 1937 5D2 336 feet east 30-158463 550 Cliff Drive 1907 3S 300 feet east 30-158464 556 Cliff Drive 1907 3S 276 feet east 30-158465 575 Cliff Drive 1919 5D2 75 feet east 30-158466 594 Cliff Drive 1924 5D2 62 feet east 30-158467 608 Cliff Drive 1923 5D2 52 feet west 30-158468 847 Cliff Drive 1923 5D2 .2 miles west northwest 30-158469 859 Cliff Drive 1930 5D2 .2 miles west northwest 30-158470 869 Cliff Drive 1919 5D2 .2 miles west northwest 30-158471 872 Cliff Drive 1931 5D2 .2 miles west northwest 30-158472 895 Cliff Drive 1921 5D2 .3 miles west northwest 30-158473 911 Cliff Drive 1917 5D2 .3 miles west northwest 30-158474 929 Cliff Drive 1923 5D2 .3 miles west northwest 30-158475 951 Cliff Drive 1920 5D2 .3 miles west northwest 30-158476 989 Cliff Drive 1928 5D2 .3 miles west northwest 30-158477 1009 Cliff Drive 1936 5D2 .3 miles west northwest 30-158478 1012 Cliff Drive 1924 5D2 .3 miles west northwest 30-458479 1225 Cliff Drive 1916 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-458480 1240 Cliff Drive 1929 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-458481 1271 Cliff Drive 1926 5D2 .5 miles west northwest 30-458482 1287 Cliff Drive 1925 5D2 .5 miles west northwest 30-158401 N Coast Hwy- Jahraus Park No Date 7N .5 miles east southeast 30-158437 212 N Coast Hwy – El Solano

Hotel Apartments 1917 3S .4 miles east southeast

30-158438 308 N Coast Hwy – Laguna Vista Café, Cottage

Restaurant

1917 3S .4 miles east southeast

30-158439 320 N Coast Hwy 1912 5D2 .4 miles east southeast 30-158440 412 N Coast Hwy 1928 5D2 .3 miles east 30-158441 414 N Coast Hwy – Aldeita

Court 1939 5D2 .3 miles east

30-158442 427 N Coast Hwy – Couse’s Autocourt

1930 5D2 .3 miles east

30-158443 434 N Coast Hwy 1915 7N .2 miles east 30-158444 506 N Coast Hwy 1915 5D2 .2 miles east 30-158445 520 N Coast Hwy 1923 5D2 .2 miles east 30-158446 538 N Coast Hwy 1927 5D2 .2 miles east northeast 30-158447 556 N Coast Hwy 1927 5D2 .2 miles east northeast 30-158448 568 N Coast Hwy – Champion

House 1917 5D2 .2 miles east northeast

30-158449 578 N Coast Hwy 1910 5D2 .2 miles northeast 30-158450 590 N Coast Hwy 1938 5D2 .3 miles northeast 30-158451 770 N Coast Hwy 1930 5D2 .2 miles northwest 30-158452 790 N Coast Hwy 1924 5D2 .2 miles northwest 30-158453 1130 N Coast Hwy 1935 5D2 .4 miles northwest 30-158454 1140 N Coast Hwy 1935 5D2 .4 miles northwest 30-158455 1244 N Coast Hwy 1930 5D2 .4 miles northwest 30-158456 1280 N Coast Hwy 1926 5D2 .4 miles northwest 30-158430 276 Cypress Drive 1915 5D2 .5 miles east 30-158431 369 Cypress Drive 1927 5D2 .4 miles east 30-158432 414 Cypress Drive 1924 5D2 .3 miles east



30-158433 437 Cypress Drive 1907 5D2 .3 miles east 30-158434 581 Cypress Drive 1921 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158414 605 High Drive 1913 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158504 Hillcrest Street Vicinity 1916 5S2 .5 miles north 30-158501 770 Hillcrest Drive – Broad

View Villa, Pyne Castle 1931 3S .5 miles north

30-158502 818 Hillcrest Drive 1912 5D2 .5 miles north northwest 30-158420 483 Monterey Drive 1928 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158421 484 Monterey Drive 1922 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158422 565 Monterey Drive 1920 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158423 584 Monterey Drive 1921 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158516 La Brea Street Vicinity 1920 5S2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158510 110 La Brea Street 1925 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158511 136 La Brea Street 1920 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158512 145 La Brea Street 1926 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158513 179 La Brea Street 1926 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158514 222 La Brea Street 1930 5D2 .4 miles west northwest 30-158494 223 Fairview Street 1925 5D2 .3 miles northwest 30-158514 156 Wave Street 1921 5D2 .3 miles northwest 30-158515 173 Wave Street 1923 5D2 .3 miles northwest 30-158495 216 Wave Street 1924 5D2 .3 miles northwest 30-158496 217 Wave Street 1921 5D2 .3 miles northwest 30-158497 273 Wave Street 1927 5D2 .3 miles northwest 30-158498 274 Wave Street 1927 5D2 .3 miles northwest 30-158499 290 Wave Street – Barker

House, Witches House 1926 3S .3 miles northwest

30-158500 230 Beverly Street 1925 6Y .2 miles northwest 30-158324 287 Myrtle Street 1931 5D2 .2 miles northeast 30-158325 335 Myrtle Street 1926 5D2 .3 miles northeast 30-158327 374 Myrtle Street 1928 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158328 430 Myrtle Street 1936 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158329 448 Myrtle Street 1917 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158330 455 Myrtle Street 1912 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158331 352 Locust Street 1924 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158332 362 Locust Street 1923 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158333 377 Locust Street 1929 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158334 385 Locust Street 1929 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158335 409 Locust Street 1928 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158336 433 Locust Street 1932 5D2 .4 miles northeast 30-158337 496 Locust Street 1924 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158342 397 Jasmine Street 1923 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158343 409 Jasmine Street 1913 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158344 415 Jasmine Street 1917 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158345 416 Jasmine Street 1928 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158346 424 Jasmine Street 1921 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158347 483 Jasmine Street 1923 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158348 484 Jasmine Street-Ropp

House 1925 7N .5 miles northeast

30-158349 489 Jasmine Street 1922 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158350 495 Jasmine Street 1922 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158357 360 Holly Street 1930 5D2 .5 miles northeast



30-158358 368 Holly Street 1920 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158359 387 Holly Street 1923 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158360 396 Holly Street 1927 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158361 404 Holly Street 1930 5D2 .5 miles northeast 30-158367 305 Aster Street 1925 5D2 .5 miles east northeast 30-158368 343 Aster Street 1929 5D2 .5 miles east northeast 30-158369 360 Aster Street 1937 5D2 .5 miles east northeast 30-158370 370 Aster Street 1922 5D2 .5 miles east northeast

The results of the Orange County Historic Inventory review showed that within the one-half mile Area of Potential Effects there are a total of 109 listed structures. When the structures are subdivided according to their relevant NRS status code, there are ninety-five (95) properties that have been assigned an NRS status code of 5D2; 6 properties that are 3S; four (4) properties that are 7N; three (3) properties that are 5S2; and one (1) property that was determined 6Y. Conclusion Six historic resources are located within 300 feet of the proposed new engineering structure (access stair case), two of which appear to straddle the stair case on either side (east and west) – 594 Cliff Drive (5D2) and 608 Cliff Drive (5D2). In addition, Heisler Park (Ora-04) is located approximately 50 feet south of the Project Site with an intervening asphalt-paved road. The Project Site and the historic properties were observed from a variety of different perspectives to determine the extent of potential physical (material) and/or visual impacts. California’s archaeological sites are fragile and non-renewable. Avoidance and preservation are almost always preferable to mitigation measures involving data recovery excavation. In those instances where preservation in place is not the selected course of action, and consideration has been given to applicable repatriation laws, and the decision has been made to curate, the State of California Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections are designed to provide protection for archaeological collections when they are recovered. Recommendation Given the close proximity of the Heisler Park prehistoric encampment (Ora-04), demolition and removal of the existing stair case and grading for the new stairs could potentially reveal shell midden, burials, hearths, and products of indigenous industry. Therefore, an impact in the Area of Potential Effect for Direct (Material) Effects is possible. Thus, EukonGroup recommends the presence and monitoring of a certified archaeologist during the project demolition and grading phases in the event that artifacts are recovered from the site. Monitoring is expected to last the duration of demolition and grading, or approximately 2 weeks. Furthermore, if human remains are found during the excavation, the Native American Graves Protection Act Guidelines and the State law [Health and Safety Code Sec.7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sec.15064.5 (f)] require that construction personnel halt work in the immediate area; leave the remains in place; and contact the project proponent and the Orange County Coroner. Until a representative of the Coroner’s office reviews the remains in the field, they must not be removed. If the Coroner determines that the remains are



prehistoric, the Coroner contacts the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendant from the Native American community is informed. The final deposition of remains is coordinated by representatives of the property owner and the most likely descendent. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this candidate. If we can be of any further assistance, or if you have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (949) 344-9748 or via e-mail, [email protected] EukonGroup an SFC Communications, Inc. company

Sincerely,

Brent Johnson Brent Johnson, Historian EukonGroup 65 Post, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 344-9748 INDEX California Historical Resource Status Code Definitions 1S: Individual property listed in NR by the Keeper. 3S: Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 2S2: Individual property determined eligible for NR by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 5D2: Contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5S2: Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 6U: Determined ineligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. 6Y: Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or Local Listing. 7N: Needs to be reevaluated.



Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map CIP #559 (Rebuild Cliff Drive Access) Laguna Beach, Calif. Quadrangle Map

Project Location

Half-Mile Search Radius



Looking north toward the Project Site from Heisler Park (Ora-04)

Looking south toward Heisler Park (Ora-04) from the handicapped access off Cliff Drive.



Looking north toward the first stair flight

Looking southeast at the first stair flight from the mid-landing



Looking west at the stair case mid-landing

Looking west at upper stair flight



Looking southwest at the upper landing of the stair case

Looking northwest at the landscape above the stair case



Looking southwest at the upper stair flight and mid-landing from the landscaped embankment above

Looking north toward upper access road (High Drive)



Looking northeast at asphalt paved footpath to stair case from Cliff Drive.

Looking at dirt and rubble below the first stair flight



Looking north toward embankment below the stair case and the mid-landing above

Looking southwest at the upper entrance to the stair case from High Drive.

Appendix C – Geotechnical Investigation for Stairway Replacement


Appendix C – Geotechnical Investigation for Stairway Replacement

April 5, 2018 City of Laguna Beach Project No: 72372-00 505 Forest Avenue Report No: 18-8274 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Attention: Ms. Alpha Santos Public Works Technician Subject: Geotechnical Investigation for Stairway Replacement Between Southwest End of High Drive and Cliff Drive Laguna Beach, California INTRODUCTION This report presents results of a limited investigation undertaken to relate geotechnical conditions to the proposed replacement of the stairway between the end of High Drive and Cliff Drive, above Divers Cove in Laguna Beach, California. Scope of Investigation The investigation included:

1. Review and analysis of pertinent reports, maps, and published literature pertaining to the subject site and adjacent areas in order to relate geotechnical data to existing conditions.

2. Site reconnaissance and the excavation and logging of three hand-auger borings at the site to obtain representative samples and to determine the character and geometrical distribution of earth materials within and underlying the proposed foundation areas.

3. Laboratory testing was performed to determine moisture content and grain-size analysis.

4. Geotechnical analysis of data, including cross-section preparation to evaluate the existing conditions, and development of design criteria for proposed access improvements.

5. Preparation of a geotechnical report containing our conclusions and recommendations for proposed design and construction of the stairs.

801 Glenneyre St. Suite F Laguna Beach CA 92651(949) 494-2122 FAX (949) 497-0270

April 5, 2018 Project No: 72372-00 Report No: 18-8274 Page No: 2 Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map Figure 3 - Cross Section A-A’ Figure 4 - Typical Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - Standard Grading Guidelines Proposed Construction It is our understanding the proposed construction will consist of the redesign and replacement of the descending staircase from the upper terrace level (off the end of High Drive), down the upper portion of the bluff face, to the north side of Cliff Drive. In most cases it appears the proposed new structures will follow essentially the same alignments over the bluff face and will be designed and constructed with conventional, continuous foundations founded into competent terrace deposits or bedrock. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Earth Materials: The site is underlain by layered bedrock assigned on the basis of regional geologic mapping to the Topanga Formation. The bedrock is entirely mantled by Non-Marine Terrace Deposits within the project site which is exposed below the south side of Cliff Drive in the bluff immediately above the beach. Therefore, the bedrock may be encountered, at depth, during construction. The Topanga Formation in the vicinity of the site, generally, is variably weathered along softer strata in outcrops and is inclined to dip seaward to obliquely seaward and to the south at approximately 20 to 25 degrees below horizontal. The bedrock consists of a sequence of thickly layered sandstone, with minor siltstone interbeds. Based upon the available exposures, the sandstone portion of the bedrock strata is light brown to grey, medium grained, cemented, and moderately hard. The siltstone layers are typically soft to moderately hard, thinly bedded, and weakly cemented. Non-marine terrace materials directly overly the bedrock, based on mapping by others, with a generally planar bedrock contact that slopes very gradually upwards toward the north. The terrace deposits consist of sandy silt and silty fine sands with scattered clasts of hard rock as exposed in the shallow hand-auger excavations performed as a part of this investigation. The terrace materials were found to be dense and are anticipated to be suitable for support of improvements without remedial grading.

April 5, 2018 Project No: 72372-00 Report No: 18-8274 Page No: 3 The relationships between subsurface materials and existing improvements are depicted on Figures 2 and 3. Structure Non-Marine terrace deposits as exposed in the bluff portion of the site are generally massive in character and favorable with respect to the overall gross slope stability. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory excavations, nor was surface expression of seepage apparent on site or particularly evident in the cliff face, opposite, descending from the south side of Cliff Drive. There is potential for seepage at the contact between the Non-Marine Terrace and bedrock, resulting from perched flow originating from areas located north of the site. Regional groundwater is not anticipated in the bedrock within the project area. Slope Stability No evidence of former gross terrace deposit or bedrock instability was observed in the areas of the proposed improvement based upon site reconnaissance and review of the available data. Surficial instability could occur on the bluff during intense ground shaking and heavy rainfall (surficial flows). Due to the overall slope height of less than 20 feet and generally competent, massive character of the Non-Marine Terrace Deposits, gross slope instability is not anticipated to affect the proposed improvements. CONCLUSIONS 1. The project is considered geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations of this

report are incorporated into the project design and followed during construction.

2. The site can be characterized as dense terrace deposits overlying bedrock. Undisturbed terrace deposits and bedrock may be utilized for foundation support.

3. Groundwater conditions were not observed at the project site, but excavations that encounter the bedrock contact may exhibit seepage.

4. The new stairs down the top of the bluff should be supported by conventional foundations founded on competent non-marine terrace deposits or bedrock.

RECOMMENDATIONS Our recommendations are considered to be generally consistent with the standards of practice. They are based on both analytical methods and empirical methods derived from experience with similar geotechnical conditions. These recommendations are considered the minimum necessary

April 5, 2018 Project No: 72372-00 Report No: 18-8274 Page No: 4 for the likely site conditions and are not intended to supersede the design of the Structural Engineer or criteria of governing agencies.

Site Preparation and Grading 1. General

Grading should be performed in accordance with the Standard Grading Specifications in Appendix D. Grading will likely include removal to excavate the new foundations and backfill operations behind retaining walls that are part of the anticipated stairway structure.

2. Removal of Existing Improvements Existing vegetation and/or construction debris should be removed from the areas of

proposed construction and disposed of offsite. Debris encountered during remedial grading should also be disposed of offsite.

3. Remedial Grading

In lieu of remedial grading, we recommend that structures be supported on foundations embedded into competent terrace or bedrock materials. However, as an alternative, remedial grading of the site may be performed. Existing fill or disturbed soils, if encountered, should be removed to competent soils and re-compacted as recommended herein.

4. Compaction Standard

Onsite soil materials are anticipated to be suitable for re-use as compacted fill. Zones of very moist to wet soils will not likely be encountered however, drying or blending with drier soils should be anticipated if wet soils are encountered during grading. Materials should be placed with at least 120 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the soil engineer to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557.

5. Import Export Soil

We do not anticipate there will be a necessity for import of soils to the site; however, import soil should be nonexpansive and be approved by Geofirm prior to transport to the site.

April 5, 2018 Project No: 72372-00 Report No: 18-8274 Page No: 5 6. Temporary Construction Slopes

A. Protection of Property

In order to reduce the risk to adjoining properties from temporary slope failures, temporary construction slopes exposing existing fill or natural soil may be vertically excavated up to 5 feet with higher portions laid-back no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) pending field review by the geologist during grading. Shoring should be anticipated where space limitations preclude temporary slope layback, or in locations where onsite personnel may be in close proximity to open excavations.

B. Worker Safety As the safety of onsite personnel affected by the performance of temporary

construction slopes is the responsibility of the general contractor, the contractor is recommended to implement the safety practices as defined in Section 1541, Subchapter 4, of Cal/OSHA T8 Regulations (2006). The materials exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the contractor during construction.

Please note, Cal/OSHA temporary cut slope geometries are based on the materials

encountered and may not coincide with the recommendations presented in Section A above.

Structural Design of Foundations Our recommendations are considered to be generally consistent with the standards of practice. They are based on both analytical methods and empirical methods derived from experience with similar geotechnical conditions. These recommendations are considered the minimum necessary for the likely soil conditions and are not intended to supersede the design of the Structural Engineer or criteria of governing agencies. 1. Shallow Foundation Design

Spread and continuous footings which are founded in competent re-compacted fill, terrace deposits or bedrock may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot assuming a minimum width of 15 inches and a minimum embedment of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Design values may be increased one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Total and differential settlements are not anticipated to exceed one and one-half inch, respectively.

Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction acting at the base of footings. Passive pressure forces may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot. Maximum passive pressures should not exceed 1,000 pounds

April 5, 2018 Project No: 72372-00 Report No: 18-8274 Page No: 6

per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used in computing the frictional resistance; these values may be combined without reduction.

2. Foundation Setback The bottom of foundations should be setback from the slope face a minimum distance of H/3, where H is the height of the slope measured from the toe of the slope. The setback distance should be at least 10 feet, but not more than 40 feet. Structural Design of Retaining Walls 1. Lateral Loads

Active pressure forces acting on level backfilled retaining walls which support approved non-cohesive import material and onsite terrace sands may be computed based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Possible topographic or structural surcharges should be addressed by the Structural Engineer. Restrained walls which support approved non-cohesive import material may be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 50 pounds per cubic foot. Limited wall deformations normally occur and should be considered in design of finished surfaces. Seismic design of retaining walls may be based on the Mononobe-Okabe method, as updated by Atik and Sitar (2010), using an additional dynamic load of 15 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure, acting at 1/3 H above the base of the wall. Final design requirements should be determined by the Structural Engineer.

2. Subdrains

It is recommended that the drainage scheme depicted on Figure 4, or an approved alternative be used to reduce the potential for seepage forces behind retaining walls.

3. Foundations Retaining walls may be supported as embedded into terrace deposits or bedrock, or alternatively, if remedial grading is performed, on compacted fill. Shallow foundations should be designed using the recommendations presented in the foundation section above.

Hardscape Design and Construction Hardscape improvements may utilize foundations embedded into competent terrace deposits, bedrock, or compacted fill. Improvements should be designed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented above.

April 5, 2018 Project No: 72372-00 Report No: 18-8274 Page No: 7 Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be provided at maximum 6 feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels. Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Flatwork elements should be a minimum 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center both ways. Subgrade pre-saturation of the upper 12 inches to 120 percent of the optimum moisture content is recommended. Concrete It is recommended that a concrete expert be retained to design an appropriate concrete mix to address the marine environment and the structural requirements. In lieu of retaining a concrete expert, it is conservatively recommended that the 2016 California Building Code, Section 1904.1 be utilized, which refers to ACI 318, Table 4.3.1 and 4.2.1, which specifies Type V cement, a maximum water cement ratio of 0.40, and a minimum compressive strength of 5000 psi. Foundation Plan Formulation and Review In order to help assure conformance with recommendations of this report and as a condition of the use of this report, the undersigned should review final foundation plans and specifications prior to submission of such to the building official for issuance of permits. Such review is to be performed only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with the design concept and the information provided herein. This review shall not include review of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights or gauges, fabrication processes, construction means or methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Geofirm’s review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in our judgment to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not indicate that Geofirm has reviewed the entire system of which the item is a component. Geofirm shall not be responsible for any deviation from the Construction Documents not brought to our attention in writing by the Contractor. Geofirm shall not be required to review partial submissions or those for which submissions of correlated items have not been received. Observation and Testing As a condition of the use of this report, it is required that geotechnical construction observation will be conducted by Geofirm to verify proper removal of unsuitable materials, that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material, to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill, and to confirm design assumptions. A Geofirm representative shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the progress and quality of the work completed by the Contractor. Such visits and observation are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a

April 5, 2018 Project No: 72372-00 Report No: 18-8274 Page No: 8 detailed inspection of the Contractor’s work but rather are to allow Geofirm, as an experienced professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in general, if the work is proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Geofirm shall not supervise, direct, or have control over the Contractor’s work nor have any responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures selected by the Contractor nor the Contractor’s safety precautions or programs in connection with the work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor. Geofirm shall not be responsible for any acts or omission of the Contractor, subcontractor, any entity performing any portion of the work, or any agents or employees of any of them. Geofirm does not guarantee the performance of the Contractor and shall not be responsible for the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contractor documents or any applicable law, codes, rules or regulations. These observations are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are conducted on a time and material basis. The responsibility for timely notification of the start of construction and ongoing geotechnically involved phases of construction is that of the City and the contractor. Typically, at least 24 hours notice is required. Jobsite Safety Neither the professional activities of Geofirm, nor the presence of Geofirm’s employees and subconsultants at a construction/project site, shall relieve the General Contractor of its obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending and coordination the work in accordance with the contract documents and any health or safety precautions required by any regulatory agencies. Geofirm and its personnel have no authority to exercise any control over any construction contractor or its employees in connection with their work or any health or safety programs or procedures. The General Contractor shall be solely responsible for jobsite safety. Pre-Construction Meeting A pre-construction conference should be held with representatives of the City, contractor, civil engineer, and soils engineer prior to commencement of construction to clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional recommendations. LIMITATIONS This investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the engineering geologic and soils engineering field. No further warranty is offered or implied. Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered and are not meant to imply a control of nature. As site geotechnical conditions may alter with

April 5, 2018 Project No: 72372-00 Report No: 18-8274 Page No: 9 time, the recommendations presented herein are considered valid for a time period of one year from the report date. The recommendations are also specific to the current proposed development. Changes in proposed land use or development may require supplemental investigation or recommendations. Also, independent use of this report in any form cannot be approved unless specific written verification of the applicability of the recommendations is obtained from this firm. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, GEOFIRM Christopher W. Parrish, E.G. 2256 Russell C. Lamb, G.E. 2207 Senior Engineering Geologist Chief Geotechnical Engineer Registration Expires 12-31-19 Registration Expires 3-31-19 Date Signed / / CWP/RCL:fp Distribution: (5) to Addressee

SITE

Copyright (C) 2009 MyTopo, 2006-2018 TomTom

000" W

000" W

117° 47' 60.0000" W

117° 47' 60.0000" W

117° 47' 30.0000" W

117° 47' 30.0000" W

117° 46' 60.0000" W

117° 46' 60.0000" W

117° 46' 30.0000" W

117° 46' 30.0000" W

117° 4

117° 4

033°

33

033°

33

033°

33'

30.

0000

" N

033°

33'

30.

0000

" N

033°

32'

60.

0000

" N

033°

32'

60.

0000

" N

033°

32'

30.

0000

" N

033°

32'

30.

0000

" N

033°

31'

60.

0000

" N

033°

31'

60.

0000

" N

033°

31'

30.

0000

" N

033°

31'

30.

0000

" N

SCALE 1:240000 1000 2000 3000

Feet

N

SITE LOCATION MAPPROJECT NO. 72372-00 DATE: APRIL 2018

FIGURE NO. 1

Frankie

Stamp

JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE:Typical Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail

72120-10 April 2018 4

Onsite Native Soil Cap(1.5-2.0' thick)

Select NoncohesiveGranular Backfill

(SE > 30)

1/2 HH

Retaining Wall Footing

Geotextile Filter Fabric

Geotextile Filter Fabric8" Lap

4" Perforated Plastic Collector Pipe, (Below Slab Elevation)

Single-sized 1/2"- 3/4" Drain Rock(1 cubic foot per lineal foot)

Limit of Wall Excavation

Typical Retaining

Wall

Notes: This system consists of a geotextile fabric-wrapped gravel envelope. Collection is with a 4-inch diameter perforated plastic pipe embedded in the gravel envelope and tied to a 4-inch diameter non-perforated plastic pipe which discharges at convenient locations. The outlet pipe should be placed such that the flow gradient is not less than 2.0 percent. The geotextile fabric-wrapped gravel envelope should be placed at a similar gradient

All drain pipes should be Schedule 40 PVC or ABS SDR-35. Perforations may be either bored 1/4-inch diameter holes or 3/16-inch slots placed on the bottom one-third of the pipe perimeter. If the pipe is to be bored, a minimum of 10 holes should be uniformly placed per foot of length. If slots are made, they should not exceed 2-1/2 inches in length and should not be closer than 2 inches. Total length of slots should not be less than 50 percent of the pipe length and should be uniformly spaced.

The fabric pore spaces should not exceed equivalent 30 mesh openings or be less than equivalent 100 mesh openings. The fabric should be placed such that a minimum lap of 8-inches exists at all splices.

APPENDIX A REFERENCES

APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. Tan. S.I. and Edgington, W., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the

Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California", Special Report 127, California Division of Mines and Geology.

2. California Building Code (2016). 3. American Concrete Institute, 2011, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

(ACI 318-11) and Commentary. 4. Al Atik, Linda, M. ASCE, and Sitar, Nicholas, M.ASCE, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures

on Cantilever Retaining Structures, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated October.

APPENDIX B

BORING LOGS

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS I. Field Exploration Procedures A. Field Exploration

A 6-inch diameter hand auger was utilized to expose subsurface soils. A bulk or disaggregated sample was obtained from one of the excavations.

B. Sample

A disaggregated soil sample was obtained from the surface from the spoil pile as the hand-auger drilling advanced. These soils were bagged and transported to our laboratory.

II. Laboratory Testing Procedures

A. Moisture Test The field moisture content was evaluated for the bulk sample as determined in accordance with ASTM test methods. The results are summarized on the boring logs in Appendix B.

B. Grain-Size Analysis

Grain-size distribution testing for the bulk sample was performed in general accordance with ASTM: C136-95. Results from these tests are summarized on Figure C-1.

APPENDIX D

STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES

APPENDIX D

STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES

GENERAL These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations observed by Geofirm or its designated representative. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report signed by a registered geotechnical engineer. The placement, spreading, mixing, watering, and compaction of the fills in strict accordance with these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. The construction, excavation, and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the soils engineer signing the soils report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the soils engineer shall have the authority to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be discussed in the final report issued by the soils engineer. SITE PREPARATION All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable material. Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the soils engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as part of a compacted fill must be approved by the soils engineer. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be diced or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the soils engineer. MATERIALS Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials approved by the soils engineer. These materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved sources, and soils from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from organic vegetable matter and other unsuitable substances. Normally, the material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in size and shall contain at least 50 percent of material smaller than 1/4-inch in size. Materials greater than 4 inches in size shall be placed so that they are completely

surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted. No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be used in the fill soils. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the soils engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the geotechnical engineer as soon as possible. PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL The material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the soils engineer, water shall be added by the contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the geotechnical engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D: 1557-02 (five layers). Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient passes to obtain the desired density uniformly. A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted inner core, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. GRADING OBSERVATIONS The soils engineer shall observe the placement of fill during the grading process and will file a written report upon completion of grading stating his observations as to compliance with these specifications. One density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or one for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests. Any cleanouts and processed ground to receive fill must be observed by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to any fill placement. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical engineer when these areas are ready for observation.

PROTECTION OF WORK During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage controls, it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to provide good drainage and prevent ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. After the geotechnical engineer has terminated his observations of the completed grading, no further excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the soils engineer, if it is to be subject to the recommendations of this report.

Appendix D – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program


Appendix D – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Cliff Drive/High Drive Stairway Replacement Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary City of Laguna Beach

1

City of Laguna Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary

Cliff Drive/High Drive Stairway Replacement Project

No. Mitigation Measures Implementation

Action Method of

Verification Timing of

Verification Responsible

Person Verification

Date

Air Quality 1 During construction activities, the project applicant (and the construction

contractor) shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, covering all stock piles with tarps, applying soil stabilizers to inactive areas, preparing a high wind dust control plan and implementing plan elements and terminating soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph, stabilizing previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed, providing water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials, minimizing in-out traffic from construction zone, cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand or loose material; sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from construction site to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune and establishing a preference for contractors using Tier 3-rated or better heavy equipment; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project-related emissions.

Condition of Approval

Field Inspections as necessary

During construction activities

Public Works Dept.

2 During construction activities, the project applicant (and the construction contractor) shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities.




Public Works Dept.

Biological Resources 3 If construction takes place during the bird nesting season from March to

August, a site survey will be conducted to detect the presence or absence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected, work will be diverted or noise reduction measures will be implemented to reduce noise to below 60 dBA.


Plan Check Prior to demolition activities

Public Works Dept.


2


Action Method of



Person Verification

Date

Cultural Resources 4 During demolition and construction activities, the City shall retain an

archaeological professional to determine if archaeological and/or paleontological resources are encountered. The contractor shall retain a qualified archeologist to perform full-time monitoring during demolition and ground disturbance in connection with the public stairway construction to guard against inadvertent impacts to cultural resources and/or human remains. If cultural resources are encountered during renovation, the certified archaeologist and/or a qualified paleontologist approved by the City shall evaluate the finds, determine their significance, and develop and carry out a program of mitigation as appropriate. Discovered cultural and/or paleontological resources shall be offered to the City of Laguna Beach or its designee on a first-refusal basis.


Plan check & site inspection

During & after project construction.

Public Works Dept.

5 If human remains are discovered during the Cliff Drive to High Drive Stairway Replacement Project activities, the Orange County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately so the Native American Heritage Commission can be contacted, triggering consultation on disposition of the remains, including contact with the Most Likely Descendent.


Site Inspection During project construction

Public Works Dept.

Geology and Soils 6 During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and

siltation control measures of the project’s geotechnical report. Condition of Approval



Public Works Dept.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials 7 During the project the City shall ensure that demolition, grading or clearing

plans include the following measures and that the measures shall be followed by the construction contractor and the crew: a. The storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and oils and

fueling of construction equipment shall be a minimum of 45 meters (150 feet) from any drainage, water supply, or other water feature.

b. Hazardous materials stored onsite shall be stored in a neat, orderly manner in appropriate containers and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure.

c. Whenever possible, all of a product shall be used up before disposal of its container.

d. If surplus product must be disposed of, the manufacturers or the local and state recommended methods for disposal shall be followed.


Field Review During construction Public Works Dept


3


Action Method of



Person Verification

Date e. Spills shall be contained and cleaned up immediately after discovery.

Manufacturer’s methods for spill cleanup of a material shall be followed as described on the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each product.

Hydrology and Water Quality 8 Prior to the commencement of any grading activities, the contractor shall

provide the City of Laguna Beach Public Works Department with a list of Best Management Practices that will be implemented prior to construction. The project shall comply with and implement all the applicable requirements of the NPDES permit.


Plan Check and Field Review

Prior to construction

Public Works Dept.

Noise 9 During construction activities, the following construction practices are

recommended: a. Stockpiling and staging activities should be located as far as practicable

from dwellings. b. All mobile equipment shall have properly operating and maintained

mufflers. c. Require that construction activities employ feasible and practical

techniques to minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of hours in which work other than emergency work may occur.

d. As a condition of approval, non-emergency construction activities adjacent to existing noise-sensitive uses shall be limited to daylight hours between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No work is permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays.

e. Construct temporary enclosures around exceptionally noisy activities. For example, shields can be used around pavement or cement breakers such as jackhammers.

f. Select quieter demolition methods when possible. g. Notify adjacent homes near any hardscape demolition activities as to

time and place to allow residents to adjust their schedule to avoid noise disruption.


Field Review During construction Public Works Dept.


4


Action Method of



Person Verification

Date

Transportation/Circulation 10 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the contractor shall

develop a traffic control program for review and approval. The plan shall consist of prior notices and adequate sign-posting. Proper detours and warning signs shall be installed for project construction activities. The plan shall identify truck haul routes and truck hauling operations, if necessary.


Plan Check Field Review Public Works Dept.