CC RES 1998-083 RESOLUTION NO. 98-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM IN ASSOCIATION WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT SCH## 98071004 FOR THE LOWER FRED
HESSE PARK TRAILS, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA)AND THE CITY'S
LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes submitted Environmental
Assessment SCH# 980771004 to initiate the environmental review of the construction
of the Lower Fred Hesse Park Trails, all located within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous
Waste and Substances Statement), the City authorized the preparation of an Initial
Study which determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative
Declaration and project scope, there was no substantial evidence that the proposed
project would have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared and notice of that fact
was given in the manner required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were
circulated for a 30-day public review period, beginning on July 1, 1998, at which time
comments were submitted by certain individuals and public agencies, and a duly
noticed public hearing was held before the Director of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to consider the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration on August 3, 1998, at which time public comments on the Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were received by the City Staff.
BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES:
Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study, the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the public comments received for them,
and finds, based upon the review and independent judgement of the City Council, that:
1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law; 2)
the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, summarized in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program and agreed to by the City Council, would mitigate the
effects of the project to a point where no significant effect on the environment should
occur; and, 3) that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before
the City Council, that the proposed project, with proper mitigation, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
Section 2_ Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the adoption of
the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, made a
part hereto and attached as "Exhibit A", are in the public interest.
Section 3: For the foregoing reasons and based upon the facts contained in this
Resolution, the Staff Reports, Environmental Assessment SCH# 98071004, the Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments received by Staff and
the City Council, and other components of the legislative record; the City Council
hereby adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program associated with Environmental Assessment.SCH# 98071004 for the project
known as the Lower Fred Hesse Park Trails Project.
Section 4: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 1 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1998.
MAYO
ATTEST:
Ltt
CLERK
l
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 98-83 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September 1998.
r'
r
CLERK
-2- Resol. No. 98-83
Mitigated Negative Declaration
EA No, 706
Fred Hesse Trails
Prepared For:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
(310) 541-6500
Prepared By:
Phil Martin & Associates
22672 Baltar
Mission Viejo, California
(949) 587-0052
June 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................5
1.1 Environmental Procedures ........................................................................................5
1.2 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons ......................................................................5
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................6
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION............................................................................... 18
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 18
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM....................................................................... 19
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS........................:............................27
5.1 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................27
5.2 Population and Housing..........................................................................................27
5.3 Geologic Problems..................................................................................................28
5.4 Water......................................................................................................................29
5.5 Air Quality..............................................................................................................30
5.6 Transportation/Circulation......................................................................................31
5.7 Biological Resources...............................................................................................31
5.8 Energy and Mineral Resources................................................................................32
5.9 Hazards ..................................................................................................................32
5.10 Noise....................................................................................................................33
5.11 Public Services......................................................................................................33
5.12 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................34
5.13 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................34
5.14 Cultural Resources................................................................................................35
5.15 Recreation ...............................................................................:............................35
5.16 Mandatory Findings of Significance.......................................................................35
6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES...............................................................37
6.1 Geology..................................................................................................................37
6.2 Air Quality..............................................................................................................37
6.3 Noise......................................................................................................................37
APPENDIX
Appendix A-Biological Survey
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 2
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Regional Map............................................................................................................ 7
2, Vicinity Map.............................................................................................................. 8
3. USGS Topographic Map............................................................................................ 9
4. Site Plan................................................................................................................... 10
5. Aerial Photograph.................................................................................................... 11
6. Photo Key Map........................................................................................................ 13
7. Photographs of the Project Site ................................................................................ 14
8. Photographs of the Project Site................................................................................ 15
9. Photographs of the Project Site................................................................................ 16
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Land Use Summary.................................................................................................. 12
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") is proposing to expand the existing Fred Hesse Park
and provide active and passive park amenities including picnic grounds, sand volleyball, hiking
trails, benches and enhanced landscaping. Parking for 18 cars, including handicap, will also be
provided. The project includes enhancing approximately 18 acres of vacant land currently located
adjacent to and west of the existing Hesse Park. The proposed project is an expansion of the
existing Hesse Park.
The City has received funding from the County of Los Angeles Regional Park and Open Space
District for partial funding to expand the existing Hesse Park. Funding for the project through the
District is provided by Measure"A" funds.
As allowed by Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines, revisions and measures have been
incorporated into the project to reduce the potential impacts to levels of insignificance. As a
result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, as allowed by CEQA, has been prepared for this project.
It is the City's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study checklist have been prepared in compliance
with the California Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. and the California Administrative Code
§15000 et seq. and the City's procedures for implementing the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
1.2 PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS
The City is the lead agency for the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
following agencies and individuals are associated with this project in the capacities indicated:
Lead Agency:
Mr. Les Evans
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Director of Public Works
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
(310) 541-6500
Environmental Consultant:
Mr. Phil Martin
Phil Martin& Associates
22672 Baltar
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
(949) 587-0052
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in the southwest portion of Los Angeles County as shown in Figure 1.
More specifically, the project site is located west of Hawthorne Boulevard and north of
Locklenna Lane in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as shown in Figure 2. A United States
Geologic Survey map of the project site is shown in Figure 3. The proposed landscape plan for
Fred Hesse Trails is presented in Figure 4. Figure 5 is an aerial photograph of the project site
showing the existing park and the area proposed for expansion to include Fred Hesse Trails.
The City proposes to expand the existing Hesse Park to provide additional trails and passive and
active park and recreation amenities as listed in Table 1. Construction of the project is scheduled
to begin in September and be completed in December 1998.
Surface level photographs of the project site were taken showing the area proposed for
construction. Figure 6 is a photo key map of the location of the photographs. Figures 7 to 9
show photographs of the site.
Land uses surrounding the portion of Fred Hesse Park proposed for expansion include single
family detached residential on the south, west and north. The existing Fred Hesse Park is located
adjacent to and east of the project site. Further east of the park is Hawthorne Boulevard.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 6
p\NE COMPIDN LAWNDALE aLVD q COMPTON �
HIG"LAND nV:. �+ Z
'SB.cn MANHATTAN COMPTON ALo RA
MANHATTAN BEACH pv°a "°° O RDENA GAADEN.REDONDO i
MANHATTAN AV. .. u 16.TN a BEACH L z
OL.LD AATESIA BL �
HfRMOSaaPIER AV O BEACH ° FRWY
"- O ' m
2 t syy U N
2 VICTOwRIA L 5T CSU II.
HERMOS,. AV Na A
t._ m4,Q'YL 6 g 190TH 5T �1 V Oan�Pw. Q OPP
..- HARBOR Da. ;i T^^ .. i CARSON i 0i P�
LC M✓.an D[L
APbneo Strt.BON�. f r TORRANCE '� i� ; u 1:11TORRAliY.� I .O
REDONDO BEACH 4 y T y co
CAMINO HEAL m ARSON 2
m O SEPVL VEDA Q 2 TJ3RD STB
N c ; I
LOMITA>
BL
PALOS VERDES ESTATES/ PA OS I. I I I U_ J BLVD �l
q MALTVIA LHARCITBOB " m 6.Nnlr�A, by 49
0 =J 'Si
W
e° ROLLING HILL . ¢ o= 4: WILMINGT
<T p
�o ESTATES
4. qES� A
N O
t ROLLING HILLS - A
c.y
05 w.yr....v \\ > 2 4
PgLROES n., n i A
D B ° ¢ 19
RANCHO OR
Pro ect PALOS s AN PED O i
roj ^ VERDES P< 251H
Location ¢EO 1ST
EL
~AR
P CWmma a..cn
GN 411 Mw
CI Rwr q4n�F P¢:,r
S,.f.9..cA' N:rlw:C
j^ l:Pnrnw.e
i G oCt,4N
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 1
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
flym IFLA
�NI W1 R
lip
-A1P1q§PATH
I LAUE
c wop m*o
P
lW,
-4/0
oy
CF
pl
eo
WA lo
W, 5001
Q
0
—HIY,
as
l.-
PA99
Evw,.EKUIGE' 17P
, mwe
"'.0v
a
RS 1.4 �,c
5rn
P_Aqjq--, e,7
RWC�Z
1, e.
Olt4 0%
0
Fred Hesse Trails
kr4
CO, EL
......... Ft )lLLING.HILLS E TATES
cl
k4
rq
cv
r
th
—iAFLjEUR 00 X. \O\1%
X�o
--Af
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 8
/ IBtNf/ roue
� i � t/��! li nl s' ✓ Y <1t .,D .- �t�lr1. i� �'� aeY'�?, tr, �j a p,j
IN
/ D �� D a �e A�/ 1 I � .• l u D... � n� Ilett I
/6"A" 7t'f!F
fJ/.Yw*p fl Ufa '4._ekl,�'y�" rri' t ,t xt, e 4
t {( y..t 1ti`.''! Stce t mar < ` 1 - ` ` , 7Y•;
L
# s l
rP�oMl x`._ •' t } �.at. •,4l� E: '�f - .� :l4 t i'::1 1t "�."�:
Nesalt�Potnta �` l'n�•P i.. 91 r. .C�� o:.1 nti
l ]+
�. �..{ aT{ t S ` r� •�r$�' PrtSlie
!;I t (I ± f i�i'�b < a , . IPf ',RoD71K'Hillsgo
G
Ilk
el i ! � �• r.�
Or
Polnt Vkmt � PPPPK A+tx�� amu. 'y4 t� ;�' _ �rWirt-fit
CDVMY.P.Wi'e';: .. 1 � 11AfSIA 2
�_.. ....�'L�rY.,.. •�'�" a _. .
USGS MAP FIGURE 3
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
L o c k I e n p a
FRED HESSE TRAILS
1 2 .
15 13 " 20 -•
t W-
17 �,
\ _ 16 12
o � 4
3 11
4 , 10
t
�'+ V 4 �y! J /•�
\
♦ :,, ' /'�+ LANDSCAPE ARCMTECPURE
LAND IMAGES
♦ y
14025 PANAY WAY
MARINA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA 90292
(310)822-0043 FAX(310)822-3905
nnnv FIGURE 4
10
r77io
ti • . F
. i•/ � '� r1 OVA,
Vol
P
Lszz
' jj
fA
t �
-74
r
a+. h
Table I
Summary of Land Uses Associated with Fred Hesse Trails*
Item No. Description
1. Picnic Grounds/Parking Area Decomposed granite surface for entry drive and parking area,understory of drought
tolerant plants,maintain existing grove of sycamore and oak trees,a wave of native
Palos Verdes stone banding will mark the main trail.
2. Sand Volleyball Volleyball area will be a sand"meadow"bordered by slopes hydroseeded in purple and
yellow flowers.
3. Oak Circle Oak trees and a circle of stone banding mark the start of a secondary trail.
4. Rustic Bench in Blue-Eyed Grass A rustic wooden bench will sit in a meadow of blue-eyed grass at the edge of the riparian
zone.
5. Rock Overlook/Water Stone located in grove of existing Canary Island pine trees,seating on large boulders,
hollowed stone will create a seasonal reflecting 1.
6. Stone Path Through Riparian Paved stone path will pass through the riparian area. Riparian area will be planted on
Area both sides with rushes,alders and seasonal flowers.
7. Connector to Upper Park Circle of decomposed granite will mark the transition between the existing asphalt path
to the upper park playground and the start of the new Fred Hesse Trails. A boulder
outcrop will provide seating near existing willow trees.
8. Earth Berm and Rustic Bench A rustic wooden bench will be sheltered in an earth berm which will be planted with
rosemary and rockrose. The bench will have a view over the park to the ocean.
9. Sycamore Grove/Rock Outcrop A grove of sycamore trees will cross the riparian area connecting two seating areas.
and Log Bench
10. Meadow Picnic Area In a grassy picnic meadow hummocks and mounds will create seating areas. A grove of
sycamores and oak trees will screen picnic tables from existing homes above.
11. Pedestrian Bridge over Riparian A pedestrian bridge will allow hikers to cross over the steeper sections of the riparian
Area area. Willows will be planted and barrier shrubs will prevent access to the rockier
reaches of the channel.
12. Oak Circle A circle of oak trees, grass and stone will mark the division of pathways.
13. Entry Stairway A stairway will provide access to the westerly area of the parli,
14. HcadwalMparian Sluiceway The existing storm drain will be screened with new fencing planted with bougainvillea.
15. Hummingbird Gardens This bench site will include plants to attract hummingbirds. The park benches will be
identified by waves of lilac decomposed granite bands.
16. Meadow Bench A bench will be located in the meadow grasses along the path on the southerly edge of
the riparian zone.
17. Meadow Hydroseed The majority of the park will be seeded with a mix of perennial grasses and seasonal
wildflowers including lupine and California
18. Barrier/Buffer Hydroseed A buffer zone along the north project boundary will create a low growing dense
boundary between existing residents and the park. The hydroseed mix will include
Matilija poppy and white sage. Shrubs including lemonade berry and California encelia
will supplement the hydroseed.
19. Riparian Zone Hydroseed The riparian hydroseed will include low perennial grasses,yarrow,blue-eyed grass and
seasonal wildflowers.
20. Slope Planting at Park The slopes of the park edges will be planted with irrigated flowers including a hydroseed
Boundary mix of purple sea lavender and lupine and a separate mix of yellow and orange
consisting of gazania and California
*Numbers in Table 1 correspond accordingly to numbers shown in Figure 4.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 12
P82 r'-SFECf1_1ECUrx� 0�-NpNfRO__�u� -DTt—r�-'
-�� . - ._�._. ..- - :- .. _ .._ RIU Si.. . 1, °�S, !�,• Ifo
VW91 L0 TYGROYf� n l a
T, r D im:.Z 1.1--fib --^Y�, LINDA- ,JQR� I 3� �Zj iary i
IMAYCROFT D(t !� l- Z Ir ;q i OHO S. ¢ c I t- \o
! - a I FLMBFAU--r.
R___
RDDRF0R0
� WTHORN69;3 � im -',Y*r\,� �,--' t� S� $tiDD ..atm. n-�HA_.r8204 ' �o ac \ �vr syr Win r� �Rn rz B�V�(sSyrx
�„ �� ` ,.%`" ,-_ -; i O{, �� ' �°"., R � . •�.� fir . - `. CL
�- 0X ED
I F--' (OQ qR q✓t !cr \� c��� � ' GAl t '6LF
150 e
x nr �
r-r
N 6 \yt�^� 't \Gr \ ✓�t\ I;d ! s3io a�o� SCOTHI5F AsWe�/y (�
qx
m c° LDCNVALE >! < q
(t i.Yigr
w o
ER
&tL
IFF
I "� - `� ,\ East�' -� m Sala OMS CR F`{rvn�v t. _
—i 1- -g\' �w.�-
Clai Igl RIDGE
I lR Fl`. q h " ° L_INE COYE
o mz�,1�,
r •F ( ml SA
5V
cROVEsvBlrt� l� : 8 ! DR _`.: �,�' `� �'iw'"; ,`"1 � ;�^ �` �•� � F�-
� ! pNI�Lr.Rrsr 1 t
I ABBOTTSWO R a/ LN Sf now s900
Sob I S Ct® b1°° - -tii 1 •.t i
a l a 5 3
DAR�fiC v�R 6 4 0`� OSP po x Nwr 1
1 FAIR VC $ Z Jta4 z ti vaa l
hi til 1 AV 1 - VO M:R - ?9
DRtAJy� Fti m� a�a CRfST � j5
_¢ CREST , aQ' FRMp
6900Tc ti tiC4 8�)t RSf CH FaEn \
�64TElax Gill
ROh y
LOS O r•` �O c Vvr .�,, /c„� ! ¢ m P;,
d VERDES
GOLF' ( t FS cF•.. S 6500 di Cr1TE80Ia 5900
m R-- •. COURSE
t •o r� �.�� o G� 6 04
r Qg`r�l✓y��Fz t '' r-J- 1$ � \v , ,off.c.,�., , �-,...-.i• � �, y;
t ti
of�1N0 TERRACt;' OR�`D
' C Jn�: f �S4�T._at 64D 51`00 6 D
1 CLL801SE ■ ! i l - / po. Q�S
PHOTO KEY MAP FIGURE 6
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
ay
_ f
t
(I)LOOKING NORTH AT THE PROJECT SITE FROM LOCKLENNA LANE
Y y
If
, L
o - ,w ate,_ ✓ ..-a,. `,
(2)LOOKING EAST FROM LOCKLENNA LANE AT THE EXISTING HEADWALL AND STORM DRAIN
SYSTEM AT WEST END OF PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 7
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 14
�n
(3)LOOKING WESTERLY FROMI 11 OF 1 HESSE
1 RIPARIAN HABITAT
f±
••-
4 n
(4)LOOKING SOUTWESTERLY ' • ' •M THE EAST END OF 1 HESSE
FIGURE 8
FredTrails-MitigatedNegativeDeclaration
1 r'. ' 1 , F-.L.,.n"..•, a'. . 6 III
J
AA
i '
(5)LOOKING NORTHERLY ACROSS THE SITE FROM THE EAST END OF FRED HESSE TRAILS-NOTE
EXISTING RESIDENCES ALONG NORTHERN PROJECT BOUNDARY
l
' a
i
�.: . . .. ..4.� � .�� kid'. i- � t 6•l �_ . _.
(6)LOOKING WESTERLY AT THE EXISITNG RIPARIAN HABITAT ASSOCIATED WITH THE ON-SITE
DRAINAGE AREA
FIGURE 9
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 16
Project entitlements include:
• Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Director.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
3.1 Introduction
The first step in the environmental evaluation process for the project is completion of the
Environmental Checklist Form. Completion of the Checklist identifies those environmental
disciplines listed that could have potential environmental effects with implementation of the
proposed project. Listed beside each environmental discipline is a box identifying the level of
potential impact associated with each discipline. A box is checked depending upon the degree of
potential impact of the project for that specific discipline.
Once the Checklist Form is completed the next step is to fully explain the box that was checked.
If the project is anticipated not to have an impact on a specific discipline the explanation will
briefly explain why the project will not have an impact. If the project could potentially have a
significant impact on a specific discipline, the explanation will provide information relative to how
the project could impact or be impacted by that discipline. For those disciplines where significant
potential impacts could occur, measures are recommended that can be incorporated into the
project to mitigate the impacts.
Below is the completed Environmental Checklist Form for this project. Following the Form are
the explanations to each environmental discipline. Following the explanations is a list of the
mitigation measures that have been recommended for incorporation into the project to reduce
potential significant impacts to insignificant levels. Because measures have been recommended to
reduce impacts to insignificant levels, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project as allowed by the California Environmental Quality Act.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 18
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Fred Hesse Trails
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Les Evans (310) 541-6500
4. Project Location: The project site is located west of Hawthorne Boulevard between
Locklenna Lane on the south and Verde Ridge Road on the north in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
6. General Plan Description: The project site is located on land designated as Recreational
(Active) by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Land Use Element. The project
site is part of the existing Fred Hesse Park owned by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
7. Zoning: The project site is zoned Open Space Recreational Use.
8. Description of Project: The project includes the expansion of the existing Fred Hesse Park
to include both passive and active recreational uses. The types of uses proposed include a
new parking lot for approximately 18 cars including handicap spaces, sand volleyball, hiking
trails, enhanced natural landscaping, park benches, picnic tables, rock overlook, pedestrian
bridge, etc. The proposed improvements will be located adjacent to and west of Hesse Park.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include Hesse Park to the east
and single-family detached homes to the south, west and north.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would
be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially
Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Service
❑ Population and Housing ■ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems
❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy/Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 19
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 the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. AMitigated Negative
Declaration will be prepared. ■
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 significant effect(s)on
the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets,if the effect is a"potentially
significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated".
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant
effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards
and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EK
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. ❑
Signature Date
Printed Name For
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 20
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to a project like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3) 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
Than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impact (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below.
A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
Potentially
Significar6
Potentially Uniess Lest Tium
significant Mitigation significant No
Lnpact IncaporaW Impact Impact
L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? ❑ ❑ ' ❑ ■
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 21
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incoipoiated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies
with jurisdiction over the project? 0 ❑ ❑ ■
c) Be incompatible with existing land use
in the vicinity? 0 ❑ 0 ■
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands,or impacts
from incompatible land uses? 0 0 ❑ ■
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community(including a low-
income or minority community? 0 0 ❑ ■
IL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? 0 0 ❑ ■
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly(e.g.,through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Displace existing housing especially affordable
housing? 0 0 0 ■
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 0 0 ❑ ■
b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ 0 ❑ ■
c) Seismic ground failure,including
liquefaction? 0 0 . 0 ■
d) Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? ❑ 0 0 ■
e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 0 ■
f) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation,grading,or fill? 0 0 0 ■
g) Subsidence of the land? 0 ❑ 0 ■
h) Expansive soils? 0 0 0 ■
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 0 0 ❑ ■
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? 0 0 0 ■
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality(e.g.temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 0 0 . 0 ■
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 22
Potentially
Siguficant .
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significard Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction
of water movement? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
fl Changes in the quantity of ground waters,either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations,
or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? ❑ ❑ 0 ■
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ 0 ❑ ■
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground-
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,or
cause any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
VL TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ 0 ■
b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.,sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible
uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered,threatened,or raze species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants,fish,insects,animals,
and birds? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b) Locally designated species(e.g., heritage trees)? 0 ❑ ❑ ■
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,oak forest,
coastal habitat,etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 23
Potentially
significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Welland habitat(e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
pool)? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
DL HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances(including,but not limited to:oil,pesticides,
chemicals,or radiation)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon,or result in a need for new or altered government services
in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Communication systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ IS
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 24
Potentially
significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Sigtificant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
XHL AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ 0 ■
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
XVL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the
habit of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term,to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects,the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 25
Potentially
Sipuficard
Potentially Unless Less Than
SiptificarR Mitigation Sivnifscann No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings,either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program ER or other CEQA process,one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(1)). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 26
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
The following information explains and discusses the answers that were checked on the
Environmental Checklist Form. All environmental disciplines listed on the checklist form are
listed below. Written responses are provided for each environmental discipline checked, including
"No Impact".
5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) The expansion of the existing Hesse Park to provide pedestrian walking trails, picnic areas,
sand volleyball, park benches, landscaping, hardscape, parking, etc. is consistent with the
types of land uses allowed by the General Plan for the property which is Recreational (Active)
land use. The proposed uses are similar to and support the existing park and recreational land
uses that exist in Hesse Park adjacent to and east of the project site.
b) The project is consistent with all applicable City environmental plans and policies for the
project site as designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed project
meets the intent of the environmental policies for the site as determined by the General Plan.
c) The project will not be incompatible with surrounding land uses. The project is consistent
with existing surrounding land uses and land uses designated for the site by the General Plan.
The proposed land uses are similar to and supportive of the existing park uses in Hesse Park
which is adjacent to the proposed site.
d) The project will not significantly affect existing agricultural operations or resources in the area
since there are no agricultural uses in the immediate project vicinity.
e) The project will not divide an established community since there are no homes or businesses
on the project site.
5.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) The project will not generate additional people to the local community or the region that
would result in the community exceeding any regional or local population projections due to
cumulative population increases. The project will not provide any additional housing nor
encourage the construction of new housing. Therefore, the project will not generate
additional people to the area.
b) The project will not encourage additional growth in the area. The proposed expansion of
Hesse Park will increase the amount of park and recreational uses in the City, however, these
types of uses will not encourage additional growth or result in the need for people to move to
the City.
c) There is no housing on the site, therefore, the project will not displace any existing residents.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 27
5.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
a) A preliminary geotechnical investigation has not been prepared specifically for the project. A
geotechnical report was prepared, however, for the entire park site in the past in conjunction
with a proposed school for the site. A geologic and soil investigation dated April 4, 1969 was
prepared at the time the Crestmont Intermediate School was being considered for the site
which includes both Hesse Park and the proposed Fred Hesse Trails project. The City has
referenced that April 4, 1969 geotechnical report during development of the plans for the
proposed Fred Hesse Trails project. Based on the geotechnical report there are no existing
geologic conditions that would prevent the development of the project as proposed since there
will not be any large quantities of cut or fill associated with development of the project. The
recommendations in the geotechnical report were taken into account when developing the
pians for the project. As a result no significant geotechnical impacts with the project are
anticipated.
b) The site is subject to seismic ground shaking from faults known to exist in the region.
However, since there will not be any buildings constructed there will not be any significant
impacts associated with seismic groundshaking on the site.
c) The geotechnical report did not identify any potential liquefaction areas within the areas
proposed for construction. Therefore, the project will not be impacted by liquefaction.
d) Although the project site is located in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean the lowest
elevation on the site is approximately 830 feet above sea level. It is unlikely the site will be
subject to a tsunami. There are no lakes or volcanoes in the vicinity that could impact the site,
therefore there is no risk of seiche or volcanic hazards.
e) The area proposed for development ranges in elevation from a low of 830 feet above sea level
at the west end of the site to a high of approximately 930 feet above sea level on the east
adjacent to the existing park. Some soil erosion could occur if construction occurs during the
winter months when rainfall typically occurs. The City will require the contractor to
implement measures to prevent soil erosion during construction. Construction of the project
is scheduled to begin in August and be completed by November, 1998. All of the construction
will be done during the summer months when rainfall does not typically occur. Completion of
the project by November, 1998 will significantly reduce the potential for soil erosion since the
project will be completed before the start of the seasonal rainfall.
f) Grading will be required to provide trails and paths, parking area, volleyball area, etc. The
grading will be minimal and no mass grading required. Total grading for the project is
estimated to be less than 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. Most of the grading will be
associated with construction of the parking area. Minimal grading will be required for the
trails, volleyball area, seating areas and pedestrian bridge. Because the project will require
minimal grading it is not anticipated at this time there will be any significant grading impacts
with development of the project.
The City will require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) into the
project to reduce potential erosion of soils during construction. The City has standard BMP's
that must be incorporated into projects similar to the proposed project. All applicable City
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 28
required BMP's will be incorporated into the project and maintained throughout the project
construction period to reduce soil erosion should project construction extend into the seasonal
rainfall period.
g-i) The April 4, 1969 geotechnical report did not identify any potential for subsidence or any
other geotechnical constraints that would prohibit the safe development of the project as
proposed.
5.4 WATER
a) The project will not significantly reduce the amount of vacant land that presently is available
to absorb rainfall. Most of the trails and paths will consist of decomposed granite which will
allow rainfall to continue to percolate into the on-site soil. The paved stone path passing
through the riparian area will result in some increased runoff, but the amount of additional
runoff will be insignificant. Most of the proposed improvements associated with the project
will continue to allow rainfall to percolate into the soil resulting in a minimal increase in
surface water runoff from the site. Any increase in runoff by the project will not significantly
impact the ability of the existing storm drain system at the west end of the property to handle
surface water runoff from Hesse Park.
b) The project site is not in a flood hazard area and not subject to flooding by a 100-year storm.
c) The runoff from the site after development will contain some urban type pollutants. The
urban pollutants include oil and grease that will drip from automobiles in'the proposed parking
lot. These urban pollutants are not anticipated to have any adverse impact on the quality of
runoff due to the small number of automobiles (18 cars) that can park on the site.
There could be a short-term increase in surface water turbidity from soil erosion during
project construction if rainfall occurs during construction. Soil erosion preventative measures
will be required to be incorporated into the project by the City should construction extend into
the winter months during periods of rainfall. The incorporation of soil erosion measures will
reduce the potential for significant soil erosion impacts.
d) The project will result in an insignificant increase the amount of runoff generated from the site
(please refer to "a" above). The minimal increase in runoff will be due to a reduction of
permeable soil due to the construction of the paved stone path through the riparian area. The
amount of additional runoff will be insignificant and can be adequately handled by the existing
storm drain system at the west end of the park. Any incremental increase in runoff will not
impact the water body receiving the runoff which is the Pacific Ocean.
e) The project will not change currents, course or direction of water movements of any off-site
downstream flood control facilities. The amount of runoff generated from the site after
construction will be insignificant and can be adequately handled by the existing storm drain
system serving the park.
f) The project will not impact existing groundwaters. The project will not require the
withdrawal of local groundwater to provide water to the project. Water for drinking and
irrigation will be provided by the existing water system that currently serves Hesse Park The
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 29
additional water that will be consumed by the project for uses such as irrigation and drinking
fountains will be insignificant and will not impact the local groundwater.
The project will not significantly reduce the amount of water that percolates into the local
groundwater. Although the project will incrementally reduce some vacant land that currently
allows water to percolate into the soil the amount of land that will be covered by the project
will be insignificant. Any increase in surface water runoff by the project will not be
significant.
g) The project will not alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Project grading will be
minimal and not result in deep cuts that could intercept local groundwater. The operation of
the project will not require the withdrawal of groundwater that could result in the alteration or
flow of local groundwater. Water for drinking and irrigation can adequately be provided by
the existing water distribution system eliminating the need to find additional water supplies or
drill on-site water wells.
h) The project is not anticipated to impact local groundwater quality. The project does not
propose any uses that could have an impact on the quality of local groundwater. The types of
uses proposed for the site will not include the use of any chemicals or materials that would
impact groundwater quality.
i) The project will not required significant quantities of water for drinking or landscape
irrigation. The additional water required by the project will be insignificant compared to the
water demand by the community as a whole. The water needs of the project can be met by
the existing water distribution system and will not substantially reduce the amount of
groundwater available for other uses.
5.5 AIR QUALITY
a) The project will increase both short-term and long-term air emissions. Short-term air
emissions will be due to the operation of construction equipment during project construction.
Long-term air emissions will be associated with people driving to and from the site throughout
the He of the project. The air emissions associated with both the short and long-term will be
insignificant because the project is not considered to be of Statewide, Regional or Areawide
Significance based on criteria in Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the
project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan of the Southern California
Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have any adverse air quality impacts for either the
short or long-term.
b) There will be dust and other particulates generated from the site during project grading and
construction. Since there will be minimal grading for the project dust particles will not
significantly impact area residents. The South Coast Air Quality Management District
requires the incorporation of measures into grading operations to reduce dust and other
particulates. The project will be required to implement and maintain all applicable measures
to reduce dust during project construction.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 30
c) The project is small in scale and will not alter air movement or change any climate either
locally or regionally.
d) The project will not generate any odors that could be considered objectionable to receptors in
the immediate project area either during construction or throughout the life of the project.
5.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a) The project will generate minimal daily traffic. The project will generate some additional
traffic to the area roadway system, however, the amount of additional traffic will be
insignificant and can be handled adequately by the existing roadway system. The proposed
project will generated some new traffic trips, but many of the trips will be associated with
people visiting the existing park. The project will not result in an increase in traffic
congestion.
The project is not anticipated to create any safety hazards. The project will provide additional
on-site parking spaces, but the parking lot will not result in any dangerous curves or
intersections.
c) The project will have adequate access for emergency vehicles in case of an accident on the
site. Emergency vehicles, including police, fire and paramedics will have adequate access to
the Fred Hesse Trails portion of the park upon project completion.
The 18 new parking spaces will adequately serve the parking needs of visitors for Fred Hesse
Trails. Hesse Park has existing parking spaces that provide adequate parking for trail users
should parking in addition to that being provided by the project be required. The future
demand for parking with the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly increase from
the existing demand. The construction of 18 spaces by the project should be adequate to
serve the needs of visitors to Fred Hesse Trails.
e) The project is not anticipated to create any hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.
There are no existing pedestrian or bicycle trails that will be removed or impacted by the
project. The project will have positive impacts by providing additional pedestrian trails for
residents.
1) The project will not have any conflicts with City adopted policies that support alternative
forms of transportation.
g) The project will not impact rail lines, airports or waterborne transportation facilities since
there are none of these facilities either on or adjacent to the site.
5.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) A biological survey of the area proposed for construction was conducted by Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services on August 19, 1997. The survey included a field
reconnaissance. An inventory of the plant and animal species that exist or anticipated to exist
on the site is provided in Appendix A of this Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 31
The area proposed for construction has been disturbed in the past and is dominated by non-
native plant species. The willow scrub on the site is the only sensitive plant species on the
site.
b) There are no rare or endangered plant or animal species either on or anticipated to occur on
the area proposed for construction. The Palos Verdes blue butterfly is endemic to the Palos
Verdes Peninsula. The butterfly is found in coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and its larval
host plant is ocean locoweed. The butterfly has historically been found at Hesse Park, but has
not been observed nor has its food plant been observed at Hesse Park since 1985. The
potential of occurrence for the Palos Verdes blue butterfly is low due to the lack of larval food
plant and suitable habitat.
c) The project site has three vegetation communities including southern willow scrub, ruderal
and disturbed habitat. The southern willow scrub comprises approximately 0.13 acres of the
site, ruderal approximately 6.11 acres and disturbed approximately 12.0 acres. The southern
willow scrub is the only sensitive habitat on the site. There are not any locally designated
plant or animal species present on the site.
d) The project site has southern willow scrub which may or may not be considered as wetland by
the Army Corps of Engineers. This habitat is considered sensitive by the California
Department of Fish and Game. The southern willow scrub is located near the natural drainage
course on the property. The existing drainage area and existing southern willow scrub will be
retained and enhanced by the project.
e) There are wildlife species such as birds, rabbits, ground squirrels, mice, etc. that frequent the
site, but the site is not used exclusively as a migration route by any of the species.
5.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Due to its small scale the project will not have any known conflicts with any energy
conservation plans. None of the proposed improvements will consume electricity or other
forms of energy, therefore, there will be no energy impacts associated with the project.
b) The project will not use any non-renewable resources in a wasteful manner. There will be
non-renewable resources, such as lumber, concrete, etc. consumed during project
construction, however, the amount of resources consumed will be minimal and will not be
used in a wasteful manner.
c) The project will not use any known mineral resource that would be of future value to the
region or residents of the State. Any minerals that may be used during either project
construction or throughout the life of the project are in large supply and will not be impacted
by their use in the project.
5.9 HAZARDS
a) The project will not result in the potential release of any known hazardous materials during
either construction or throughout the life of the project. There will be some hazardous
materials used on the site during construction such as diesel fuel and lubricant oils with the
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 32
operation of motorized equipment for construction projects. However, these materials will be
used in very small quantities and will not pose a threat or danger during construction.
b) The project site is not located within any designated emergency response or evacuation plan
routes. The project will not impact any evacuation routes.
c) The project will not create any known health hazards. The construction of the parking lot is
not considered a health hazard to area residents or park visitors.
d) The project will not expose park visitors or City park employees to any known health hazards.
e) The project is not located in an area considered to be a fire hazard due to flammable brush.
The existing vegetation in the park is routinely maintained by the City to minimize the threat
of fire due to flammable brush. The project will not provide any flammable landscape
materials that could pose a fire hazard threat. The existing vegetation consists mostly of
introduced plant species and are regularly maintained minimizing the threat of a fire hazard.
5.10 NOISE
a-b)The project will result in both short and long-term noise level increases. There will be short-
term noise impacts during project construction due to the operation of grading and other
construction equipment. The construction of the project is scheduled to lake approximately
four months, therefore, construction noise impacts will be short-term. The construction noise
could be disruptive periodically to residents adjacent to the park.
After the project is constructed the long-term noise level increase to the area will be due to
automobile traffic entering and leaving the new parking area. Since the parking area is
relatively small and provides parking for only 18 cars it is not anticipated at this time the
traffic associated with the project will have significant traffic noise impacts to area residents.
It is not anticipated that the project will generate a significant number of new vehicle trips to
the site. The proposed project is anticipated to serve many of the people that already visit
Hesse Park. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have any long-term noise impacts.
5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
a) The project is not anticipated to increase the need for additional fire protection services. The
project could have positive impacts on fire protection services by replacing vacant vegetation
that is subject to fire with planted vegetation that is more fire retardant. Therefore, the
project will be insignificant and not impact the fire department.
b) The project will have an insignificant, increase in the need for police protection services. The
types of additional police service calls anticipated by the project include minor motor vehicle
accidents and parking violations. The police department can adequately handle the calls for
service by the project without any significant impacts.
c) The project will not generate any students to area schools or colleges.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 33
d) The project will result in an incremental increase for the City to maintain public facilities such
as the trails, benches, volleyball court and parking lot. The additional maintenance required
for the project will be insignificant and not impact City maintenance.
e) There are no other known governmental services that could be impacted with development of
the project.
5.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) The utility companies that presently serve Hesse Park have capacity to serve the proposed
project. The increase demand for utilities will be insignificant and can be met by the utility
companies.
b) The project will not require new or an extension of existing communication facilities.
c) The existing water lines that serve Hesse Park are adequate to serve the water needs for the
proposed project without any significant impacts. The water needs by the project include
landscape irrigation and drinking fountains. The water consumed for irrigation and water
fountains can be adequately supplied with existing water supplies without any significant
impacts. All applicable State mandated water conservation measures will be incorporated into
the project to minimize water consumption.
d) No new public restrooms will be constructed by the project. The existing rest rooms
associated with Hesse Park will serve the proposed project. Visitors using the Fred Hesse
Trails can use the existing restrooms associated with Hesse Park. The existing sewer
collection system serving Hesse park has adequate capacity to serve any additional wastewater
generated by the proposed project.
e) The project will have in insignificant increase the amount of storm water generated from the
site. The increased runoff due to the construction of impermeable surfaces associated with the
stone path through the riparian area will be insignificant and can be adequately handled by the
existing stormdrain system located at the west side of the site.
f) The project will generate additional solid waste that will have to be deposited in the local
landfill. The amount of additional solid waste generated by people visiting the trail system will
be insignificant and not impact the life expectancy of the local landfill.
g) The project will not require quantities of water that will substantially alter local or regional
water supplies. The water requirements of the project for landscaping and drinking water will
be insignificant and can be met by existing water supplies.
5.13 AESTHETICS
a) The project will require minimal grading to provide the parking area, pedestrian trails,
volleyball court, benches, etc. The parking area, trails, volleyball court and other amenities
will be visible from surrounding residential neighborhoods. There will be minimal grading and
construction minimizing the aesthetic impact to area residents. The project will replace most
of the existing non-native plants with a variety of plant materials. The improved landscaping
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 34
and other park-like amenities such as benches, rock outcroppings, etc. will improve the
existing aesthetics of the existing vacant site. Although there is some vegetation on the site
presently, most of the vegetation is dead during the summer months reducing the aesthetics of
the site. The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the property by providing annual
landscaping and other hardscape improvements.
The project is not anticipated to have any significant adverse aesthetic impacts to residences
adjacent to and surrounding the site. The project will improve the aesthetics of the property
by replacing dead non-native vegetation with flowering landscaping and hardscape amenities.
c) The project will generate new sources of glare due to cars parking in the new parking area.
Glare from car windows will generate some glare, but the increased glare will be minimal and
is not anticipated at this time to impact surrounding residences. There will not be any new
sources of lights with development of the project.
5.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d)There are no known cultural resources on the project site. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Department keeps on file a map of cultural resource areas in the City. City staff
reviewed the map for the presence of any known cultural resources within or near the project.
The park site is located in an area designated as having a"probability" of having
archaeology/paleontological resources. Due to the minimal grading that the project will
require it is not anticipated the project will have any impacts on archaeological and/or
paleontological resources, if present.
e) There are not any sacred or religious uses on the site. As a result, the project will not restrict
or impact any known religious or sacred uses in the project area.
5.15 RECREATION
a-b)The project will provide additional passive and active recreational facilities for residents of
Rancho Palos Verdes. The project will meet the increased demand by area residents for more
park and recreational facilities. The project could result in an incremental increase in the use
of existing recreational facilities at Hesse Park. The City is currently upgrading and expanding
some of the active and passive recreational amenities at Hesse Park. The project will have
positive impacts by increasing recreational facilities for the community.
5.16 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or impact
fish or wildlife species since there are no significant wildlife or plant species present on the site
that will be significantly impacted by the project.
b) The project is consistent with and meets long-term goals of the City General Plan for the
project site. The project is an expansion of existing park and recreational uses on the site
which is consistent with the land uses planned for the Park. There have not been any
significant adverse impacts identified with the project that would achieve short-term goals to
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 35
the disadvantage of long-term goals. The expansion of the existing Hesse Park will better
serve the community by providing more passive and active park and recreational facilities.
c) The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable. There have not been any impacts identified that could result in cumulative
impacts to either the existing park or the community.
d) There are not any environmental impacts associated with the project that will cause direct or
indirect effects on human beings.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 36
6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Although no significant environmental impacts with the project have been identified, the following
mitigation measures are recommended to maintain environmental effects at a level of
insignificance. These measures are recommended for incorporation into the project as conditions
of approval. The following mitigation measures are recommended by the City:
6.1 Geology
a. All applicable Best Management Practices (BMP's)required for all construction projects
in the City shall be incorporated into the project. The BMP's shall include, but not be
limited to: material delivery and storage; material use; spill prevention and control; solid
waste management; hazardous waste management and sediment control. Other
applicable BMP's will be required at the discretion of the Director of Public Works in
order to control stormwater pollution.
6.2 Air Quality
a. During project grading the contractor shall water the site and clean equipment morning
and afternoon to comply with Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)Fugitive Dust
Measures BCM-03 and BCM-06.
b. Construction operations shall include that on-site crews wash off trucks leaving the site
to comply with AQMP Fugitive Dust Measure BCM-01.
c. The general contractor shall sweep streets daily if silt is carried over to adjacent public
roadways.
d. The general contractor shall suspend grading operations during first and second stage
smog alerts.
e. The general contractor shall suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
6.3 Noise
a. All project grading and construction shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM
Monday through Saturday. No grading or construction shall be allowed on Sunday or
federal holidays.
b. All construction equipment shall have proper mufflers and kept in proper working
condition as required by the manufacturer.
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration 37
APPENDIX
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration
APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
Fred Hesse Trails-Mitigated Negative Declaration
. • RECEIVED
N ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY SERVICES OCT 2 7 1997
PLANNING. BUILDING
5510 Morehouse Dr.
San Diego, CA 92121
619 458 9044
fax 619 458 0943
97-220-3151
October 20, 1997
Mr.Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391
f
Subject: Biological Survey of Hesse Park
Dear Mr. Rojas:
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Inc. (Ogden) conducted a biological survey of
Hesse Park on August 19, 1997. Hesse Park is located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
on Locklenna Lane off of Hawthorne Boulevard. The project site is immediately west of
Hesse Park. The project site is gently sloped to the west and has a small drainage down the
middle of the property that flows from east to west. The drainage flows into a culvert at the
western property's edge. The project site has been highly disturbed and is dominated by
non-native plant species.
The project site was surveyed by Leslie Hickson by walking the entire site and mapping the
vegetation on 1 inch equals 500 feet scaled maps. This data was also incorporated into the
Rancho Palos Verde NCCP Plan. A survey for sensitive species was also conducted.
VEGETATION
Three vegetation communities were observed on the project site including southern willow
scrub, ruderal habitat, and disturbed habitat. These three habitat types are discussed
below. A total of 18.24 acres occur within the project site including 0.13 acre of southern
willow scrub, 6.11 acres of ruderal habitat, and 12.0 acres of disturbed habitat. Table 1
shows the plant species that were identified during this survey.
Southern Willow Scrub
Southern willow scrub is found on loose, sandy, or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near
stream channels during floods, and most stands are too dense to allow much understory to
develop (Holland 1986). Southern willow scrub is dominated by young willows (Salix
sp.) with scattered mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), cottonwood (Populus fremontit), and
sycamore (Platanus racemosus). The southern willow scrub onsite is dominated by red
willow(Salix laevigata).
Southern willow scrub is a wetland habitat and considered a sensitive and declining
resource by several regulatory agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Wetlands are
specifically addressed by the CDFG Code sections 1600-1606 (Streambed Alteration
Agreement), and are also covered under the-jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Mr.Joel Rojas
October 20, 1997
Page 2
Engineers' (ACOE) section 404 permit process (Reinen 1978). Clean Water Act permit
provisions regulating dredge and fill operations are enforced by the ACOE and U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with technical input from the USFWS.
However, a detailed wetland delineation was not conducted during this survey.
Ruderal Habitat
Ruderal habitat is any land on which the native vegetation has been significantly altered by
agriculture, construction,or other land-clearing activities, and the species composition and
site conditions are not characteristic of the disturbed phase of one of the plant associations
within the study region. Such habitat has a dense cover of non-native species such as black
mustard (Brassica nigra), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), wild radish (Raphanus
sativus) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). The ruderal habitat within the project site is
dominated by sweet fennel and black mustard. A few scattered shrubs, such California
sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), lemonadebeny (Rhus integrlfolia) and coyote bush
(Baccharis pilularis) were observed in this vegetation type. These species are remnants of
the of the native habitat that occurred prior to being disturbed.
Disturbed Habitat
Disturbed habitat is similar to ruderal habitat in that the native habitat has been significantly
altered by land clearing activities. Also in disturbed habitat, the soils have been alter
usually being compacted or disked so that sparse vegetation exists. Such habitat is
typically found in vacant lots, roadsides, construction staging areas, or continually disked
areas. Typical plant species include Russian thistle, sweet fennel, horseweed (Conyza
canadensis), black mustard, annual grasses (such as Avena sp. and Bromus sp.), prickly
lettuce (Lactuca sen iola), and bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides). Disturbed habitat
mapped within the project site had been recently disked.
SENSITIVE RESOURCES
Sensitive Habitats
Southern willow scrub is the only sensitive habitat that occurs onsite. This habitat may or
may not be considered a wetland by the ACOE but is considered sensitive by the CDFG.
Three factors are considered in the designation of wetlands: the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. A minimum of one positive wetland
indicator from each category must be found for the ACOE to determine an area to be
wetland(ACOE 1986). Areas indicated as wetlands by of all three factors during the rainy
season may lack the indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the dry season, or the
vegetation may have been altered or removed through human disturbance. Such areas may
still be regarded as wetlands by resource agencies. Only one of the three wetland factors is
needed to be considered a wetland by CDFG.
Riparian habitat is considered a sensitive resource by the CDFG. Riparian habitat is
specifically addressed by the CDFG Code Sections 1600-1606 (Streambed Alteration
Agreement), and wetlands are also under the jurisdiction of the ACOE permit process
(Reinen 1978). Riparian habitat is considered a valuable but declining resource locally, as
well. This habitat type covered less than 0.2 percent of San Diego County in 1963 (CDFG
1965), and the amount has declined since.
Mr. Joel Rojas
October 20, 1997
Page 3
Wetlands are also subject to Clean Water Act permit provisions regulating their filling.
These are enforced by the ACOE and EPA, with technical input from the USFWS.
Wetland habitat is naturally limited and remaining acreages are important island habitats for
migrant birds. Many bird species are restricted to riparian habitat and are dependent on it
for breeding. Overall wildlife diversity is normally higher in riparian zones than in
surrounding habitats. Such habitat, by occupying natural drainages, also functions to
control water quality and erosion and functions as a wildlife corridor.
Sensitive Species
No sensitive species were detected at the project site during this survey. Table 2 shows a
list of species that could potentially occur onsite. All these species have a low potential to
occur because the disturbance to the site and the lack of suitable habitat. No species focal
surveys were conducted for sensitive wildlife species. To be able to determine presence or
absences of these species, surveys using species specific protocols would need to be
conducted. The sensitive species that have a potential to occur onsite are described below.
Plants
Aphanisma bliroides
Aphanisma
CNPS: List 1B, 2-2-2
Aphanisma is a glabrous, succulent,spring-blooming (April-May) annual that occurs along
the coastal strand or on bluffs in coastal sage scrub. Historically, this species occurred
from Los Angeles County southward to Baja Californica, and on most of the Channel
Islands. It is now apparently extirpated in the northern end of its range (Smith and Berg
1988). In San Diego County, aphanisma occurs in alkaline areas along the coast below 25
in (82 ft. ) elevation. Reported localities include San Onofre, San Dieguito Creek, the
Silver Strand, Imperial Beach (Beauchamp 1986), and possibly, Torrey Pines State Park
and Point Loma (Oberbauer pers. comm.). Aphanisma has been observed on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula but has a low potential of occurring on the project site.
Arriplex pactfrca
South wast saltscale
CNPS: List 1B, 3-3-3
South coast saltscale
South coast saltscale is a wiry little herb that grows in open areas in coastal sage scrub,
bluff scrub, or alkali flats. This annual plant is prostate in stature and forms tangled mats.
This species occurs from Los Angeles County into Baja California and on Santa Catalina
and Santa Rosa islands (Munz 1974). South coast saltscale has a low potential of
occurrence due to the lack of suitable habitat,
Crossosoma californicum
Catalina crabapple bush
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-2
Catalina crabapple bush is a deciduous shrub that occurs on rocky slopes and in canyons
with coastal sage scrub habitat. It occurs on the Palos Verde Peninsula and on the San
Mr. Joel Rojas
October 20, 1997
Page 4
Clemente, Santa Catalina and Guadelupe Islands (Munz 1974). The mainland population
are threatened by development. Catalina crabapple bush has a low potential of occurrence
due to the lack of suitable habitat.
Dudleya virens
Bright green dudleya
CNPS: 1B, 2-2-2
Bright green dudleya is a perennial herb that grows on rocky slopes and cliffs. This
species occurs on the Palos Verde Peninsula along the coastal bluffs. This species also
occurs on San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands. Bright green dudleya has a low
potential of occurrence due to the lack of suitable habitat.
Lycium brevipes var. hassei
Catalina boxthorn
CNPS: List 113, 3-3-3
Catalina boxthorn is a deciduous shrub that occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal sage
scrub. This species is known to occur on the Palos Verde Peninsula and on the Santa
Catalina and San Clemente Islands, Catalina boxthorn has a low potential of occurrence
due to the lack of suitable habitat at the project site.
Wildlife
Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis
Palos Verdes blue butterfly
USFWS: Endangered
The Palos Verde blue butterfly is endemic to the Palos Verdes Peninsula near Los Angeles,
California. It is found in coastal sage scrub habitat and its larval host plant is ocean
locoweed(Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus). There is only one known population of
this species of butterfly and it occurs at the Naval Fuel Reserve Station. This butterfly
historically occurred at the Hesse Park site but has not been observed nor has its foodplant
been observed since 1985 (Arnold 1987). The potential of occurrence for the Palos
Verdes blue butterfly is low because of the lack of the larval foodplant and the lack of
suitable habitat.
San Diego homed lizard
CDFG: Species of Special Concern
SDHS: Endangered
This subspecies is endemic to extreme southwestern California (Stebbins 1966). It occurs
from sea-level to elevations of over 8000 feet and frequents a variety of habitats from sage
scrub and chaparral to coniferous and broadleaf woodlands (Stebbins 1966). It is most
often found on sandy or friable soils with open scrub. Habitat requirements include open
areas for sunning, bushes for cover, and fine loose soil for rapid burial. Harvester ants are
the primary food item of the homed lizard and indicate potential for occurrence of the lizard
in an area. This taxon is primarily active in late spring (April-May) and early summer
(June-July) after which individuals typically estivate. Because of these activity periods,
absence of horned lizards or horned lizard sign outside of their window of activity does not
Mr. Joel Rojas
October 20, 1997
Page 5
preclude the presence of a population. It is recommended that any surveys of appropriate
habitat be conducted within the period of activity. Threats to this species include urban
development, conversion of habitat to agriculture and collecting of individuals for the pet
trade (SDHS 1980). There is a low potential of occurrence of this species onsite due to
lack of suitable habitat.
Po&optila californica cal fornica
Coastal California gnatcatcher
USFWS: Threatened
CDFG: Species of Special Concern, NCCP Focal Species
The United States California gnatcatcher population is estimated between 1800 and 2500
pairs (Atwood 1992, USFWS 1991). The primary cause of this species' decline is the
cumulative loss of coastal sage scrub vegetation to urban and agricultural development.
Little of this species' habitat is formally protected or managed. This species is probably
extirpated from Ventura and San Bernardino counties and is declining proportionately with
the continued loss of coastal sage scrub habitat in the four remaining southern California
counties located within the coastal plain. Initial studies suggest that the California
gnatcatcher may be highly sensitive to the effects of habitat fragmentation and development
activity (Atwood 1990, ERCE 1990, Ogden unpublished data). The territory size
requirements of the gnatcatcher varies with habitat quality. Documented home ranges have
varied from 6 to 45 acres on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Atwood et al. 1995). Studies of
the species' habitat preferences on Palos Verdes Peninsula indicate that California
sagebrush(Artemisia californica)and flat-topped buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculanan) are
the primary plants used by gnatcatchers when foraging for insects (Atwood et al. 1995).
The USFWS has estimated that coastal sage scrub habitat has been reduced by 70 to 90
percent of its historical extent (USFWS 1991) and little of what remains is protected in
natural open space. There is a low potential of occurrence onsite for the California
gnatcatcher due to the lack of coastal sage scrub habitat onsite.
Campylorhynchus brwmeicapillus cousi
Coastal cactus wren
CDFG: Species of Special Concern
The coastal population of cactus wren is seriously endangered throughout its range, which
is restricted, as far as is known, to coastal lowlands. This subspecies is found only in
coastal sage scrub with extensive stands of tall prickly pear or cholla cacti (Atwood et al.
1995). There is a low potential of occurrence onsite for the coastal cactus wren due to the
lack of prickly pear cactus and coastal sage scrub habitat.
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
Pacific (little)pocket mouse
USFWS: Endangered
CDFG: Species of Special Concern,first priority
Historic records of this smallest subspecies of pocket mouse extend along the immediate
coast from Marina del Rey, Los Angeles County, to the Mexican border. Only eight
definite localities have been documented, most of which were subsequently lost to
development (USFWS 1994). Few records occur since the 1930's, and the species was
Mr. Joel Rojas
October 20, 1997
Page 6
not definitely identified by trapping studies after 1971 until a small population was
discovered on Dana Point, Orange County, in 1993 (Brylski 1993, personal
communication). Habitats include coastal strand, sand dunes, ruderal vegetation on river
alluvium, and open coastal sage scrub on marine terraces. In addition to habitat loss,
predation by house cats has been identified as a potential threat to the one known extant
population (USFWS 1994). Several trapping studies that have been conducted on Palos
Verdes Peninsula have not identified any populations of this species. There is a low
potential of occurrence for the pacific pocket mouse onsite due to the disturbance by
disking and the dense vegetation that exists onsite.
REFERENCES
Arnold, R.A. 1987. Surveys for the Endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly and its
Larval Foodplant in 1986. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and
Game.
Atwood, H. L. 1992. A maximum estimate of the California gnatcatcher's population size
in the United States. Western Birds 23:1-9.
Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica).
Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. 79 pp.
Atwood, J.L., C.H. Reynolds, M.R. Fugagli, and S.H. Tsai. 1995. California
gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and conservation of coastal sage scrub on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula: progress report no. 3. Unpublished technical report, Manomet
Observatory for Conservation Sciences, Manomet,Massachusetts. 20 pp.
Beauchamp, R.M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County. Sweetwater River Press.
241 pp.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1965. California fish and wildlife plan. The
Resources Agency, Volume 3(c):908.
ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. (ERCE). 1990b. Phase I report Amber
Ridge California gnatcatcher study. Prepared for Weingarten, Siegel, Fletcher
Group, Inc. April. 30 pp.
ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. (ERCE) 1990a. Phase 2 report, Amber
Ridge California gnatcatcher study. Prepared for Weingarten, Siegel, Fletcher
Group, Inc. November. 26 pp.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
California. State of California,The Resources Agency.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A flora of southern California. University of California Press,
Berkeley. 1086 pp.
RECON. 1987. Home range, nest site, and territory parameters of the black-tailed
gnatcatcher population on the Rancho Santa Fe Highlands study area. September.
Unpublished report submitted to County of San Diego.
Mr. Joel Rojas
October 20, 1997
Page 7
Reinen, R.H. 1978. Notice of exercise of Section 404 jurisdiction over certain streams
and wetlands in California. Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, July 15.
San Diego Herpetological Society. 1980. Survey and status of endangered and threatened
species of reptiles natively occurring in San Diego County. Prepared for Fish and
Wildlife Committee, San Diego Department of Agriculture, 33 pp.
Smith, J.P. and K. Berg. 1988. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of
California. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. 1,4th edition.
Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A Field Guide to Westem Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton-
Mifflin Co. 279 pp.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 1986. Corps of Engineers wetland
delineation manual. Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MI. Technical report y-86.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Summary of the proposed rule to list the
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica) as endangered in California
and Baja, Mexico. September. 114 pp.
United States. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and threatened
wildlife and plants; emergency rule to list the Pacific pocket mouse as endangered.
Federal Register 59(23):5306-5310.
If you should have any questions, I can be reached at (619) 458-9044, ext. 224.
Sincerely,
Leslie D. Hickson
Restoraton Biologist
LDH/alo
Enclosure
cc:
Table 1
Plant Species Observed at
Hesse Park Project Site
Scientific Name Common Name Family
Acacia sp.* Saltbush Fabaceae
Artemisia califomica California Sagebrush Asteraceae
Atriplex semibaccata* Australian Saltbush Chenopodiaceae
Avena sp.* Wild Oats Poaceae
Baccharis pi4daris Coyote Brush Asteraceae
Brassica nigra* Black Mustard Brasicaceae
Bromus diandrus* Ripgut Grass Poaceae
Calystegia sp. Morning-glory Convolvulaceae
Chrysanthemum sp.* Garland Asteraeae
Cortaderia sp. * Pampas Grass Poaceae
Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda Grass Poaceae
Euphorbia maculata* Spurge Euphorbiaceae
Foeniculum vulgare* Sweet Fennel Apiaceae
Hordeum sp.* Barley Poacaeae
Isocoma menziesii Goldenbush Asteraceae
Lactuca serriola* Prickly Lettuce Asteraceae
Lupinus sp. Lupine Fabaceae
Malva sp.* Mallow Malvaceae
Melilotus albus* White Sweet-clover Fabaceae
Picris echioides* Bristly Ox-tongue Asteraceae
Raphanus sativus* Wild Radish Brassicaceae
Rhus integrifolia Lemonadeberry Anacardiaceae
Ricinus communis* Castor Bean Euphorbiaceae
Salix laevigata Red Willow Salicaceae
Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian Pepper Tree Anacardiaceae
Washingtonia robusta* Mexican fan palm Arecaceae
* Non-naitive species
Table 2
Potentially Occurring Sensitive Species
at the Hesse Park Project Site
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Potential of
Occurrence
List / R-E-D
Code •
Plants
Aphanisma blitoides Aphanisma None None 1B/2-2-2 Low -No suitable habitat
on site.
Atriplex pacifica South Coast Saltscale None None 113/3-3-3 Low-No suitable habitat
on site.
Crossosoma californicum Catalina Crabapple Bush None None 4/ 1-2-2 Low - No suitable habitat
on site.
Dudleya virens Bright Green Dudleya None None 1B/2-2-2 Low -No suitable habitat
on site.
Lycium brevipes var. hassei Catalina Boxthorn None None 1B/3-3-3 Low-No suitable habitat
on site.
Wildlife
Glaucopsyche lygdamus Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Endangered None Low-No suitable habitat
paloverdesensis and no host plants were
detected.
Phrynosoma coronatum San Diego Horned Lizard None None Low -No suitable habitat
blaivilld on site. •
Poliopitila califondca California Gnatcatcher Threatened NCCP Focal Low -No suitable habitat
californica Species on site.
Campylorhynchus Coastal Cactus Wren None NCCP Focal Low -No suitable habitat
brunneicapillus cousi Species on site.
Perognathus longimembris Pacific Pocket Mouse Endangered None Low -No suitable habitat
pacificus on site.
Table 2 (Continued)
Potentially Occurring Sensitive Species
at the Hesse Park Project Site
California Native Plant Society(CNPS) (Smith and Berg 1988)
List 1 = Plants of highest priority
IA = Plants presumed extinct in California
1 B = Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere •
List 2 = Plants rare and endangered in California,but common elsewhere
List 3 = Plants about which we need more information
List 4 = Plants of limited distribution(A watch list)
CNPS R-E-D Code
(Rarity)
1 = Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this time.
2 = Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population.
3 = Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations,or present in such numbers that it is seldom reported.
E(Endangerment)
I = Not endangered
2 = Endangered in a portion of its range
3 = Endangered throughout its range
D(Distribution) •
I = More or less widespread outside California
2 = Rare outside California
3 = Endemic to California
D
\DGE _� o
R a
6600
r )�i4 U
9
m
Q` W
-O Q
Coastal Sage Scrub(Undifferentiated) 0
Rlparlan Scrub Q
Grassland
_ Ruderal Habitat cc
Disturbed Q
Developed � ...
Disturbed Vegetation
(mapped as overlay) N
Q eaCW6 Wren :;.
�( Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly(Nstorlc slghnng) a ape ;••�.,
Jurisddonal Boundary
�. FEET... .. .
F I G U R E
O _ Biology for Lower Hesse Park 1
dinar ionun