Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit Amendment Application for Access Road and Parking Lot (17P13)April 26, 2016 Agenda Item No. 15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, dawebb@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer, atran@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3315 TITLE: Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit Amendment Application for Access Road and Parking Lot (17P13) ABSTRACT: The Newport Banning Ranch (NBR) development project that was previously approved by City Council in July 2012 is scheduled for its second public hearing in front of the Coastal Commission in May 2016 to review, and likely approve NBR's request for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). City of Newport Beach (City) staff believes that now is an appropriate time to develop and submit an amendment to our current Sunset Ridge Park CDP to construct the desired park access road and parking lot as originally approved by City Council. City staff is conceptually working with members of our former Sunset Ridge Park consultant team, and with City Council concurrence, will develop the necessary plans and prepare the necessary CDP Amendment application for submittal in possible mid to last Summer. RECOMMENDATIONS: a) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-54, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Certifying an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Ridge Park Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2009051036) and Approving the Modified Park Public Access Road and Parking Lot for Sunset Ridge Park; and b) Authorize City staff to submit a CDP Amendment application to the California Coastal Commission for the construction of a park public access road and parking lot for Sunset Ridge Park. 15-1 Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit Amendment Application for Access Road and Parking Lot (17P13) April 26, 2016 Page 2 15-2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: The current adopted budget should include sufficient funding for this CDP Amendment application effort. The CDP Amendment application will be expensed to Account No. 56101- 980000-15P18 in the Public Works Department. DISCUSSION: On March 23, 2010, City Council approved the Conceptual Site Plan for Sunset Ridge Park (located on the northwest corner of Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway), which included construction of a park access road coming off Pacific Coast Highway, crossing over a portion of the adjacent NBR property, and terminating into a parking lot at Sunset Ridge Park. The proposed parking lot included 97 parking spaces as indicated on the attached Concept Plan (Attachment B). This project was submitted to the California Coastal Commission for a CDP, and a public hearing was held before the Commission in November 2011. After much discussion during the public hearing and prior to any action by the Coastal Commission, the City withdrew the application as we reached a point where commission staff would generally support the park plan and the proposed access road. However, they would only do so provided that the use of the park road was restricted in perpetuity such that its intensity of use would never increase, and that all the immediately adjacent areas to the road be fully restored to high quality Coastal Sage Scrub and conserved in perpetuity as habitat and open space (thus probably closing the door on any future access to and across the NBR property from Pacific Coast Highway via “A” Street, also known as Bluff Road) as called for in the City’s circulation element of the General Plan . This condition was not acceptable to either the City or NBR. Upon withdrawal of our first application, the City resubmitted a CDP application for Sunset Ridge Park without the access road, and a temporary grass lawn as a holding place where the proposed parking lot would be located. This park CDP application was approved by the Coastal Commission on August 9, 2012; however the absence of the on-site lot requires park patrons presently to park across Superior Avenue at another City-owned parking lot and walk across Superior Avenue, up the hill and across a portion of the park to access the playing fields, playground, and restroom facility. During a sporting event, this existing parking lot does not provide enough parking nor is it user friendly or convenient. As part of the City review and approval of the development plans for the adjacent NBR property, construction of the park access road was included as a condition of the development plan as shown on Sheet 7 of the NBR project’s Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 (Attachment C). The City Council approved the NBR Master Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map and Final EIR on July 23, 2012. The NBR project was then submitted to the California Coastal Commission for a CDP. During the Coastal Commission review and approval process, NBR (at the request of the commission staff) agreed to make several Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit Amendment Application for Access Road and Parking Lot (17P13) April 26, 2016 Page 3 15-3 modifications to its proposed development plan that appears to have reduced the width of ”A” Street, as well as removed the park access road from the current plan. However, the ability to construct a parking lot and connect it to the proposed ”A” Street is still very viable and a project development requirement. NBR supports inclusion of the access road to the park and has requested that construction of the planned park access road be maintained in its application for consideration at the May 2016 Coastal Commission Hearing. With the NBR Development Project CDP scheduled to be reviewed again and likely acted upon in May 2016, and in an effort to expeditiously permit this desired park access road and parking lot (as the CDP permit and approval process is generally a very long process), we believe that now would be the appropriate time to prepare and submit an amendment to the Sunset Ridge Park CDP. To that end, staff is conceptually working with members of our former Sunset Ridge Park consultant team currently, and with City Council consent, should have the CDP application prepared and ready to submit in mid to late summer. Staff believes the park access road and modified parking lot as shown on Attachment D are in substantial conformance with Council’s original approved Concept Plan (Attachment B) as it is in approximately the same location and shape as the original concept, and contains 92 parking spaces rather than 97 spaces as called for in the original plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Environmental review of the proposed Sunset Ridge Park access road and parking lot was included as part of the Final EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2009051036) prepared for the Sunset Ridge Park Project which was certified by City Council on March 23, 2010. Additionally, the Final EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 200931061) and Tentative Tract Map prepared for the NBR project that was approved by City Council on July 23, 2012 included the proposed ”A” Street (also known as Bluff Road) between Pacific Coast Highway and 16th Street as well as that portion of the proposed park access road which crossed the NBR property to provide a connection to the proposed ”A” Street (Attachment C). The proposed access road and parking lot are in substantial conformance with the development envelope considered in the Sunset Ridge Park Final EIR, resulting in no changed circumstances. Staff has prepared for City Council approval an addendum to the Final EIR that addresses the revised parking lot configuration and road alignment on the City’s property and concludes that no subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR is required or appropriate pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162; 15163, and 15164. A copy of this addendum is included with this report as Attachment E. The Final EIR may be accessed on the City’s website at the following weblink: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/sunsetridgepark. Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit Amendment Application for Access Road and Parking Lot (17P13) April 26, 2016 Page 4 15-4 NOTICING: Notice of this meeting and pending action was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the City’s Sunset Ridge Park property, as well as to the Newport Crest Home owners Association, Lido Sands Community Association, Villa Balboa Community Association, and West Newport Beach Association. Staff has also had multiple meetings with several residents, home owners and board members of Newport Crest, as well as attended and presented this proposed parking lot project at the Newport Crest Homeowners Association general monthly meetings in February 2016 and April 2016 to discuss and answer questions about the project. The agenda item has also been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Resolution No. 2016-54 Attachment B - City Council Approved (3-23-10) Sunset Ridge Park EIR Concept Plan Attachment C - Sheet 7 of the Approved NBR Tentative Tract Map No. 17308 Attachment D - Revised Sunset Ridge Park Access Road and Parking Lot Plan Attachment E - Addendum to Sunset Ridge Park Final Environmental Impact Report 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SUNSET RIDGE PARK PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009051036) AND APPROVING THE MODIFIED PARK PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD AND PARKING LOT FOR SUNSET RIDGE PARK WHEREAS, On March 23, 2010, the City Council certified the adequacy and completeness of the Sunset Ridge Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009051036) (Sunset Ridge Park EIR) by adopting Resolution No. 2010-29 and approved the conceptual site plan for the Sunset Ridge Park Project that included a public access road and parking lot (Project); WHEREAS, on August 9, 2012, the California Coastal Commission approved the coastal development permit for Sunset Ridge Park, but without a public access road or parking lot; WHEREAS, on December 2014, the Sunset Ridge Park was completed and open to the public pursuant to the approved coastal development permit; WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach now intends to amend to the Sunset Ridge Park coastal development permit to construct the park access road and parking lot as envisioned by the City Council; WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Addendum to the Sunset Ridge Park EIR (Addendum); WHEREAS, the Sunset Ridge Park EIR and Addendum are on file at the City of Newport Beach’s Community Development Department located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California; WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommends the City Council finds the attached Addendum in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); WHEREAS, a public meeting was held on April 26, 2016, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Ralph M. Brown Act. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting; WHEREAS, after thoroughly considering the Sunset Ridge Park EIR, Addendum, and the public testimony and written submissions, if any, of all interested persons 15-5 2 desiring to be heard, the City Council finds the following facts, findings, and reasons to support adopting the Addendum: 1.No substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the Sunset Ridge Park EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2.No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the Sunset Ridge Park EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3.No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Sunset Ridge Park EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: a.The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Sunset Ridge Park EIR; b.Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Sunset Ridge Park EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d.Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Sunset Ridge Park EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 4.Since no substantial changes to the circumstances or environmental setting have occurred, and since no new information relating to significant effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives has become available, the Project does not require additional environmental review, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. 5.Based on these findings, the Sunset Ridge Park EIR and Addendum, the City Council determines the Project falls within the scope of the Sunset Ridge Park EIR, and the Sunset Ridge Park EIR therefore applies to the Project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. 15-6 3 6.Based on these findings, the Sunset Ridge Park EIR and the Addendum, the City Council determines that no subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR is required or appropriate under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162; 15163, and 15164. The Addendum therefore satisfies CEQA’s environm ental review requirements for the Project. 7.Based on the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum, the City Counc il finds that the Project will not have, when compared to the Sunset Ridge Park EIR, any new or more severe adverse environmental impacts. 8.The City Council has considered the Sunset Ridge Park EIR and the Addendum, and concludes the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9.The City Council, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutts the presumption of adverse effect set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5(d). WHEREAS, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), the Community Development Director may choose to refer any requested change to a project to the original review authority for review and action; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the modified park access road and parking lot and compared it to the originally approved conceptual site plan. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: The Recitals provided above are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council for the Addendum to the Sunset Ridge Park EIR. Section 2: The City Council certifies the Addendum to the Sunset Ridge Park EIR for the reasons set forth in this resolution and as stated in the Addendum to the Sunset Ridge Park EIR on file in the Community Development Department. Section 3: The City Council approves the modified park access road and parking lot for Sunset Ridge Park as depicted in the Addendum. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid 15-7 4 or unconstitutional. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2016. ________________________________ Diane B. Dixon, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk 15-8 15-9 Co n c e p t u a l Si t e Pl a n Su n s e t Ri d g e Pa r k EI R • ' .. , Pe d e s t r i a n Ac c ~ s s Re t a i n i n g Wa l l ' Pa r k Si g n ). _ ; - - tr: Jo I ' /pedestrian _ O f~ ~ 5 ; ~ r,:;$ ~~~;--"-.Acc ~ss J{ T Source : EP T Design Exhibit 3-9 C O NS UlTING 15-10 \ ft e t D t . , . ... u. I <. >, ,. ., ( ' . """ ·"· . · ' / ., .. \ ·, : ' • : / I -:. . . . '· : · . ' ' : .. . " · .( 0£ T A i l 'B ' I 7 7 15-11 ~ SCALE: 1" = 40' ~ I ,. "' \ ATTACHMENT D ;:; -,-, _· __ --= == = -56----- • ---9----~ ~ -57---/ / ----51-.S~ -~ ---____ -5&----k----~7.5-~ --// "-------,_ -/ ---------~~ ------56--~ -<'-"" '"'\/1~~ ~-------=------------/ ---------. ~ ., ... _ -.;..> ~ ...,..;; ~ --------55--------.-<V / ----- ----~----...____ ~:1 - lJ"T'V\..'Il I -==Z--=c~ -:::::::::::::~ -=-""-.;:_'+ --1 --=------~-~ -~ _--_---=-=-~ =---- 23 MAUCHLY, SUITE 110 I RVINE, CA 92618 PHONE: 949-727-9095 U R.BAN RESOURCE FAX : 949 -727-9098 CO N SULTI NG C IV IL EN G IN EERS ---- ---- SUNSET RIDGE PARK NEWPORT BEACH ON-SITE PARKING LOT FEBRUARY 1, 2016 Sunset Ridge Park Dedication- December 2014 ADDENDUM TO THE SUNSET RIDGE PARK PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse No. 2009051036 Prepared by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department January 2016 Attachment E 15-12 Addendum to Sunset Ridge Park Final EIR 1 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM This document, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), constitutes an Addendum to the Sunset Ridge Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SRP Final EIR) State Clearinghouse No. 2009051036 certified on March 23, 2010. This Addendum was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq. CEQA Guidelines §15164(a) states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(a), a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is only required when: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the potential differences between the impacts evaluated in the SRP Final EIR, and those that would be associated with the minor alternations to the parking lot and access road proposed today. (These minor alterations are referred to herein as the Sunset Ridge Park Access Road and Parking Lot Project (Project), but to be clear 15-13 Addendum to Sunset Ridge Park Final EIR 2 these proposals do not constitute a separate project and are minor alterations to a project that was reviewed and approved by the City in 2010.) As described in detail herein, there are no new significant impacts resulting from these changes nor is there any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts. The potential impacts associated with these proposed changes would either be the same or less than the anticipated levels ascribed in the SRP Final EIR. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15164, this Addendum to the SRP Final EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. Pursuant to §15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) is the lead agency for the project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City has the authority for project approval and certification of the accompanying environmental documentation. In taking action on any of the approvals outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, the City, as the lead agency and decision making body, must consider the whole of the data presented in the SRP Final EIR and this Addendum. 1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The SRP Final EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council on March 23, 2010, as adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Sunset Ridge Park Project, an active and passive public park. The proposed park approved by the City includes one baseball field and two soccer fields, a playground and picnic area, a memorial garden and an overlook with seating and shade structure, pedestrian paths, restroom facilities, an access road, and a parking lot. As approved, the parking lot provides 75 parking spaces and includes a designated drop-off area. In addition, to the approved project contemplated that 22 parallel parking spaces may be provided along the park access road near the parking lot. The proposed park includes pedestrian access via two entries from the sidewalk along Superior Boulevard and one entry from the sidewalk along West Coast Highway. As approved, vehicle ingress and egress would be provided via an access road to the park extending from West Coast Highway through the adjacent Newport Banning Ranch property. Use of this adjacent property for the park access road would require an access easement from the Newport Banning Ranch property owner. No nighttime lighting other than for public safety would be provided. The EIR proposed, and the City adopted, an extensive Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City subsequently applied for a coastal development permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission. The City’s final application did not, at that time, propose that the access road and parking lot elements of the project be included in the CDP. The Coastal Commission undertook additional environmental review under its certified regulatory program (see Staff Report: Revised Findings, dated May 31, 2013, #5-11-302). On August 9, 2012, the California Coastal Commission approved the coastal development permit for Sunset Ridge Park, but without a public access road or parking lot. In December 2014, the Sunset Ridge Park was completed and open to the public pursuant to the approved CDP. As noted above, it did not include the approved parking lot and park access road through the adjacent Newport Banning Ranch property. The adjacent Newport Banning Ranch (NBR) Development Project also proposes a road from West Coast Highway. An EIR was prepared for the project, and an extensive, updated analysis of the environmental impacts of the road was also included in that EIR. The City certified a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) for the Newport Banning Ranch project on July 23, 15-14 Addendum to Sunset Ridge Park Final EIR 3 2012. The EIR proposed, and the City adopted, an extensive Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for that project as well. The NBR Development project is scheduled for another public hearing in front of the Coastal Commission in May 2016 to review, and possibly approve, a request for a CDP for that project. The City of Newport Beach believes that now is an appropriate time to submit an amendment to its current Sunset Ridge Park CDP to construct the approved aspects of the park project that have yet to be constructed—including the park access road and parking lot. As currently in operation, the Sunset Ridge Park relies on park patrons to park across Superior Avenue at another City-owned parking lot and walk across Superior Avenue, up the hill and across a portion of the park to access the playing fields, playground, and restroom facility, which is not very user friendly or convenient. The community has also expressed concern that the park would be safer for children if an access road were constructed and a parking lot provided as was originally planned and approved by the City. This addendum relies on and incorporates by reference the analysis in the SRP Final EIR, the NBR Final EIR, and the environmental documentation prepared by the California Coastal Commission. These documents are available for review at the City’s offices, located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660. SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION As described in the SRP Final EIR, the Sunset Ridge Park Project site (Project site) encompasses approximately 18.9 acres. Approximately 13.7 acres of the Project site are located within the incorporated boundary of the City of Newport Beach, and approximately 5.2 acres are in unincorporated Orange County within the City’s Sphere of Influence. The entire site is within the coastal zone, as established by the California Coastal Act. The Project site is generally bound on the north by residential development; to the east by Superior Avenue with residential development and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag Hospital) east of the road; to the south by West Coast Highway with residential development south of the highway; and to the west by existing oil field operations and undeveloped open space (Newport Banning Ranch). The Newport Banning Ranch property has a City General Plan land use designation that would allow for either open space uses or mixed-use development; the proposed access road for Sunset Ridge Park would traverse this property. There is no direct vehicular access to the Project site from West Coast Highway. Exhibit 2-1, Regional Location, and Exhibit 2-2, Local Vicinity, depict the Project site in a regional and local context, respectively. 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Project is limited to modest modifications in the design of the Sunset Ridge parking lot and access road from that originally analyzed in the SRP Final EIR and approved by the City in 2010. All changes are restricted to areas within the 13.7 acres owned by the City. When compared to the original plan, the parking area has been relocated approximately 50 feet to the north to the base of the slope of the landscaped buffer with the Newport Crest Condominium development. The parking lot would be reconfigured to provide 78 parking spaces, 3 more than originally approved. The access road would generally follow the original alignment from the parking lot north-northwestward until it connects with the planned alignment 15-15 Addendum to Sunset Ridge Park Final EIR 4 of “A” Street of the Newport Banning Ranch project. Access to West Coast Highway would be within the planned right-of-way of “A” Street of the Newport Banning Ranch project. The number of parallel parking spaces along the access road would be reduced to 14. While minor changes have been proposed to the access road itself—within footprint of the City-owned park area—no changes are proposed to the access road beyond the city’s property and no changes are proposed to the approved alignment of “A” Street of the Newport Banning Ranch project. While the approved project contemplates up to 22 spaces could be provided on the access road, under the modified proposal, the number of parallel parking spaces along the access road would be reduced to 14. The total number of parking spaces is 92. The Sunset Ridge Park Road and Parking Lot Plan is depicted in Exhibit 2-3. The proposed modifications to the access road and parking lot are substantially similar in design and location to that originally approved. The proposed change is primarily recommended to further improve the project’s environmental design. The minor changes in the location and design of the lot mean that the buffer between the developed areas of the project and the protected habitat on site can be expanded. Thus, the changes in the project are expected to further reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed actions. Moreover, it is anticipated that once the new road is approved by the City, and the Coastal Commission, the existing gravel maintenance road can be removed and revegetated. All other existing components of the Sunset Ridge Park, including the number and configuration sport fields, playground and picnic areas, pedestrian paths and restroom facilities and other minor structures will remain per the Conceptual Site Plan and as developed. No changes are proposed to any facilities located on non-City property as well. SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The analysis in this document will evaluate if the potential impacts of the Project outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, are substantially the same as those addressed in SRP Final EIR. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether Project implementation would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact. If the comparative analysis identifies that there would be no change in impact from that identified in the SRP Final EIR, a determination of “No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis” has been made. This analysis provides the City of Newport Beach with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the SRP Final EIR was certified require additional environmental review or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. As explained below, there is no substantial evidence indicating that the minor changes in the project will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Moreover, there is no substantial evidence revealing that there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects as a result of the minor alternations in the project. 15-16 Addendum to Sunset Ridge Park Final EIR 5 REGIONAL LOCATION EXHIBIT 2-1 Addendum to the Sunset Ridge Park Project EIR 15-17 PAC/fJC OCEAN s 2.5 0 Addendum to Sunset Ridge Park Final EIR 1 LOCAL VICINITY Addendum to the Sunset Ridge Park Project EIR EXHIBIT 2-1 15-18 Revised Sunset Ridge Park Road and Parking Lot Plan EXHIBIT 2-3 Addendum to the Sunset Ridge Park Project EIR 15-19 iiiilli.J URI'o.<\N L'Ot.ll'!!l ... t.>l:l\1llNul/.l[fiL\ U:.VlNI C/1.92618 f'IIONI.: 94~727·<JO'lS FM'I.ol'I-727·'\)';IS SUNSET RIDGE PARK NEWPORT BEACH ON-SITE PARKING LOT JANUARY 25, 2016 3.1 LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING PROGRAMS The following threshold of significance is as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would result in a significant impact related to land use and planning programs if it would: • 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 Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Land use and related planning program impacts have been previously analyzed in detail as part of the SRP Final EIR, wh ich was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Since the SRP Final EIR was certified, the Newport Banning Ranch project has been approved. That project, however, was proposed at the time the Sunset Ridge Project was approved, and accordingly was contemplated and analyzed in the SRP Final EIR. The Project impacts remain less than significant. The Project remains consistent with applicable plans and policies. No significant impacts related to land use and planning would occur. However, mitigation is provided that addresses all potential impacts associated with the Project. (Less than significant with mitigation) The Project remains a compatible land use with existing and proposed land uses bordering the site. Mitigation Program No new significant impacts would occur with implementation of the Project. No mitigation is required beyond that adopted by the City in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.2 AESTHETICS The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would result in a significant impact related to aesthetics if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect a scenic vista • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings • Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area” No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Aesthetic and visual impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. The Project impacts remain less than significant. The Project would not place permanent structures or paving in the Caltrans scenic easement; the Project would not adversely alter existing views of site or surrounding area, nor degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding areas, nor would it impede views of or from the Project site; and the Project would continue to include low-profile security nighttime lighting that would not 15-20 affect nighttime views as the Project sites, direct light sources downward so as not to spill over to adjacent land uses, and not involve use of building material that could cause a glare. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following project design features and standard conditions: PDF 4.2-1: All outdoor lighting would be appropriately shielded and oriented in order to prevent light spillage on adjacent, off-site land uses. Outdoor lighting associated with the restroom facilities and parking lot shall not adversely impact residential land uses to the north, but shall provide sufficient illumination for access and security purposes. SC 4.2-1: The site shall not be excessively illuminated. The Public Works Director and/or Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. SC 4.2-2: Prior to the opening of the Project to the public, the City shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Public Works Director and/or Planning Director. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. It should be noted that the Coastal Commission, in granting a CDP, imposed further measures to assure that impacts are even further reduced, including detailed requirements for a lighting plan. This special condition further reduces impacts and further assure that there will be no significant impacts to aesthetic resources. (See Staff Report: Revised Findings, dated May 31, 2013, #5-11-302.) Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would result in a significant traffic impact if it would: • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment), or result in inadequate emergency access. • Result in inadequate parking capacity. 15-21 • Conflict with any applicable 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. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).” No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Transportation and circulation impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. The Project impacts remain less than significant with project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures. The Project would not result in a 0.01 or greater increase in intersection capacity utilization (ICU) at the intersection of West Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard, which is projected to exceed the City’ level of service (LOS) standards. All other traffic study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Based on the significance criteria for Congestion Management Plan (CMP) intersections, the Project would not significantly impact the one CMP intersection within the traffic study area. Implementation of the Project would not result in any significant impacts related to circulation or access, and therefore would not significantly impact any emergency response evacuation plans. The Project will provide 78 to 92 parking spaces, which is adequate to serve the park. The Project would not conflict with any goals or policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan or Local Coastal Plan. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures: SC 4.3-1: Sight distance at the Project’s access point shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards. SC 4.3-2: Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before their implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flag persons. Construction workers shall be required to park on the Project site. MM 4.3-1: The Project Manager shall provide advanced written notice of temporary traffic disruptions to the affected area’s businesses and the general public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. MM 4.3-2: The Project Manager shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer. Haul operations shall be monitored by the Public Works Department, and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. MM 4.3-3: Prior to the start of grading, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 15-22 MM 4.3-4: Prior to the start of grading, the Project Manager shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the Project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the Project would have no new impacts with respect to transportation and circulation. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.4 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would have a significant adverse impact related to air quality if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people” No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Air quality impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. The Sunset Ridge Park Project has been developed, with the exception of the parking lot and access road. The Sunset Ridge Park Project involved mass grading of the park site and haul road that included approximately 130,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 96,000 cy of fill, with a net export of approximately 34,000 cy. Most of that work was completed during the first phase of park construction. The remaining grading associated with the Project would involve only approximately 8,474 cy cut and 607 cy fill with a net export of 7,867 cy. The minor modifications proposed to the project are not expected to change those numbers in any meaningful way, and indeed are expected to slightly reduce the amount of remaining, cut, fill, and grading as compared the amounts analyzed in the SRP Final EIR. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation: 15-23 MM 4.4-1: The Contractor shall develop a grading plan that assures that on-site emissions of PM10 will not exceed 40 pounds per day and on-site emissions of PM2.5 will not exceed 11 pounds per day. MM 4.4-2: For all Project construction: a. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators; b. Ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications; c. Prohibit all diesel trucks from idling in excess of five minutes, both on- and off-site. If it is determined that soil export hauling will result in more than 540 off -site VMT per day, the following shall be required. (Note: VMT per day is determined by multiplying the round trip distance from the park site to the spoils site by the number of truck trips per day.) d. The construction contractors shall assure that at least 50 percent of the off-site haul trips are made with trucks with engines that meet or exceed Tier 3 standards. The construction contractor shall schedule off-site haul activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the extent practicable, that is, peak hour hauls on the off-site arterial system shall occur only if necessary to avoid extending the length of the mass grading phase of construction. MM 4.4-3: The following actions shall be implemented as a part of and the construction of the Sunset Ridge Park Project: a. Watering and visible dust control shall exceed the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403 as follows: The Contractor shall suspend grading operations when wind gusts exceed 15 miles per hours. b. In windy conditions, the dust control measures of SCAQMD Rule 403, Table 2 (Large Operations) shall be applied. c. If windy conditions are forecast for a weekend, holiday, or other day when site work is not planned, the Contractor shall take measures, such as additional watering or the application of chemical suppressants, to stabilize disturbed areas and stockpiles prior to the non-work days. d. During grading and earthmoving, the Contractor shall re-apply water as necessary to assure that visible emissions do not extend to the Newport Crest residences. e. The Contractor shall develop a grading plan that assures that on-site emissions of PM10 will not exceed 40 pounds per day and on-site emissions of PM2.5 will not exceed 11 pounds per day. f. The Contractor shall develop a grading plan that limits the grading within 200 feet of the Newport Crest residences to four hours per day. MM 4.4-4: The City shall appoint a person as a contact for complaints relative to construction impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods. A contact telephone number and email address shall be posted on signage at the construction site and shall be provided by mail to all residents within 500 feet of the Project site. Upon receipt of a complaint, 15-24 the City contact person shall investigate the complaint and shall develop corrective action, if needed, with the Contractor. The City contact person shall respond to the complainant within two working days to describe the results of the investigation. The City contact person shall maintain a log of all complaints and resolutions. SC 4.4-1: During construction of the Project, the Project Manager shall be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which shall assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the Project Managers’ specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 prescribes the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to the following: • Clearing and grubbing - Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. • Cut and fill - Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities and stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. • Earth-moving activities - Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; re-apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once earth- moving activities are complete. • Importing/exporting of bulk materials – Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions. • Stockpiles/bulk material handling – Stabilize stockpiled materials; stockpiles within 100 yards of off-site occupied buildings must not be greater than eight feet in height; or must have a road bladed to the top to allow water truck access or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. • Traffic areas for construction activities – Stabilize all off -road traffic and parking areas; stabilize all haul routes; and direct construction traffic over established haul routes. PDF 4.4-1: Water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls, shall be installed throughout the Project site. PDF 4.4-2: The Project shall be designed to be water-efficient. Water-efficient fixtures and appliances shall be installed in the restrooms. PDF 4.4-3: Watering methods shall be restricted (e.g., systems that apply water to non- vegetated surfaces shall be prohibited) and runoff shall be controlled in accordance with City of Newport Beach Best Management Practices. PDF 4.4-4: Low-impact development (LID) practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site shall be implemented to manage storm water and to protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.) 15-25 PDF 4.4-5: The City of Newport Beach Water Conservation Ordinance, Section 14.16 of the Municipal Code shall be applicable to the Park. The ordinance includes but is not limited to the LID practices of PDF 4.4-5 and a requirement for an approved water use plan to be prepared and implemented. PDF 4.4-6: Approximately 130 to 140 trees shall be planted where there are now no existing trees, thus increasing GHG sequestration. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the proposed project would have no new impacts with respect to air quality. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.5 NOISE The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would have a significant adverse impact related to noise if it would: • 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 • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project • For a project 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, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels” No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Noise impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Due to the low existing noise levels and the proximity of the noise- sensitive receivers construction of the parking lot and access road result in a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise to the residences adjacent to the site from the use of mobile grading equipment. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following project design features, standard conditions and mitigation measures: 15-26 PDF 4.5-1: The Project includes landscaped berms between active park uses and the Newport Crest Condominium development to provide for noise attenuation. SC 4.5-1: Grading and construction plans shall include a note indicating that loud noise- generating project construction activities (as defined in Section 10.28.040 of the noise ordinance) shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays, and from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. Loud noise generating construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. MM 4.5-1: Prior to the start of grading, the Project Manager shall produce evidence acceptable to the Public Works Director and/or Planning Director, that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b. Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors, would be located as far from local residences as feasible. c. Equipment maintenance and staging areas would be located as far away from local residences, as feasible. d. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwellings. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the proposed project would have no new impacts with respect to noise. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would have a significant adverse impact to biological resources if it would result in any of the following: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or the CDFG or USFWS • 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 CDFG or USFWS • 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 15-27 pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means • 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 • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance • 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 Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Biological resources impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. The area where the parking lot is proposed was dominated by ornamental species prior to park construction. It is now graded and landscaped and does not contain any natural habitat. The access road would impact biological resources on the site; however, as demonstrated in the EIR, these impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant with the mitigation program. As noted below, the changes in the project are designed to further reduce environmental impacts as compared to the approved project by increasing the buffer between sensitive habitat and developed features of the project. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following mitigation measures: MM 4.6-1: Project-related activities likely to have the potential to disturb suitable bird nesting habitat shall be prohibited from February 15 through August 31, unless a Project Biologist acceptable to the City of Newport Beach surveys the Project area prior to disturbance to confirm the absence of active nests. Disturbance shall be defined as any activity that physically removes and/or damages vegetation or habitat or any action that may cause disruption of nesting behavior such as loud noise from equipment and/or artificial night lighting. Surveys shall be conducted weekly, beginning no earlier than 30 days and ending no later than 3 days prior to the commencement of disturbance. If an active nest is discovered, disturbance within a particular buffer shall be prohibited until nesting is complete; the buffer distance shall be determined by the Biologist in consideration of species sensitivity and existing nest site conditions. Limits of avoidance shall be demarcated with flagging or fencing. The Biologist shall record the results of the recommended protective measures described above and shall submit a memo summarizing any nest avoidance measures to the City of Newport Beach to document compliance with applicable State and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. Similarly, for preserved vegetation that occurs within 50 to 100 feet of construction activities, if construction is occurring during the nesting season, preserved vegetation shall be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds. MM 4.6-2: To the maximum extent practicable, habitats that provide potential nest sites for raptors/burrowing owls shall be removed from September 1 through January 31. If Project construction activities are initiated during the raptor/burrowing owl nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a nesting raptor/burrow survey shall be conducted. 15-28 Seven days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified Biologist shall survey within the limits of the proposed Project disturbance area for the presence of any active raptor nests/burrows (common or special status). Any nest/burrow found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests/burrows are found, no further mitigation would be required, and survey results shall be provided to the CDFG. If nesting activity is present, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest/burrow site, the following restrictions on construction are required between February 1 and August 31 (or until nests/burrows are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist): (1) Clearing limits shall be established a minimum of 300 feet in any direction from any occupied nest/burrow and (2) access and surveying shall be restricted within 200 feet of any occupied nest/burrow. Any encroachment into the 300- and/or 200-foot buffer area(s) around the known nest/burrow shall only be allowed if a qualified Biologist determines that the proposed activity shall not disturb the nest occupants. During the non-nesting season, proposed work activities can occur only if a qualified Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest/burrow. If an active nest/burrow is observed during the non-nesting season, a qualified Biologist shall monitor the nest site; when the raptor/owl is away from the nest, the Biologist shall flush any raptors to open space areas or exclude the owl from the burrow and then remove the burrow so the owl cannot return. MM 4.6-3: The NCCP/HCP does not authorize Incidental Take resulting from the conversion of habitat occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers in Existing Use Areas. Consistent with FESA processes, the City has two options to mitigate for the impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher: a. On-site avoidance of habitat that would constitute Incidental Take of gnatcatcher habitat or b. b. Mitigation of Incidental Take through a Section 7 or Section 10 process. In addition, the following construction-related minimization measures shall be required: 1. All activities involving the removal of gnatcatcher/coastal sage scrub habitat shall be prohibited during the breeding and nesting season (February 15 to July 15) unless otherwise directed by the USFWS. 2. The use of any large construction equipment during site grading shall be prohibited within 200 feet of an active gnatcatcher nest during the breeding and nesting season of these species (February 15 to July 15) unless otherwise directed by the USFWS. 3. All areas containing habitat suitable for occupation by the gnatcatcher adjacent to the impact area shall be delineated by the use of orange snow fencing or the use of lath and ropes/flagging. 4. All grubbing operations shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist. The monitoring Biologist shall ensure that only the amount of coastal sage scrub habitat approved for removal by the USFWS will be removed. 5. The monitoring Biologist shall flush gnatcatchers from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush-clearing and earth-moving activities. It shall be the responsibility of the monitoring Biologist to assure that gnatcatchers shall not be 15-29 directly impacted by brush-clearing and earth-moving equipment in a manner that also allows for construction activities on a timely basis. 6. If construction occurs during the nesting season, a summary of construction monitoring activities shall be provided to the USFWS and the CDFG following completion of construction. 7. Following the completion of initial clearing activities, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment shall be permitted within such marked areas. MM 4.6-4: Implementation of the Project would result in the loss of 0.41 acre of coastal sage scrub habitat. Permanent impacts on coastal sage scrub vegetation shall be mitigated at a two to one (2:1) ratio on the Project site or in suitable off-site locations in the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa area. A 2:1 ratio for mitigation is appropriate for the habitat impacted which is non-typical for gnatcatchers and subject to degradation by invasive, non-native species. A coastal sage scrub restoration plan shall be prepared by the City prior grading activities. The City shall be responsible for implementing the restoration plan. Restoration shall consist of seeding and planting of containers of appropriate coastal sage scrub species and cactus cuttings. The restoration areas shall be maintained and monitored by the City until the success criteria documented in the restoration plan have been met. The restoration plan shall contain the following items. 1. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of the landowner, specialists, and maintenance personnel that shall supervise and implement the plan shall be specified. 2. Site selection. The site shall be located in a dedicated open space area and shall be contiguous with other natural open space areas. 3. Site preparation and planting implementation, including protection of existing native species; trash and weed removal; native species salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); soil treatments (i.e., imprinting, decompacting); erosion control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); and seed mix application. 4. Schedule. Establishment of restoration/revegetation sites shall be conducted between October and January 30. Seeding and planting of container plants shall take place immediately after preparation of the restoration sites. 5. Maintenance plan/guidelines. The maintenance plan shall include weed control; herbivory control; trash removal; irrigation system maintenance; maintenance training; and replacement planting. 6. Monitoring Plan. The monitoring plan shall be conducted for three years, depending upon the performance of the mitigation site, and shall include qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations); quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed transects); performance criteria; and monthly reports for the first year, bimonthly reports thereafter, and annual reports for all three years. 7. Long-term preservation. Long-term preservation of the site shall be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future 15-30 development. A conservation easement and a performance bond shall be secured prior to implementation of the site. 8. Identification of performance standards for the revegetation of coastal sage scrub. Restoration shall be considered successful at three years if the percent cover and species diversity of the restored and/or created habitat areas are similar to percent cover and species diversity of adjacent existing habitats, as determined by quantitative testing of existing, restored, and created habitat areas. In addition, earth- moving equipment shall avoid maneuvering in areas outside the identified limits of grading in order to avoid disturbing open space areas that would remain undeveloped. Prior to grading, the natural open space limits shall be marked by the Construction Supervisor and the Project Biologist. These limits shall be identified on the grading plan. No earth-moving equipment shall be allowed within the open space areas. MM 4.6-5: Implementation of the Project would result in the loss of 0.06 acre of riparian habitat. Prior to the final submittal of a permit application for a CDFG permit agreement, the City shall develop a riparian restoration and enhancement plan for the CDFG. The objective of the plan shall be to ensure no net loss of habitat values as a result of Project activities. This may include preservation, restoration, and enhancement within and off the Project site. The mitigation ratio shall be negotiated with the resource agencies, but shall be no less than 1:1 to ensure no net loss of habitat. The City shall implement the mitigation plan as approved by the resource agencies and according to guidelines and performance standards. Prior to implementation, a detailed riparian restoration and enhancement plan shall be developed and shall contain the following items: 1. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of the City, specialists, and maintenance personnel that will supervise and implement the plan shall be specified. 2. Site selection. Site selection for restoration and enhancement mitigation shall be determined in coordination with the City and resource agencies. The mitigation site(s) shall be located within the Project site in a dedicated open space area or on land that shall be dedicated and/or purchased off site. 3. Site preparation and planting implementation. The site preparation shall include protection of existing native species; trash and weed removal; native species salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); soil treatments (i.e., imprinting, decompacting); temporary irrigation installation; erosion control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); seed mix application; and container species. 4. Schedule. A schedule, which includes planting to occur in late fall and early winter (between October and January 30) shall be developed. 5. Maintenance plan/guidelines. The maintenance plan shall include weed control; herbivory control; trash removal; irrigation system maintenance; maintenance training; and replacement planting. 6. Monitoring Plan. The site shall be monitored and maintained for three years to ensure successful establishment of riparian habitat within the restored and created areas. The monitoring plan shall include qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations); quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed transects); performance criteria as approved by the resource agencies; and monthly reports for the first year, bimonthly reports thereafter, and annual reports for all three years. 15-31 7. Long-Term Preservation. Long-term preservation of the site shall also be outlined in the restoration and enhancement plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future development. MM 4.6-6: A Jurisdictional Delineation Report shall be submitted to each regulatory agency (i.e., the USACE, the CDFG, and the RWQCB) with a request for their concurrence. To facilitate this concurrence, the City shall coordinate and participate in a “Pre-Application Field Meeting” with the USACE, the CDFG, and the RWQCB. The meeting shall be scheduled prior to the submittal of permit applications. The meeting shall review (1) the Project; (2) the impacts that would result from Project implementation; and (3) the proposed mitigation. The intent of this meeting is to obtain a formal Jurisdictional Determination by the USACE and the CDFG. Upon receipt of the Jurisdictional Determination, the City shall submit to the CDFG the required permit applications required for direct or indirect impacts on areas within this agency’s jurisdiction. The City shall be obligated to those mitigation measures required by the resource agency relative to impacts on CDFG jurisdiction. Mitigation shall include, but is not limited to, an in-lieu fee and/or avoidance, enhancement, or replacement of in- kind biological value. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the proposed project would have no new impacts with respect to biological resources. It should be noted that the Coastal Commission imposed further measures to assure that impacts to biological resources are even further reduced, including (1) an open space restriction, (2) detailed requirements for the landscaping plan, (3) detailed requirements for a lighting plan to avoid impacts to species, (4) detailed requirements for a habitat management plan, (5) detailed requirements for a monitoring plan, (6) detailed requirements for a nest predator exclusion program, (6) detailed requirements f or construction staging and fencing, and (7) requirements for off-site habitat enhancement, among other things. These special conditions further reduce impacts and further assure that there will be no significant impacts to biological resources. (See Staff Report: Revised Findings, dated May 31, 2013, #5-11-302.) Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. As noted elsewhere, the primary purpose and effect of the proposed changes is to increase the setbacks between environmentally sensitive areas and development features associated with the access road and the parking lot. These changes will result in beneficial environmental impacts rather than potentially significant adverse impacts. 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would have a significant adverse impact to cultural resources if it would result in any of the following: 15-32 • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries” No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Cultural resources impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. The access road could impact cultural resources on the site; however, these impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant with the mitigation program. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following standard conditions and mitigation measures: MM 4.7-1: The Project Manager shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach Public Works and/or Planning Department that a qualified Archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and to salvage and catalogue archaeological resources, as necessary. The Archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference; shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish, in cooperation with the Project Manager, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as appropriate. If archaeological resources are found to be significant, the Archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City and Project Manager, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director and/or Planning Director. Based on their interest and concern about the discovery of cultural resources and human remains during Project grading, consideration should also be given to retaining a Native American Monitor to observe some or all grading activities. Nothing in this mitigation measure precludes the retention of a single cross-trained observer who is qualified to monitor for both archaeological and paleontological resources. MM 4.7-2: The Project Manager shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach Public Works and/or Planning Department that a qualified Paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources as necessary. The Paleontologist shall be present at the pre- grading conference; shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance; and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. Any earth-moving activity associated with development, slope modification, or slope stabilization that requires moving large volumes of earth shall be monitored according to the paleontological sensitivity of the rock units that underlie the affected area. All 15-33 vertebrate fossils and representative samples of megainvertebrates and plant fossils shall be collected. Productive sites that yield vertebrates should be excavated, and approximately 2,000 pounds (lbs) of rock samples should be collected to be processed for microvertebrate fossil remains. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) recommends that a standard sample of 6,000 lbs be collected for microvertebrate sites (BonTerra Consulting 2009b). It is recommended that such a large volume only be required in very unique situations, such as in an area where no fossils have ever been reported and the results would greatly alter scientific interpretations of the area, or if the site is so rich that the diversity of known taxa (species) would be greatly enhanced by processing a larger volume. If any scientifically important large fossil remains are uncovered during earth-moving activities, the Paleontologist shall divert heavy equipment away from the fossil site until s/he has had an opportunity to examine the remains. If warranted, a rock sample will be collected for processing. The Paleontologist shall be equipped to rapidly remove fossil remains and/or matrix (earth), and thus reduce the potential for any construction delays. If scientifically important fossil remains are observed and if safety restrictions permit, the Project Manager shall allow the Paleontologist to safely salvage the discovery. At the Paleontologist’s discretion, the Project Manager may assist in the removal of the fossil remains and rock sample to reduce any construction delays. All fossils shall be documented in a detailed Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Report. Fossils recovered from the field or by processing shall be prepared; identified; and, along with accompanying field notes, maps and photographs, accessioned into the collections of a designated, accredited museum such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles or the San Diego Natural History Museum. Because of slope modification, fossil-bearing exposures of the Quaternary marine deposits may be destroyed. If feasible, a few stratigraphic sections with fossil-bearing horizons should be preserved for educational and scientific purposes. Recommendations specific to each lithologic unit are provided (please refer to Section 4.7 for the entire text of the mitigation measure): a. Monterey Formation b. Quaternary Marine Terrace Deposits c. Younger Alluvium and Aeolian Deposits Nothing in this mitigation measure precludes the retention of a single cross trained observer, qualified to monitor for both archaeological and paleontological resources. SC 4.7-1: In accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, if human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be Native American, s/he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being 15-34 granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the proposed project would have no new impacts with respect to biological resources. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.8 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would have a significant adverse impact to geology and soils if it would result in any of the following: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death from landslides. • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. • 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. • 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. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Geology and soils impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Ground shaking at the site can be expected associated with regional earthquake activity and there is the potential for liquefaction, landsliding and erosion. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following project design features, standard conditions and mitigation measures: PDF 4.8-1: Landscape and irrigation plans have been designed to minimize irrigation near natural areas/slopes. 15-35 PDF 4.8-2: Geotechnical design recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Sunset Ridge Park Project would be incorporated into the final Project design, unless supplemental geotechnical investigations provide information requiring revision of these recommendations. SC 4.8-1: A qualified Geotechnical Engineer shall review the final grading plans, foundation plans and specifications when available to verify that all Project Design Features have been appropriately considered and incorporated into final plan development. MM 4.8-1: A final design-level geotechnical exploration shall be performed after the final grading plans are made available to confirm that the data and assumptions applied in the development of final Project plans and specifications remain appropriate. MM 4.8-2: Additional slope stability analyses shall be performed when the final slope configuration is available to confirm that Project slopes would be seismically stable. Final slope configuration would be adjusted if needed to ensure impacts are less than significant. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the proposed project would have no new impacts with respect to geology and soils. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would have a significant adverse impact to hazards and hazardous material if it would result in any of the following: • 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 it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. The oil wells on the Project site have been abandoned and remediated. Any contaminated oil field equipment would be removed; any contaminated soil would be remediated, as necessary. 15-36 Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following mitigation measures: MM 4.9-1: Any contaminated soils or other hazardous materials removed from the Project site shall be transported only by a Licensed Hazardous Waste Hauler who shall be in compliance with all applicable State and federal requirements, including U.S. Department of Transportation regulations under Title 49 of the CFR (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), California Department of Transportation standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 United States Code §6901 et seq.). The City of Newport Beach Public Works and/or Planning Department shall verify that only Licensed Haulers who are operating in compliance with regulatory requirements are used to haul hazardous materials. MM 4.9-2: The State Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region (Santa Ana RWQCB), through its regulatory authority to meet the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) objectives set forth in compliance with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, shall oversee contaminated soil mitigation efforts including but not limited to on-site treatment, as necessary, confirmation of impacted soil delineation, excavation, and final report review and approval. The Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) may also provide oversight of soil remediation and mitigation efforts as determined by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Interim storage and handling of impacted materials shall be performed under the Santa Ana RWQCB oversight responsibilities including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and erosion control requirements through the County M34 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements as well as compliance with air quality construction emission requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). MM 4.9-3: Prior to grading, the contractor shall develop an approved Health and Safety Contingency Plan (HSCP) in the event that unanticipated/unknown environmental contaminants are encountered during construction. The plan shall be developed to protect workers, safeguard the environment, and meet the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 8, General Industry Safety Orders - Control of Hazardous Substances. The HSCP should be prepared as a supplement to the Contractor’s Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan, which should be prepared to meet the requirements of CCR Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. Specifically, the HSCP must: 1. Describe the methods, procedures, and processes necessary to identify, evaluate, control, or mitigate all safety and health hazards associated with any soil, groundwater, and/or air contamination that may be encountered during field construction activities. 2. Apply to all site construction workers, on-site subcontractors, site visitors, and other authorized personnel who are involved in construction operations. 3. Be approved by the Public Works Director. The HSCP shall take effect only if materials affected by environmental contaminants are exposed during construction. This includes undocumented waste materials, contaminated soils, affected groundwater, and related substances that may be classified as hazardous or regulated materials, and/or materials that could endanger worker or public health. If affected materials are encountered, the HSCP shall be implemented to reduce the potential exposure to the environment and workers at the site. All site 15-37 workers shall be required to perform work in a prescribed manner to reduce the potential that they will endanger themselves, others, or the general public. MM 4.9-4: During construction, if environmentally affected soil, groundwater, or other materials are encountered on site, the Project Engineer shall be quickly mobilized to evaluate, assess the extent of, and mitigate the affected materials. The following is only applicable if materials affected by environmental contaminants are exposed during construction. The contractor or City’s consultant shall be responsible for implementing all applicable sampling and monitoring of the project. Applicable sampling and monitoring activities can include air monitoring (both for personal protection and SCAQMD Rule 1166 compliance), collecting soil and groundwater samples for analysis, and documenting mitigation activities. Specific applicable sampling and monitoring applicable requirements shall vary, depending upon the nature, concentration, and extent of affected materials encountered. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the proposed project would have no new impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “Significant adverse impacts to natural drainage systems created by altered hydrologic conditions of concern would occur if the proposed Project would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. • 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). • 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 offsite. • 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 in which would result in flooding on- or off-site. • 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. 15-38 • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. • Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction. • Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas. • Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. • Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm. • Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hydrology and water quality impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. The Project has been developed in concert with site-design best management practices (BMPs) intended at avoiding or reducing the water quality impacts of the Project. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following project design features, standard conditions and mitigation measures: PDF 4.10-1: Construction Best Management Practices: The Project shall incorporate a combination of best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion, tracking control, storm water and non-storm water management, and waste management/pollution control. These BMPs shall be implemented to ensure potential effects on local site hydrology, runoff and water quality remain in compliance with all appropriate permits, City policies, and the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). These BMPs shall include appropriate measures as identified in Appendix I of the EIR. PDF 4.10-2: Structural BMPs for Post-Construction/Project Operation: Structural BMPs shall be implemented to ensure that the long-term effects of Project operation on local hydrology, drainage patterns, and water quality remain less than significant and in compliance with Project permits, City policies, and the Project’s WQMP and SWPPP. These BMPs include storm drain stenciling and signage, smart trash storage area design, installment of efficient irrigation systems and landscaping practices, and slope protection measures (e.g., vegetation, terrace drains, and energy dissipaters) as identified in Appendix I of this EIR. PDF 4.10-3: Non-Structural BMPs for the Post-Project Construction: Non-Structural BMPs shall be implemented to ensure that the long-term effects of Project operation on local hydrology, drainage patterns, and water quality remain less than significant and in compliance with Project permits, City policies, and the Project’s WQMP and SWPPP. These non-structural measures would be implemented along with the structural measures identified in PDF 4.10-2 to ensure Project effects are minimized. Non- structural BMPs shall include education and outreach, activity restrictions for the site, landscape and pesticide management, BMP maintenance, litter control, and other appropriate measures as described in Appendix I of this EIR. 15-39 PDF 4.10-4: Site-Design BMPs: Site-design BMPs were developed early in the planning process for the Sunset Ridge Park Project in order to reduce environmental impacts and to minimize or avoid hydrologic and water quality effects. These concepts are focused on minimizing (1) storm water runoff, (2) the impervious surface area of Project features, (3) the conservation of natural areas, (4) contiguous impervious areas. Additional detail on these Site Design BMPs can be found in Appendix I of this EIR. PDF 4.10-5: Stormwater Routing and Treatment-Control BMPs: Stormwater routing and treatment-control BMPs shall be incorporated into the Project design to ensure that pollutant constituents contained within site runoff and drainage for both storm water and non-storm water discharges are adequately treated, such that all flows discharging into the reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert at West Coast Highway are in compliance with water quality objectives and preserve the beneficial uses of the Santa Ana River Tidal Prism. These stormwater routing and treatment-control BMPs shall include: 1. A bioswale would be located adjacent to the park access road to detain and treat storm water flows from the access road and adjacent slope. 2. Interceptor drains would be located between the bioswale and proposed parking lot to collect runoff from the preserved nature area and adjacent slope. 3. A flow basin would be located at the intersection of West Coast Highway and the access road to collect flows from the road, preserved open space, and slopes. This basin would be located and sized based on the ultimate alignment of the access road. 4. Off-site flow basins would be located at the northern corner of the site, to the west of the existing housing development bordering the Project to collect off-site flows. 5. An on-site vegetated dry creek would be located within the parking lot and would be routed to drain beneath a portion of the parking lot via culvert crossing. This dry creek would collect and treat flows from the parking lot. 6. RCP storm drains would be located throughout the site to collect on-site and off-site runoff and route these flows into the subdrain system and the RCB in West Coast Highway 7. A polyvinyl chloride (PVC) storm drain would be located throughout park to collect on-site flows. 8. An underground corrugated metal pipe (CMP) detention system is proposed to reduce future flows to the level of existing flows. Flows would enter the system via the area drain line(s) and would outlet via a smaller pipe sized accordingly in order to allow for storage in the system; this would provide the reduction in peak flows in the proposed condition. 9. A gravel subdrain system would be located across the southern edge of the park at the top of the slope to collect ground water flows. This system would collect groundwater seepage from the apartment site to the north, as well as any percolated runoff from the park, keeping seepage from outletting to the slope along West Coast Highway. An underground filter facility that would both retain flows and treat up to 1.06 cfs of post - construction discharge traversing the site. This facility shall treat the poorest quality flows originating as runoff within the condominium complex to the north. This discharge 15-40 flow rate is equivalent to the increase in discharge associated with project implementation. PDF 4.10-6: Inspection/Maintenance Responsibilities for BMPs: Inspection and maintenance of BMPs shall be implemented by the City of Newport Beach prior to completion of the Project. These responsibilities are presented in Appendix I of this EIR for structural and non-structural BMPs. Upon final design of treatment- control BMPs, a similar matrix shall be developed that specifies maintenance responsibilities for treatment control measures. The City of Newport Beach shall retain all maintenance records for a period of at least five years from the date generated. Those records shall be available for review by government agencies. The methods used for inspection and maintenance shall conform to the guidelines outlined in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. SC 4.10-1: All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan (see Appendix I of this EIR for more information). All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleanings as part of regular maintenance. SC 4.10-2: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for approval, and made part of the construction program. The City shall maintain a copy of the NOI and application check as proof of filing with the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the Project’s impact on water quality. SC-4.10-3: The City shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed Project, subject to the approval of the Building Department, Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate BMPs to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur; it shall also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all BMPs. SC 4.10-4: A list of “good housekeeping” practices shall be incorporated into the long- term (post-construction) operation of the site in order to minimize the likelihood that pollutants that could impair water quality will be used, stored, or spilled on the site. These may include frequent parking area vacuum sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). MM 4.10-1: The City shall comply with applicable provisions of the Construction General Permit; Dewatering General Permit; the regional NPDES permit requirements, including the DAMP; and any other federal, State, or local requirements have been incorporated into construction-phase BMPs. The required BMPs shall be specified in terms and conditions of Project Managers’ contract specifications. The City shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of required BMPs. MM 4.10-2: In accordance with NPDES, DAMP, and WQMP requirements, appropriate and effective storm water BMPs shall be implemented on the Project site to accommodate storm water runoff from developed areas and to ensure that applicable water quality standards are met. Site-design and treatment-control BMPs shall be 15-41 implemented during proposed Project construction in accordance with final plans and specifications. Treatment-control BMPs would be maintained by the City of Newport Beach. MM 4.10-3: The final approved Project Plans and Specifications shall include implementation of the WQMP requirements and Project Design Features. The final approved Project plans and specifications shall include implementation of all relevant BMPs and the approved drainage concept plan contained in either Site Design Option 1 or Option 2. MM 4.10-4: The City shall comply with California’s General Permit of Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by: (1) providing a copy of the Notice of Intent submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing and (2) preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the proposed project would have no new impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality. It should be noted that the Coastal Commission imposed further measures to assure that impacts related to hydrology and water quality are even further reduced, including detailed requirements for a drainage and runoff control plan. These special conditions further reduce impacts and further assure that there will be no significant impacts to biological resources. (See Staff Report: Revised Findings, dated May 31, 2013, #5-11-302.) Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the SRP Final EIR. It states: “The Project would result in a significant impact related [public] services if it would: • 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. • Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. • Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. • Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. 15-42 • Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which services or may serve the Project that has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. • 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. • Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered energy transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Public services and utilities impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the SRP Final EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Police and fire services can be provided for the Project without significantly impacting existing and planned development within the City. No new or expanded water entitlements would be required. Mitigation Program The SRP Final EIR mitigation program included the following project design features and standard conditions: PDF 4.11-1: The City shall provide a locked gate at the Project entry to ensure that no vehicles enter the site after dusk. The City shall provide a locking system on the gate that ensures emergency personnel, vehicles, and equipment can enter once the park is closed. SC 4.11-1: Prior to the City Council’s approval of the Project site plan, the Fire Department shall review and approve the site plan in order to ensure adequate access to the Project site via the access road. In addition, the site plan shall provide adequate on-site space to park Fire Department apparatus. PDF 4.11-2: Sunset Ridge Park shall be integrated into the central irrigation controller system for purposes of water management and conservation. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the SRP Final EIR, the proposed project would have no new impacts with respect to public services and utilities. Finding of Consistency with the SRP Final EIR The proposed minor modifications to the project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the project does not propose substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes would occur that would require major revisions to the SRP Final EIR, and no new information of substantial importance or applicable to the project has been revealed since the certification of the SRP Final EIR. SECTION 4 – CONCLUSIONS The above evaluation supports the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent negative declaration or environmental impact report is not required prior to approving minor modifications to the parking lot and access road within the footprint of the previously approved 15-43 park project on City-owned land. There is no substantial evidence that the very minor changes in the project or changes in the conditions surrounding the project’s implementation would result in significant new effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Nor has new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, come to light showing that project’s implementation would result in significant new effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Indeed, the minor modifications proposed to the project today would result in further environmental protection, as compared to the previously approved project. As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, mitigation measures have previously been adopted to avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of the Sunset Ridge Park Project. Those mitigation measures and conditions of approval which were previously imposed, and which remain relevant to the revised Sunset Ridge Park Project, will continue to be implemented. SECTION 5 – REFERENCES Draft Environmental Impact Report, Sunset Ridge Park Project (Sch. No. 2009051036), dated October 2009. Final Environmental Impact Report, Sunset Ridge Park Project (Sch. No. 2009051036), dated March 2010. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Sunset Ridge Park Project (Sch. No. 2009051036), dated March 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Newport Banning Ranch Project (Sch. No. 2009031061), dated September 9, 2011. Final Environmental Impact Report, Newport Banning Ranch Project (Sch. No. 2009031061), dated March 16, 2012. California Coastal Commission, Staff Report: Revised Findings, Sunset Ridge Park Project (Application No. 5-11-302), dated May 31, 2013. 15-44