Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-102 - Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002, (SCH# 2019099074) for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (PA2019-014)RESOLUTION NO. 2019-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2019-002, (SCH# 2019099074) FOR THE SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT PROJECT (PA2019-014) WHEREAS, the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project ("Project") is located on the existing Sunset Ridge Park and parking lot at 4850 West Coast Highway and the northeast corner of the West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue intersection ("Properties") in the City of Newport Beach, California; WHEREAS, Sunset Ridge Park and the parking lot Properties are designated Parks and Recreation (PR) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan ("General Plan") which is intended to provide active public or private recreational uses, including parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The Properties are located within the Parks and Recreation (PR) Zoning District, which is intended to provide for areas appropriate for land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use; WHEREAS, the Properties are located in the Coastal Zone. The Properties are located within the Parks and Recreation (PR) Coastal Land Use Plan category and Parks and Recreation (PR) Coastal Zoning District. The Project will require a Coastal Development Permit and an amendment to the Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit No. 5-11-302; WHEREAS, the Superior Avenue right-of-way is designated as primary arterial which is typically a four lane divided roadway in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Superior Avenue right-of-way is not located within a zoning district or coastal zoning district nor does it have a Coastal Land Use Plan designation; WHEREAS, the use of the Property and right-of-way for the Project is consistent with the purpose and intent of these designations; WHEREAS, the City's fiscal year 2019-2020 Capital Improvement Program calls for the construction of the Superior Avenue overcrossing and replacement of the existing parking lot with a larger parking lot and small recreation area; Resolution No. 2019-102 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, construction of the Project will: (1) improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk; (2) provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited; (3) reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge; and (4) expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small recreational area just below Sunset View Park; WHEREAS, a public meeting was held by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission on August 6, 2019, in the City Council Chambers, located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public meeting was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and providing written notice to properties within 300 feet of the Project. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission at this public meeting. At this public meeting, the Commission recommended City Council approval of the Project design; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on November 19, 2019, 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 Ralph M. Brown Act, Chapter 20.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") and Section 21092(b) of the Public Resources Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, after thoroughly considering the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the Project, and the public testimony and written submissions of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council finds the following facts, findings, and reasons to support adopting the MND: 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), Sections 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), and City Council Policy K-3, the Project meets the definition of a project, as defined in Section 21080 of CEQA and Section 15002 of the CEQA Guidelines, and as such subject to environmental review. 2. The City caused to be prepared an Initial Study/MND in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3. Resolution No. 2019-102 Page 3 of 5 3. Notice of the availability of the draft MND was provided and, as required by 21091(b) of CEQA, the draft MND was made available for public review for a thirty (30) day comment period beginning on September 23, 2019 and ending October 23, 2019. Notice of the Availability of the draft MND was given in accordance with Section 21091(d) and (f) and 21092. Twenty eight (28) comment letters were received during the thirty (30) day public review period. 4. Although not required pursuant to CEQA, written responses to the twenty eight (28) comments received were prepared. The comments and responses were considered by the City Council while considering the adoption of the MND. The comments to the MND and responses to comments do not change the determinations or represent a significant departure that warrant recirculation of the MND because no new avoidable significant effects were identified. 5. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 of CEQA, the City is required to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested in writing to be informed of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe. Two (2) tribes had requested notification in writing at the time the notification was prepared. The tribes were provided notice on June 27, 2019. Section 21080.3.1 requires thirty (30) days prior to City Council action to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult. A response letter was received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation on July 8, 2019, requesting that a monitor from their tribe oversee ground -disturbing construction work. Staff consulted with their representative, Mr. Andrew Salas, by phone and in writing regarding the matter. Mr. Salas expressed concern with the Project's proximity to potential tribal cultural resources. In response, and out of abundance of caution, the City has agreed to retain a tribal monitor in the unlikely event any resources are found and the MND a mitigation measure has been included accordingly. As a result, Mr. Salas, the representative for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation, agreed that the implementation of this mitigation measure would be sufficient and the consultation was closed. Resolution No. 2019-102 Page 4 of 5 6. The following environmental factors were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of the Project: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Sewer Services and Wildfire. These topics were the subject of the MND analysis, and potential impacts were identified. The MND includes mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources. All other environmental factors, identified above, were determined to have no impact, or less than significant impact. 7. The draft MND and the final MND which includes the Responses to Comments, Errata, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Final MND") are attached as Exhibits "A", "B", and "C," respectively, and incorporated herein by reference. The documents and all related materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division (Bay 1- B), City of Newport Beach, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. 8. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that are compromised by the Project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the Project. The mitigation measures identified by the Final MND and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 (SCH# 2019099074), which is attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" and "C", and which are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach directs the Public Works Director to incorporate the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND included in Exhibit "C" in the plans and specifications for the Project to be implemented. Resolution No. 2019-102 Page 5 of 5 Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution, and constitute, in part, the findings of the City Council for the adoption of the MND No. ND2019-002 SCH# 2019099074. 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 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 19t" day of November, 2019 ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aaron C. Harp City Attorney �' � 51 Diane B. Dixon Mayor Attachments: Exhibit A — Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit B - Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit C - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit "A" Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration • Notice of Intent to Adopt • Initial Study • Environmental Analysis • Appendices • Responses to Comments • Errata Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 (PA2019-014) State Clearinghouse Number 2019099074 (Available separate due to bulk) www.newportbeachca.gov/cega CHAMBERS '/A�� GROUP DRAFT INITIAL STUDY SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT PROJECT Newport Beach, CA (Orange County) Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, California 92707 September 19, 2019 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 —INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY......................................................................................................... 1 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2.0 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................4 2.1 LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................4 2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................ 4 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.1 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge.............................................................. 5 2.3.2 Superior Parking Lot......................................................................................................... 6 2.3.3 Dog Park........................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.4 Construction.....................................................................................................................7 2.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS.......................................................................................... 7 SECTION 3.0 — EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..............................................................11 SECTION 4.0 — CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.....................................................................13 4.1 AESTHETICS.................................................................................................................................13 4.1.1 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 13 4.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES....................................................................................40 4.2.1 Impact Analysis..............................................................................................................40 4.3 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................ 41 4.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 42 4.3.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................................... 42 4.3.3 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 46 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................53 4.4.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 54 4.4.2 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 56 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................... 72 4.5.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 72 4.5.2 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 73 4.6 ENERGY.......................................................................................................................................75 4.6.1 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 75 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................................................. 79 4.7.1 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 79 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...................................................................................................84 4.8.1 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 85 Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................................................... 87 4.9.1 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 87 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................................................ 92 4.10.1 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 93 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING.........................................................................................................98 4.11.1 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 98 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................99 4.12.1 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 99 4.13 NOISE........................................................................................................................................ 100 4.13.1 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................100 4.13.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................ 101 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................................................... 107 4.14.1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................ 107 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES.......................................................................................................................108 4.15.1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................ 108 4.16 RECREATION.............................................................................................................................110 4.16.1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................ 110 4.17 TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................................... 112 4.17.1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................ 112 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................114 4.18.1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................ 114 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.............................................................................................115 4.19.1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................116 4.20 WILDFIRE...................................................................................................................................118 4.20.1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................ 118 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE............................................................................... 119 4.21.1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................ 120 SECTION5.0 — REFERENCES............................................................................................................123 Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4-1: General Plan and Costal Land Use Policy Consistency: Aesthetics............................................15 Table 4-2: Designations/Classifications for the Project Area......................................................................44 Table 4-3: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary................................................................................46 Table 4-4: Regional Thresholds of Significance...........................................................................................48 Table 4-5: Local Thresholds of Significance................................................................................................49 Table 4-6: Construction -Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions.....................................................49 Table 4-7: Construction-Related1ocal Criteria Pollutant Emissions...........................................................50 Table 4-8:Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions.........................................................51 Table 4-9 : Operations -Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions............................................................52 Table 4-10: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Communities and Habitats. 63 Table 4-11: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Wetlands ............................ 69 Table 4-12: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Conservation Plans.............72 Table 4-13: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Seismic Hazards .................. 80 Table 4-14: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Erosion...............................82 Table 4-15: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Seismic Design .................... 82 Table 4-16 : Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Project.............................................86 Table 4-17: Online Regulatory Database Findings......................................................................................89 Table 4-18: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Water Quality Control ........ 93 Table 4-19: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — BMP and Erosion................95 Table 4-20: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Water Quality Control ........ 96 Table 4-21: Existing Noise Level Measurements .......................................... Table 4-22: Construction Equipment Noise and Usage Factors ..................... Table 4-23: Proposed Project Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Homes.. Table 4-24: Operational On -Site Noise Impacts to the Nearest Homes......... Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 IV Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Table 4-25: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Emissions ...........................................................106 Table 4-26: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Recreation ........................111 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure2-1- Project Vicinity Map................................................................................................................... 9 Figure2-2 - Project Location Map...............................................................................................................10 Figure4-1: Site Photographs.......................................................................................................................19 Figure4-2: Simulations............................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4-3: Key View Point Locations..........................................................................................................39 APPENDICES Appendix A — Air Quality Calculations Appendix B — Biological Resources Appendix B-1— Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix B-2 —Jurisdictional Delineation Appendix C — Cultural Resources Technical Report Appendix D — Paleontological Resources Report Appendix E — Energy CalEEMod Calculations Appendix F — Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Calculations Appendix G — Hazardous Materials Assessment Appendix H — Noise Measurement Information Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 V Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California SECTION 1.0—INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Newport Beach (City) proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 parking spaces and a fenced dog park (Project) on an approximately 3.4 -acre site. The proposed bridge will connect Sunset Ridge Park to the new asphalt parking lot located at the northeast corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 2100- 21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study (IS) to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If the Lead Agencyfinds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the IS, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency must find that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and must prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for that project. Such determination can be made only if, "there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency" that such impacts may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code). This environmental documentation is intended as a formal document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits, and other discretionary approvals would be required. The environmental documentation and supporting analysis are subject to a public review period. Following review of any comments received, the City of Newport Beach will consider these comments as part of the Project's environmental review and include them with the IS documentation for consideration by the City. 1.3 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY The City has prepared this IS to provide the public and responsible agencies with information about the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project. This IS includes a project -level analysis of the potential effects associated with the Project. 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines 15150 — Incorporation by Reference, this Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration shall incorporate by reference all or portions of other technical documents and reports as a matter of public record. The documents listed below relate to the proposed Project or provides additional materials related to the proposed Project setting. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The information incorporated Chambers Group, Inc. 1 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California into this document is referenced in Section 5. References. The information is based on the following technical studies and/or planning documents. City of Newport Beach General Plan (Approved on November 7, 2006) The General Plan Environmental Impact report addresses the potential environmental effects of the City of Newport Beach's proposed General Plan Updates. This is a comprehensive plan that discusses the future potential growth and development within the City. The General Plan consists of ten of elements that covers the following areas: • Land Use Element • Harbor and Bay Element • Housing Element • Historical Resources Element • Circulation Element • Recreation Element • Arts and Cultural Element • Natural Resources Element • Safety Element • Noise Element Each element discusses specific goals and policies to maintain the natural and built environments within the City. Since its adoption, sections of the General Plan have been updated including the 2008 Safety Element and the 2014-2021 Housing Element Update. The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and would be subject to the general plans' goals, policies, and guidelines to maintain the City's long-term vision. Coastal Land Use Plan (Adopted on July 26, 2016) The Coastal Land Use Plan was prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The plan sets for the objectives and policies of land and water use within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Project is located within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach and would be subject to the guidelines and policies under the plan. Local Coastal Implementation Plan (Approved on November 22, 2016). The Local Coastal Implementation Plan is also available at the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code website which is updated as of 2019. The Local Coastal Implementation Plan is the primary tool used by the City of Newport Beach to carry out the objectives and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan and ensure activities and other proposed development are consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed Project is located within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach and would be subject to the guidelines and policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Approved on April 23, 2019) The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code covers all aspects of regulations including zoning, vehicle requirements, planning and zoning, local coastal program implementation, ordinance listing, and other development related requirements. Approved on October 26, 2010, the purpose of the Zoning Code is to carry out the policies identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The Zoning Code also promotes the development of the City, protection of public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare. It provides guidance in the protection of the character, social, and economic vitality of the neighborhoods. Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and would be required to comply with the objectives and policies relating to construction land uses, and development within the City of Newport Beach. Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California SECTION 2.0 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and is located approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline (Figure 2-1). Due to the proximity to the coast, the area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sunset Ridge Park, constructed in December 2014, is a 13.7 -acre active park with a baseball field and two soccer fields. Visitors to Sunset Ridge Park use the existing parking lot across Superior Avenue and cross at the at -grade Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection because no on-site parking is provided at Sunset Ridge Park. Currently, an existing City -owned parking lot with 64 metered parking stalls is located at the northeast corner ofthis intersection. The existing Superior Parking Lot is approximately 0.64 acres, with the driveway to the parking lot at approximately 0.17 acres. Access to the existing parking lot is available via an entrance off Superior Avenue for vehicles, and via a concrete pathway from the intersection of Superior Avenue and Coast Highway for pedestrians and bicyclists. Directly east of the existing parking lot is an undeveloped piece of land with steep slopes with ground elevations ranging from approximately 10 feet near West Coast Highway to approximately 75 feet near Sunset View Park based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), with some existing vegetation. Properties and land uses adjacent to the Project site include Sunset Ridge Park, Sunset View Park, Villa Balboa and Newport Crest residential communities, and the lower campus of Hoag Hospital. A shopping center and the Lido Sands residential community are located to the south across West Coast Highway from the Project site. The entire Project site is within the boundary of the coastal zone as established by the California Coastal Act and is therefore under the land use planning and regulatory jurisdiction not only of local government agencies but also the California Coastal Commission (Commission). The City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program includes a Coastal Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (City of Newport Beach 2017a, City of Newport Beach 2017b). The Coastal Land Use Plan sets the goals, objectives, and policies that administers uses of the land and water within its sphere of influence (excluding Newport Coast and Banning Ranch). The Coastal Land Use Plan is divided in subsections for land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection (City of Newport Beach 2017a). The purpose of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan is to implement policies of the California Coastal Act to protect, maintain, enhance, and restore the coastal zone environment. Site development must be consistent with the requirements of the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Act. 2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue are major arterials with a high volume of vehicular traffic. The purpose of the bridge is to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to improve the vehicular efficiency of the Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection. Specifically, the objectives of the Project are: To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. Chambers Group, Inc. 4 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot and a fenced dog park approximately 3.4 acres in size. Individual Project components are outlined below. 2.3.1 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge The Steel Truss bridge option would span Superior Avenue and would be approximately 240 feet long, approximately 12 to 16 feet wide, and 16 feet tall. The bottom of the bridge's superstructure would be approximately 17 to 25 feet above the asphalt surface. The Steel Truss bridge would have steel members across the top of the bridge. This bridge option will be a single span bridge with steel piles to support the superstructure. The Concrete Cast -in -Place bridge option would span Superior Avenue and would be approximately 280 feet long, approximately 12 to 16 feet wide, and 8 feet tall. The bottom of the bridge's superstructure would be approximately 17 to 25 feet above the asphalt surface. The Concrete Cast -in -Place bridge would be open and not include any ceiling or roof. This bridge option will be a 3 -span structure with deep concrete foundations to structurally support the superstructure. Minimal lighting would be provided along the bridge for safety and security. The security lighting would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. A new staircase will provide access to the parking lot and bridge from the north side of West Coast Highway. Additionally, the proposed Project would include the construction of a new sidewalk/bike path from the modified parking lot entrance to the proposed bridge. Access to the bridge from Sunset Ridge Park will be from the southeastern edge of the park, adjacent to the intersection of the path from Superior Avenue to the park and the bike/pedestrian path surrounding the park. The bridge access from the Sunset Ridge Park side will be approximately 145 feet from the intersection of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. Due to the installation of the bridge, the location of the traffic signal at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue will need to be moved in order to provide proper height and visibility. The proposed bridge would help facilitate movement of pedestrians and bicyclists across Superior Avenue. The bridge is being designed to be mindful of view lines and the potential for visual obstruction. The two options being considered for the bridge design include either a steel truss bridge or a concrete cast -in- place bridge as shown in the images below. Chambers Group, Inc. 5 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Steel Truss Bridge Concept (Single Span) Concrete Cast -in -Place Bridge Concept (3 -Span) 2.3.2 Superior Parking Lot The proposed bridge would connect Sunset Ridge Park to a new, larger asphalt parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 parking spaces approximately 3.4 acres in size. The total area of impervious surface will include the parking lot and sidewalks, which totals approximately 65,000 square feet. Minimal additional security lighting would be provided within the parking lot for safety purposes. The security lighting would be down - shielded to prevent light scatter. Drought tolerant landscaping will be provided, and new trees will be planted. The parking lot will be operated in the same manner as the existing parking lot with paid metered parking spaces from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and the parking lot would remain open for 24 hours per day. The construction of the proposed parking lot will require demolition of the existing parking lot and significant grading and earthwork. Excavation would be greatest (up to 27 feet) at the east side of the Project site. The construction of the new parking lot would also require installation of several retaining walls with a height of up to 25 feet on the southern border of the Project site along West Coast Highway. The existing Project site is on a relatively steep slope with ground elevations ranging from approximately 10 feet by West Coast Highway to approximately 75 feet by Sunset View Park per NVAD 88. Construction of the parking lot may include a bicycle node (fix -it station) and a drinking water fountain. Optional Road Extension to Adjacent Property The City is currently working with the adjacent land owner (Hoag Memorial Hospital) to determine the feasibility of extending an access road through the redeveloped parking lot to connect to the lower campus of Hoag Memorial Hospital. If this option is to be exercised, the entrance from Superior Avenue will be extended to connect with the existing parking lot within Hoag Memorial Hospital. Chambers Group, Inc. 6 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 2.3.3 Dog Park Construction of the proposed Project would also include the installation of a fenced dog park with 6 -foot tall fences, separating large and small dogs, which may include benches and trash cans. The dog park will be 0.2 to 0.3 acres in size. The dog park would require a new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation. Security lighting at the dog park would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. Hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. In addition, a shade structure may be installed at the dog park, approximately 10 to 15 feet in height. The top of the shade structure would be below the Sunset View Park ground elevation and would be designed to protect public coastal views. 2.3.4 Construction Construction of the proposed Project is scheduled to begin in early 2021 and reach completion in approximately 14 to 18 months. Since existing recreational activities occur at Sunset Ridge Park (soccer in the Fall and baseball in the Spring), construction activities would be scheduled during low usage months to avoid recreational events, or these events could be relocated to an alternate location temporarily if alternate/temporary parking cannot be allowed closer to the park. The work will occur predominantly during daytime work hours (7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.); however, occasional nighttime work may be required depending on bridge design to minimize public inconvenience and provide public safety. If the City decides to proceed with the steel truss bridge option, it is anticipated that Superior Avenue would be closed at night to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge superstructure. For nights where street closures would occur, alternate traffic routes and detour signage would be posted so as not to interfere with the public's access to the beach per Section 21101 of the Vehicle Code and Section 21.44.055 Temporary Street Closures of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (City of Newport Beach 2107b). In addition, depending on the bridge design, temporary re -striping of Superior Avenue may need to occur to construct the bridge supports. Construction equipment would include a grader, excavator, dozer, loader, crane, pile driver or drilling rig, grinder, dump trucks, rollers, and asphalt paving machine. Construction staging for the proposed Project would occur within the existing parking lot. After construction of the proposed Project, Superior Avenue may need pavement rehabilitation or restoration. Construction of the proposed Project may require intermittent sidewalk closures on Superior Avenue and the north side of West Coast Highway for the construction of bridge abutments, grading, and modifying the existing entrance to the new parking lot and landscaping. Construction will result in the excavation of excess soil, beyond what is required for fill purposes. This excess soil of approximately 20,000 to 25,000 cubic yards will be used to fill the need for soil in local projects and is expected to be transported to locations within a radius of approximately 50 miles. Any other construction debris would be disposed of by the construction contractor consistent with City disposal requirements and those of the receiving site. 2.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS A public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that has discretionary approval power over a project is referred to under the CEQA Guidelines as a "Responsible Agency." Reviewing Agencies include those Chambers Group, Inc. 7 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California. agencies that do not have discretionary powers but may review the IS/MND for adequacy and accuracy Potential Reviewing Agencies and Responsible Agencies include the following: Responsible Agencies State of California • California Coastal Commission — Coastal Development Permit Amendment • Caltrans — NEPA document lead agency Local • City of Newport Beach— CEQA document Lead Agency Coastal Development Permit, Grading and Building Permits Chambers Group, Inc. 8 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Figure 2-2 - Project Location Map Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 10 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California SECTION 3.0 — EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if substantial evidence exists that an effect may be significant. If one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries are marked when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Chambers Group, Inc. 11 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. *Note: Instructions may be omitted from final document. Chambers Group, Inc. 12 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California SECTION 4.0 — CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge, new asphalt parking lot, and fenced dog park. The proposed bridge will span Superior Avenue from east to west by approximately 240 to 280 feet long, and 12 to 16 feet wide. The superstructure will be approximately 8 to 16 feet tall. The bottom of the superstructure will be approximately 17 to 25 feet above the asphalt surface of Superior Avenue. Depending on the structure type selection, the bridge may either be a single -span structure or a 3 -span structure. Two intermediate bridge supports on Superior Avenue will be required if a 3 -span structure is selected. The dog park may include a shade structure 10 to 15 feet in height and would be designed to protect public coastal views. The City of Newport Beach provides a variety of coastal and scenic viewpoints. These views include open waters, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. Because of the grid -like pattern of the streets and highways, coastal views can be seen in these areas, especially for north -south tending streets (City of Newport Beach 2017a). According to the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Local Coastal Program, public viewpoints have been identified on southern end of Sunset Ridge Park along West Coast Highway (also known as State Route 1 or Pacific Coast Highway) and the northern perimeter of the proposed parking lot. Superior Avenue is also identified as a Coastal View Road (City of Newport Beach 2006). Policy 4.4.1-6 from the Local Coastal Program states that public coastal views must be protected from several roadway segments within the City of Newport Beach. This includes the roadway segment of Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway (City of Newport Beach 2017a). Figure 4-1: Site Photographs provides character photos of the existing views toward and from the Project site. Photographs of existing conditions and the corresponding visual simulations of the Chambers Group, Inc. 13 21169 Less than AESTHETICS. Potentially Significant Less Than No 1. Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views D-1❑ ® ❑ in the area? 4.1.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge, new asphalt parking lot, and fenced dog park. The proposed bridge will span Superior Avenue from east to west by approximately 240 to 280 feet long, and 12 to 16 feet wide. The superstructure will be approximately 8 to 16 feet tall. The bottom of the superstructure will be approximately 17 to 25 feet above the asphalt surface of Superior Avenue. Depending on the structure type selection, the bridge may either be a single -span structure or a 3 -span structure. Two intermediate bridge supports on Superior Avenue will be required if a 3 -span structure is selected. The dog park may include a shade structure 10 to 15 feet in height and would be designed to protect public coastal views. The City of Newport Beach provides a variety of coastal and scenic viewpoints. These views include open waters, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. Because of the grid -like pattern of the streets and highways, coastal views can be seen in these areas, especially for north -south tending streets (City of Newport Beach 2017a). According to the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Local Coastal Program, public viewpoints have been identified on southern end of Sunset Ridge Park along West Coast Highway (also known as State Route 1 or Pacific Coast Highway) and the northern perimeter of the proposed parking lot. Superior Avenue is also identified as a Coastal View Road (City of Newport Beach 2006). Policy 4.4.1-6 from the Local Coastal Program states that public coastal views must be protected from several roadway segments within the City of Newport Beach. This includes the roadway segment of Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway (City of Newport Beach 2017a). Figure 4-1: Site Photographs provides character photos of the existing views toward and from the Project site. Photographs of existing conditions and the corresponding visual simulations of the Chambers Group, Inc. 13 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California proposed Project are provided in Figure 4-2: Simulations. The key viewpoints that were chosen for these simulations are identified in Figure 4-3, with a total of 6 key viewpoints chosen for the proposed Project. The location and settings of these viewpoints are provided below. Figure 4-2: View Point 1: View of Superior Avenue facing south. This view is from the southern portion of Sunset Ridge Park along an accessible public walking path. West Coast Highway, the Pacific Ocean, residential buildings, and a portion of the existing parking lot east of Superior Avenue can be seen looking south from this view point. The vegetation that borders Sunset Ridge Park is also visible, along with the roadway raised median, streetlight posts, traffic signal, and trees along Superior Avenue. The simulation illustrates views of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge as well as the expanded parking lot for park users facing south. Figure 4-2: View Point 2: View facing east on West Coast Highway. This view is from the western side of West Coast Highway, west of Superior Avenue, and toward the southern portion of Sunset Ridge Park. This view is located along the sidewalk facing east along West Coast Highway. West Coast Highway, the sloped area of Sunset Ridge Park, the existing parking lot at the corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, a bus stop, streetlight posts, and the traffic signal can be seen from this view point. The simulation illustrates views of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge, retaining walls and staircase from pedestrians, motorists, and the residents facing east along West Coast Highway. The expanded parking lot will require the removal of the large mound of dirt on the undeveloped lot east of Superior Avenue. This mound of dirt is excess fill material from a previous project. Figure 4-2: View Point 3: View of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue facing north. This view is of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, facing north and is adjacent to the western corner of Balboa Boulevard and West Coast Highway. The residential buildings north of Sunset Ridge Park (Newport Crest) and the existing parking lot at the corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue can be viewed from this area, in addition to the landscaping, roadway raised median, streetlight posts, and traffic signal. The simulation illustrates views of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge, retaining wall and staircase from pedestrians and motorists facing north towards Superior Avenue, and for pedestrians and motorists heading north along Balboa Boulevard towards West Coast Highway. From this vantage point, views of Newport Crest residential buildings north of Sunset Ridge Park are partially blocked by the bridge. However, Sunset Ridge Park is still visible from this view point. Figure 4-2: View Point 4: View facing northwest along West Coast Highway. This view is along West Coast Highway, facing northwest towards Sunset Ridge Park. The intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue can be seen from this point. Sunset Ridge Park, the existing parking lot and landscaping can be viewed from this vantage point along with the roadway raised median, streetlight posts, and traffic signal. The simulation illustrates a view of the eastern section of the proposed pedestrian bridge, along with the proposed retaining walls, staircase and landscaping from pedestrians walking along the sidewalks of West Coast Highway. Figure 4-2: View Point 5: View facing south on the northbound lane of Superior Avenue uphill from the proposed bridge. This view is along Superior Avenue facing south and downhill towards the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. Sunset Ridge Park, the Pacific Ocean, Chambers Group, Inc. 14 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California residential buildings along West Coast Highway, the roadway raised median and concrete barrier, streetlight posts, landscaping, and the entrance to the existing parking lot can be viewed from this vantage point. The simulation illustrates views of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge and expanded parking lot from pedestrians using the sidewalks walking towards West Coast Highway from Superior Avenue. The pedestrian bridge and proposed landscaping do not block the views of the Pacific Ocean or West Coast Highway. Figure 4-2: View Point 6: View facing south on the southbound lane of Superior Avenue uphill from the proposed bridge. This view is along Superior Avenue facing south and downhill towards the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. The Pacific Ocean, roadway raised median and concrete barrier, and a portion of the existing parking lot and Sunset Ridge Park can be viewed from this point. The residential buildings along West Coast Highway can also be seen from this vantage point. The simulation illustrates the view from pedestrians and motorists traveling south along Superior Avenue. Pedestrians and motorists will have a clear visual of the pedestrian bridge, as well as the expanded parking lot. The construction of the bridge would not block views of the Pacific Ocean. Because of the bridge's design, it would provide partial views of the residential buildings along West Coast Highway. The presence of the bridge would result in a change to the views surrounding the Project vicinity, however, the introduction of the bridge is largely compatible with the viewshed which already includes views of the built environment with roads, parking areas, buildings, and recreational facilities. As shown in the simulations, the proposed bridge and parking lot would be visible within public views, but would not obstruct views of the ocean. The proposed construction activities will require significant earthwork, including grading the sloped vacant lot, which will alter the public viewpoints of the northern perimeter of the proposed parking lot through the removal of a large mound of dirt. The alterations to this view could remove an existing obstruction and provide more open views of the coast. While the proposed Project will not affect a scenic vista as there are no designated scenic vistas in the City, coastal views are considered significant vistas. As provided in the table below, the proposed Project would be consistent with policies regarding scenic and visual resources. Table 4-1: General Plan and Costal Land Use Policy Consistency: Aesthetics General Plan NR 20.1: Enhancement of Significant Resources Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Consistent. The proposed Project would not result in the significant obstruction of scenic and visual resources. The proposed Project would provide pedestrians and bicyclists a safe access to coastal views along Superior Avenue. The proposed Project would also remove the existing mound of excess fill material located on the eastern section of the proposed Project which would improve coastal views within that area. 15 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Plan 4.4.1-6 Protect and enhance public views from the following roadway segments, and other locations may be identified in the future. • Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway General Plan NR 20.4: Public View Corridor Landscaping/Coastal Land Use Plan 4.4.1-2 and 4.4.1-7 Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. General Plan NR 20.5: Public View Corridor Amenities/ Coastal Land Use Plan 4.4.1-10 Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible. Coastal Land Use Plan: Coastal Resource Protection 4.4.1-1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Coastal Land Use Plan: Coastal Resource Protection. 4.4.1-4: Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas. Coastal Land Use Plan: Coastal Resource Protection 4.4.1-9: Design and maintain parkway and median landscape improvements in public rights-of-way so as not to block public coastal views at maturity. Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Consistent. The proposed Project would not result in the significant obstruction of public views along the Superior Avenue roadway segment from Hospital Road to (West) Coast Highway. The potential shade structure will be 10 to 15 feet in height and will be designed to protect public coastal views. The proposed pedestrian bridge would provide additional access to coastal views. As shown in the key viewpoints, the bridge does not obstruct views of the ocean for existing scenic viewpoints due to its height and location. Consistent. The proposed Project was sited and designed to minimize impacts to public views, and will include drought -tolerant landscaping in the parking lot, which will maintain the existing aesthetic character of the area. Consistent. The proposed Project would be consistent because of the addition of a pedestrian bridge which would provide additional viewing areas for coastal views and access to locations designed to contain viewing areas. The removal of the dirt mound on the eastern portion of the proposed Project would improve public views. Consistent. The proposed Project has been designed such that views of the Pacific Ocean and from Coastal View Points and roads will not be impacted. The proposed Project will provide additional viewing areas for coastal views. The proposed Project would not impact harbor or coastal bluffs as none are in the area. Consistent. The proposed Project would include the addition of a pedestrian bridge which would provide additional viewing areas for coastal views and access to locations designed to contain viewing areas. The potential shade structure will be 10 to 15 feet in height and will be designed to protect public coastal views. The removal of the dirt mound on the eastern portion of the proposed Project would improve public views. Consistent. The proposed Project provides additional viewing areas for coastal views and access to locations designed to contain viewing areas. The bridge would provide access to unobstructed views of the coastal 16 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Coastal Land Use Plan: Coastal Resource Protection 4.4.2-1: Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4-3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan, except for the following sites: Marina Park at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard, and the Former City Hall Complex at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 3211 Street. areas. The landscaping will be maintained to not coastal views. Consistent. The Steel Truss bridge will be 16 feet tall with a superstructure 17-25 feet above asphalt surface; the Concrete Cast -In -Place bridge will be 8 feet tall with a superstructure 17-25 feet above asphalt surface. Per the requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan, and the Newport Beach Municipal Code 21.30.060.D.16, it allows structures owned, operated, or occupied by the City to exceed the height limit subject to the approval of a coastal development permit where the increase in height is necessary to accommodate design features required for a facility or structure to function. The installation of the pedestrian bridge must be built and designed to allow vehicles to access Superior Highway and West Coast Highway while providing a safe access route for pedestrians between the proposed dog park and parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park. The installation of the bridge would provide additional unobstructed views of the coast; and the bridge would be unlikely to cause obstructed views from any of the existing scenic viewpoints because of its height and location. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. Pacific Coast Highway is listed as an eligible scenic highway — not officially designated, according to the Department of Transportation California Scenic Highway Mapping System (DOT 2019). The proposed Project would not include the removal of, or damage of, any rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Although the proposed Project would involve removal of trees located adjacent to the existing parking lot, these trees are ornamental and new trees will be installed within the larger proposed parking lot. The proposed Project will result in a visual impact to the area with the construction of the bridge, and grading of the vacant areas. However, the bridge will span over Superior Avenue, providing pedestrians a safe access across Superior Avenue and will allow pedestrians to view the coastal areas from a new vantage point. The potential shade structure will be 10 to 15 feet in height and will be designed to protect public coastal views. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is in an urbanized area. The proposed Project will result in an impact to the existing visual character of the area because of the construction of the Chambers Group, Inc. 17 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California pedestrian bridge, and grading of the vacant land across the eastern end of Superior Avenue. The proposed Project will impact the public viewpoints located at the northern perimeter of the proposed parking lot; however, with the removal of the large mound of dirt, it is possible that views from that area and the sidewalk along Superior Avenue would be improved. The proposed Project would not include the construction of buildings that would permanently obstruct the views of the coastal area. The pedestrian bridge would be consistent with the existing built environment and would provide additional and unobstructed views of the coastal areas from a new vantage point. The potential shade structure will be 10 to 15 feet in height and will be designed to protect public coastal views. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. Existing light sources within the proposed Project site consist of intersection traffic signals, streetlights, and lights from nearby commercial businesses. Construction of the proposed Project would include the presence of construction vehicles and equipment that could introduce new, and temporary sources of light that could impact views for motorists driving along Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway or for pedestrians walking in Sunset Ridge Park, Sunset View Park, or along Superior Avenue. Once operational, the proposed Project could include new permanent lighting on the bridge, at the parking lot, and dog park security lighting. Security lighting at the park and parking lot, as well as bridge lighting, would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. The structure of the bridge may be a source of glare depending on the design, material, and color. The proposed construction activities would occur predominantly during daytime work hours (7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.); however, occasional nighttime work could be required to minimize public inconvenience. It is anticipated that Superior Avenue could potentially be closed at night to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge's superstructure., depending on the bridge design chosen. The proposed Project would comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 21.30.070 and 20.30.070 Outdoor Lighting standards for parking lots and other manmade objects to reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass, over lighting, sky glow, and poorly shielded or inappropriately direct lighting fixtures. Compliance with these standards would also promote safety and encourage energy conservation (City of Newport Beach 2019a). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Chambers Group, Inc. 18 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4-1: Site Ph Superior Avenue facing south towards the coast Channel and area to be graded facing north along Superior Avenue East of Superior Lot — Proposed Project site facing West Coast Highway Chambers Group, Inc. 19 21169 ('1 fes' Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 20 21169 :o %t 7. U C 0 v a C3 00 N u Q. O O I N E to 1 t � U N U v �o CL CL O rn N U C 0 m Q o v E , t � U N IIfI s II 9 It '. I -1 0' Ir i Yli' 16e �' j N m Q 0 L LD v E t � u N _z X W W z g 0 z O co 2 �NN �.L O z w H z O 2 F- D O V) 0 z_ U a LL W D z W Q w O w W d N li F - _z O Ia. W_ W L cc u z 0 u z O g D N W z z D O m O z W z O O N z u Q LL LU Z) z w Q O crw a N N H z O a 5. w_ v c Z3 V) Ln D J W W H N Z O g 5 N W Z Z O m CL' O z W F - Z O H O Q Z U a LJ.. W D Z W cra O cc W a V) 0 a 3 W Ln M (DI z X LU w z D z D O m H O Ln LU 2 H z O H O Ln C7 z U Q LU D z LU Q O w LU m D N l� H z O M w E W F- LU w U z 0 U z O H D 2 LU z g 0 z D 0 m D O V) w F - z 0 O 01 (D z u a w D z w a 0 w W �Z 0 a 00 m U C m U C 0— (U (U -0 0) m � t � U N Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES 4.2.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact. The proposed Project site is located in an area designated as Urban and Built -Up Land according to the Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder Map. Sunset Ridge Park is designated both as Other Land and Urban and Built -Up Land (DOC 2016). The proposed Chambers Group, Inc. 40 21169 AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES. (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and Less than farmland.) In determining whether impacts to potentially Significant Less Than 2' forest resources, including timberland, are Significant With Significant No significant environmental effects, lead agencies Impact Mitigation Impact Impact may refer to information compiled by the California Incorporated Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) Would the project: (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public ❑ ❑ ❑ Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non -forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use? 4.2.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact. The proposed Project site is located in an area designated as Urban and Built -Up Land according to the Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder Map. Sunset Ridge Park is designated both as Other Land and Urban and Built -Up Land (DOC 2016). The proposed Chambers Group, Inc. 40 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Project will not involve the conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses because no such lands are located in the proposed Project area. No impact would occur. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within an area zoned for agricultural use. Lands that are part of the Williamson Act are lands that would discourage conversion of farmland to urban uses. The proposed Project is not located within parcels under the Williamson Act (DOC 2004). No impact will occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located in an area consisting of forested land. As stated in Section 4.2.1 Impact (a), the proposed Project site, and surrounding areas, are designated as Urban and Built -Up Land, and Other Land. There would be no activities that would rezone or remove forested lands and timberlands. No impact would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? No Impact. See previous response in Section 4.2.1 Impact (c). No impact would occur. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non forest use? No Impact. See previous response in Section 4.2.1 Impact (a) and (c). The proposed Project site is not located on lands designated for agricultural or forest uses. No impact will occur. 4.3 AIR QUALITY Chambers Group, Inc. 41 21169 AIR QUALITY. Less than (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality potentially Significant Less Than No 3 management or air pollution control district may be Significant With Significant Impact relied upon to make the following determinations.) Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporated (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? Chambers Group, Inc. 41 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ people? 4.3.1 Introduction This section describes the existing air quality setting and potential effects from Project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Construction air quality modeling was performed through use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2016.3.2. The model output is provided in Appendix A. 4.3.2 Environmental Setting The proposed Project site is located in the City of Newport Beach that is within the County of Orange. The proposed Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), and air quality regulation is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD implements the programs and regulations required by the federal and state Clean Air Acts. Atmospheric Setting Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographical features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with physical features of the landscape to determine their movement and dispersal, and consequently, their effect on air quality. The combination of topography and inversion layers generally prevents dispersion of air pollutants in the Air Basin. The climate of the Air Basin lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, which results in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes. Although the Air Basin has a semiarid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry air is brought into the basin by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as "high fog" are a characteristic climate feature. Average temperatures for Newport Beach Harbor', range from an average low of 47 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to an average high of 73 °F in August. Rainfall averages approximately 11 inches a year with almost all annual rainfall coming from the fringes of mid -latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry. Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because they determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a source. Daytime winds in the Air Basin are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean. These winds are usually the strongest in the dry summer months. Nighttime winds in the Air Basin result mainly from the drainage of cool air off the mountains to the east, and they occur more often during the winter months and are usually lighter than the daytime winds. Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and ' Data from https.11wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/CIiMA/N.p/?co6175 Accessed July, 2019. Chambers Group, Inc. 42 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems north of the Air Basin, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong winds from the northeast called "Santa Ana Winds." These winds normally have durations of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The highest wind speed typically occurs during the afternoon due to daytime thermal convection caused by surface heating. This convection brings about a downward transfer of momentum from stronger winds aloft. It is not uncommon to have sustained winds of 60 miles per hour with higher gusts during a Santa Ana Wind. Regulatory Setting The proposed Project site lies within the Air Basin, which is managed by the SCAQMD. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM1o), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead. The CAAQS also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility. Areas are classified under the Federal Clean Air Act as either "attainment" or "nonattainment" areas for each criteria pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. Attainment relative to the state standards is determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Air Basin has been designated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a nonattainment area for 03 and PM2.5. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the NAAQS for CO, SO2, NO2, and PM10• The Air Basin is designated as partial nonattainment for lead for the Los Angeles County portion of the Air Basin and is based on two source specific monitors in Vernon and in the City of Industry that are both near battery recycling facilities. The Orange County portion of the Air Basin is in attainment with the NAAQS for lead. The EPA has designated Air Basin as extreme nonattainment for the 8 -hour average ozone standard. In 2015, the EPA strengthened its 8 -hour "primary" and "secondary" ozone standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm). The previous standard, set in 2008, was 0.075 ppm. The SCAQMD, the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Air Basin, adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in March 2016 that provides measures to reduce 8 -hour ozone levels to below the federal standard by 2037. Additionally, the EPA has designated the Air Basin as nonattainment for PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometers). In 1997, the EPA established standards for PM2.5, which were not implemented until March 2002. The 1997 PM2.5 standard of 15 pg/m3 was attained on August 24, 2016. However, on December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15 µg/m3 to 12 µg/m3. The 2012 AQMP provides measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions to within the federal standard by December 31, 2025. PM2.5 is a subset of the PM10 emissions whose standards were developed to complement the PM10 standards that cover a full range of inhalable particle matter. For the PM10 health standards, the annual PM10 standard was revoked by the EPA on October 17, 2006; and the 24-hour average PM10 attainment status was for the Air Basin was redesignated to attainment (maintenance) on July 26, 2013. Chambers Group, Inc. 43 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California The Air Basin has been designated by CARB as a nonattainment area for ozone, NO2, PM1o, and PM2.5- Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the state ambient air quality standards for CO, S02, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility -reducing particles and hydrogen sulfide. The adopted AQMPs provide measures to meet the state standards for ozone, NO2, PM1o, and PM2.5. Table 4-2 presents the designations and classifications applicable to the proposed Project area. Table 4-2: Designations/Classifications for the Project Area 1979 1 -Hour Nonattainment (Extreme) 1 -Hour Ozone (03)3 (0.12 ppm) 2/6/2023 1997 8 -Hour Nonattainment (Extreme) 8 -Hour Ozone (03)4 (0.08 ppm) 6/15/2024 Nonattainment 2008 8 -Hour Nonattainment (Extreme) 8 -Hour Ozone (03) (0.075 ppm) 7/20/2032 2015 8 -Hour Nonattainment (Extreme) 8 -Hour Ozone (03) (0.070 ppm) 8/3/2038 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 -Hour (35 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) Maintenance 8 -Hour (9 ppm) 6/11/2007 (attained) 1 -Hour Unclassifiable/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)' (100 ppb) Attained Attainment Annual Attainment (Maintenance) (0.053 ppm) 9/22/1998 1 -Hour (75 ppb) Designation Pending/ Pending 24 -Hour (0.14 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)6 Attainment Annual (0.03 ppm) 3/19/1979 (attained) Particulate Matter (PM1o) 24 -Hour Attainment (Maintenance) Nonattainment (150 µg/m3) 7/26/2013 24 -Hour Nonattainment (Serious) (35ltg/m3) 12/31/2019 1997 Annual Attainment Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (15.0 µg/m) 8/24/2016 Annual Nonattainment (12.0 pg/m3) 12/31/2025 Lead (Pb) 3 -Months Rolling Nonattainment (Partial)' Nonattainment (0.15 µg/m3) 12/31/2015 1 Obtained from http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-pians/naaqs-caags- feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14 2 Obtained from http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 3 1 -hour 03 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard based on 2008- 2010 data has some continuing obligations under the former standard. 4 1997 8 -hour 03 standard (0.08 ppm) was reduced (0.075 ppm) in 2008; the 1997 03 standard and most related implementation rules remain in place until the 1997 standard is revoked by U.S. EPA. 5 New NO2 1 -hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard retained. 6 The 1971 annual and 24-hour S02 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1 -hour standard. Area designations are expected in 2012, with Basin designated Unclassifiable/Attainment Partial Nonattainment designation — Los Angeles County portion of Basin only. Expect redesignation to attainment based on current monitoring data. Chambers Group, Inc. 44 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Monitored Air Qualit The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates of the existing emissions in the Air Basin provided in the Final 2016 AQMP, March 2017, indicate that, collectively, mobile sources account for 33 percent of the volatile organic compounds (VOC), 88 percent of the nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, and 35 percent of directly emitted PM2.5, with another 10 percent of PM2.5 from road dust. However, the mobile source regulations currently in place are anticipated to reduce the share of emissions currently produced by mobile sources and by 2031 mobile source emissions are anticipated to create 14 percent of VOC emissions, 30 percent of NOx emissions and 23 percent of PM2.5 emissions with another 14 percent of PM2.5 from road dust. The SCAQMD has divided the Air Basin into 38 air monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The proposed Project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 18, which covers the coastal portion of Orange County, from Seal Beach to Newport Beach. Since not all air monitoring stations measure all of the tracked pollutants, the data from the following two monitoring stations, listed in the order of proximity to the project site have been used: Costa Mesa — Mesa Verde Monitoring Station (Costa Mesa Station) and Anaheim — Pampas Lane Monitoring Station (Anaheim Station). The Costa Mesa Station is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the proposed Project site at 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East, Costa Mesa and the Anaheim Mesa Station is located approximately 14 miles north of the proposed Project site at 1630 W Pampas Lane, Anaheim. Since historical concentrations of carbon monoxide were found to be well below state and federal limits throughout the Air Basin, SCAQMD discontinued monitoring of carbon monoxide levels on March 31, 2013. It should be noted that due to the air monitoring stations distances from the Proposed Project site, recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring stations reflect with varying degrees of accuracy local air quality conditions at the Proposed Project site. Table 4-3 below presents the composite of gaseous pollutants monitored from 2015 through 2017. Chambers Group, Inc. 45 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project ("*� Newport Beach, California Table 4-3: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Sum neem /n.11 Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.099 0.090 0.088 Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 1 0 0 Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.079 0.069 0.080 Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm)3 2 0 4 Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm)3 2 0 5 Na+r..R ni—M. /IUn'11 Max 1 Hour (ppb) 52.4 59.8 45.3 Days > NAAQS (100 ppb) 0 0 0 Days > CAAQS (180 ppb) 0 0 0 Dnrtiridnta Matter IpM,.12 Max Daily California Measurement 59.0 74.0 95.7 Days > NAAQS (150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Days > CAAQS (50 pg/m3) 2 3 5 State Average (20 µg/m3) 25.3 28.0 26.9 Do tirnh+a Mottar IDINA, X12 Max Daily National Measurement 45.8 44.4 53.9 Days > NAAQS (35 µg/m3) 3 1 7 National Average (12 µg/m3) ND ND ND State Average (12 µg/m3) 14.7 9.4 ND Abbreviations: >= exceed ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality ND = Insufficient or No Data Bold = exceedance ' Measurement taken from Costa Mesa Station a Measurement taken from Anaheim Station 3 State and Federal EPA utilize different procedures for measuring ozone, which accounts for the results in different number of days in exceedance. Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ 4.3.3 Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed Project and applicable general plans (GP) and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed Project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed Project with the AQMP. The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed Project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision -makers determine that the proposed Project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 46 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with-the-AQM-P." Strict consistency- with -all -aspects of -the -plan -is usually -not required. A -proposed Project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis (see data in Appendix A), it was determined that short-term construction impacts, and long-term operations impacts would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional, local, and toxic air contaminant thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide consist of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of Newport Beach General Plan define the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The proposed Project consists of construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot, and a fenced dog park. The majority of the proposed Project site is designated as Parks and Recreation (PR) in the General Plan and is zoned Parks and Recreation (PR). It should be noted that the proposed pedestrian bridge would span Superior Avenue, which consists of public right-of-way that does not have a land use designation in the General Plan and is not zoned. The proposed Project is consistent with the current land use designations and would not require a Chambers Group, Inc. 47 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California General Plan Amendment or zone change. In addition, project construction would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, including Rules 402 and 403 that controls the emissions of air contaminants, odors and fugitive dust. Therefore, based on the above, the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the proposed Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the discussion above, the proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. As shown above in Table 4-3, the proposed Project area is designated as a federal and/or state nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.s• To estimate if the proposed Project may adversely affect the air quality in the region, the SCAQMD has prepared CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) to provide guidance to those who analyze the air quality impacts of proposed projects. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 4-4. Table 4-4: Regional Thresholds of Construction 75 100 550 150 1 150 1 55 1 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 1 150 1 55 1 3 Source: SCAQMD, http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds pdf. sfvrsn=2 Project -related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project -related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5. The LST Methodology provides Look -Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. The proposed Project would disturb approximately 3.4 acres. Since the Look -Up Tables provide (1 -acre, 2 -acre, and 5 -acre project sizes), the 2 -acre project site was utilized, since it provides a more conservative analysis than the 5 - acre project site. As detailed above, the proposed Project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 18, which covers north coastal Orange County. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are Chambers Group, Inc. 48 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California multi -family homes located as near as 165 feet (50 meters) to the south and 220 feet (67 meters) to the northeast and single-family homes located as near as 300 feet (91 meters) to the southwest of the proposed area to be disturbed as part of the proposed Project. As such, the 50 -meter threshold from the Look -Up Tables was utilized to calculate the local thresholds. Table 4-5 below shows the LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities. 1 The nearest sensitive receptors are multi -family homes located as near as 65 feet (50 meters) south of the project site. Source: SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -Up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 18 found at: http://www.agmd.goy/docs/default- source/cepa/handbook/localized-significance-threshold s/appendix-c-mass-rate-Ist- look- up -tables pdf?sfvrsn=2 Construction Emissions Construction of the proposed Project would create air emissions primarily from equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. The air emissions from the proposed Project were analyzed through use of the CaIEEMod model (see Appendix A). Construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to begin in early 2021 and would be completed in 14 to 18 months. The first phase of construction would consist of demolition of the existing parking lot that has been estimated to require the export of up to 1,000 tons of paving debris from the proposed Project site. The second phase would be grading of the proposed Project site that would require the export of up to 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from the proposed Project site. Both the demolition and grading phase haul truck trips in the CaIEEMod model were extended to 50 miles to provide a conservative analysis. Bridge construction would occur after the completion of grading, which may occur concurrently with paving, painting, and landscaping activities for the proposed Project. Table 4-6 shows the estimated worst-case summer or winter daily emissions that would be predicted from each phase of the proposed Project, which is based on the construction equipment provided by the applicant of what is anticipated to be used during construction activities. Appendix A contains the emissions results for both seasons and Table 4-6, below, uses the worst-case emissions from either season. Table 4-6: Construction -Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Activity Demolition of Existing Parking Lot Pollutant Emissions in pounds/day ROG 3.33 NO.• 34.59 22.95 S02 PM10 0.05 2.46 1.64 Grading (Excavation) 3.83 66.66 30.42 0.17 7.85 3.76 Combined Bridge Construction, Paving, Painting and Landscaping 4.86 31.59 35.16 0.07 2.47 1.74 - Bridge Construction 2.08 18.93 18.12 0.04 1.49 1.05 - Paving 1.37 9.56 12.76 0.02 0.72 0.51 - Painting and Landscaping 1.41 3.10 4.28 0.01 0.26 0.18 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Chambers Group, Inc. 49 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. As shown in Table 4-6, short-term emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term, limited only to the period when construction activity is taking place. As such, construction -related regional emissions would be less than significant for the proposed Project. The proposed Project's construction -related air emissions from fugitive dust and onsite diesel emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Project's improvements are multi -family homes located as near as 165 feet to the south of the proposed Project site. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD's Mass Rate LST Look -up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD, revised July 2008. In order to determine if any of the analyzed pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the LST Look -Up Tables. Table 4-7 shows the onsite emissions from the CaIEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table 4-7: Construction -Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Demolition of Existing Parking Lot 31.44 21.57 2.03 1.51 Grading (Excavation) 27.76 17.93 4.23 2.67 Combined Bridge Construction, Paving, Painting and Landscaping 30.03 32.82 1.62 1.51 - Bridge Construction 17.43 16.58 0.96 0.90 - Paving 9.52 12.19 0.49 0.45 - Painting and Landscaping 3.08 4.05 0.17 0.16 SCAQMD Thresholds for 50 meters' 128 1,089 1 21 7 Exceed Thresholds? No No I No No ' The nearest sensitive receptors are multi -family homes located as near as 165 feet (50 meters) south of the project site. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 and SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -Up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 18. The data provided in Table 4-7 shows that construction -related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's local air concentration thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short- term, limited only to the period when construction activity is taking place. As such, construction related local air concentrations would be less than significant for the proposed Project. Operational Emissions The proposed Project consists of development of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot, and a fenced dog park. The proposed Project would Chambers Group, Inc. 50 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California generate air emissions from vehicular emissions, area sources, and energy usage. The air emissions associated with the proposed Project have been calculated through use of the CaIEEMod model and are based on the year 2022, which is the anticipated opening year of the proposed Project. The proposed pedestrian bridge and parking lot are not anticipated to create any additional vehicle trips; however the proposed dog park may generate additional vehicle trips. The default vehicle trips for a City Park were used in the CalEEMod model for the proposed dog park (up to 0.3 acre in size) in order to provide a worst-case scenario. Table 4-8 shows the estimated worst-case daily emissions from operation of the proposed Project. Table 4-8:Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Area Sources' 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile Sources' 0.01 0.05 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.02 Total Project Emissions 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.02 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No Notes: ' Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. z Energy usage consists of emissions from natural gas usage (no natural gas appliances are anticipated to be installed as part of the Proposed Project). 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. As shown in Table 4-8, operations -related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. As such, operations -related regional emissions would be less than significant for the proposed Project. The proposed Project's operations -related on-site air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are multi -family homes located as near as 165 feet (50 meters) to the south. The local air quality emissions from operations were analyzed in the same manner detailed above for construction emissions. Table 4-9 shows the emissions from the CaIEEMod model and the emissions thresholds from the Look -Up Tables. Chambers Group, Inc. 51 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Table 4-9 : Operations -Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Area Sources 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile Sources 0.05 0.16 0.06 0.02 Total Project Emissions 0.05 0.17 0.06 0.02 SCAQMD Threshold for 50 meters (165 feet)' 1 128 1 1,089 1 6 1 2 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Notes: Since the nearest existing sensitive receptors are multi -family homes located as near as 165 feet (50 meters) south of the project site, the 50 meter threshold was utilized. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. The data provided in Table 4-9 shows that none of criteria pollutants would exceed the SCAQMD local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. As such, operations -related local emissions would be less than significant for the proposed Project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Project site are multi- family homes located as near as 165 feet to the south and 220 feet to the northeast and single-family homes located as near as 300 feet to the southwest of the proposed area to be disturbed as part of the proposed Project. As discussed above in (b), the local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions have been calculated for construction and operational activities. The analysis above found that less than significant criteria pollutant concentrations would occur during construction and operation of the proposed Project. In addition, to the criteria pollutant emissions impacts analyzed above, construction activities have the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs), which would be created from the operation of diesel -powered equipment in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM). According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from TACs are usually described in terms of "individual cancer risk". "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70 -year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk -assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of theirfleet's usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and Chambers Group, Inc. 52 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by January 2023, no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?) Less than Significant Impact. Any diesel equipment used during construction of the proposed Project would consist of mobile equipment that would be changing locations, allowing the odors to disperse rapidly and not impact any nearby receptors. Should diesel equipment be required during maintenance at the proposed Project site, it would also change locations, allowing the odors to disperse rapidly and not impact any nearby receptors. Construction and operation of the proposed dog park could result in accumulation of pet waste; however, a regular maintenance schedule will ensure proper handling and removal of pet waste such that objectionable odors will not be allowed to accumulate. Similarly, as part of the dog park design, waste receptacles and bags will be provided for owners' use in maintaining the dog park. Use of bags to contain pet waste limit odors from penetrating beyond the boundaries of the dog park. Further, waste receptacles will be sited to avoid locations closest to residences, while maintaining convenient locations for dog park users. In addition, the proposed dog park would include natural turf, that would be watered daily, and the regular watering and the organic processes of the turf would quickly break down any waste remnants including urine that would limit any remaining odors from penetrating the boundaries of the dog park. The Project site would not introduce any other objectionable odors. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact p (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status ❑ ® ❑ El in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Chambers Group, Inc. 53 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Detailed analysis related to Biological Resources is presented in Appendix B, including the Project's Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix B-1) and Jurisdictional Delineation Report (Appendix B-2). Survey Methods A field general reconnaissance survey was conducted on foot within the survey area, to identify vegetation communities present and the potential for occurrence of sensitive plant and wildlife species. The proposed Project site was also assessed for the presence of wetlands, riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, and drainage features. During the survey, the biologists identified and mapped all vegetation communities found within the survey area onto aerial photographs and documented all plant and wildlife species observed. Plant communities were determined in accordance with the categories set forth in Sawyer et al. (2009), Holland (1986), or Gray and Bramlet (1992). Plant nomenclature follows The Jepson Manual: Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). Photographs were taken of the survey area to document current site conditions (Appendix B of the Biological Resources Technical Report). Lists of plant and wildlife species observed on site were noted during the survey and are presented in Appendix C of the Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix B-1 of this Initial Study). Additionally, focused surveys were conducted within habitat that was determined to be suitable for California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) in 2019. Survey methodology followed current CAGN survey protocol (USFWS 1997) and the conditions of the permitted biologists' species recovery permits. A total of three breeding season CAGN surveys were conducted by USFWS-permitted biologists Heather Franklin on August 13, 21, and 29, 2019. Each survey was conducted during favorable weather Chambers Group, Inc. 54 21169 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than No 4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Significant With Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through ❑ ❑ ❑ direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ ❑ ® ❑ corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ® ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Detailed analysis related to Biological Resources is presented in Appendix B, including the Project's Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix B-1) and Jurisdictional Delineation Report (Appendix B-2). Survey Methods A field general reconnaissance survey was conducted on foot within the survey area, to identify vegetation communities present and the potential for occurrence of sensitive plant and wildlife species. The proposed Project site was also assessed for the presence of wetlands, riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, and drainage features. During the survey, the biologists identified and mapped all vegetation communities found within the survey area onto aerial photographs and documented all plant and wildlife species observed. Plant communities were determined in accordance with the categories set forth in Sawyer et al. (2009), Holland (1986), or Gray and Bramlet (1992). Plant nomenclature follows The Jepson Manual: Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). Photographs were taken of the survey area to document current site conditions (Appendix B of the Biological Resources Technical Report). Lists of plant and wildlife species observed on site were noted during the survey and are presented in Appendix C of the Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix B-1 of this Initial Study). Additionally, focused surveys were conducted within habitat that was determined to be suitable for California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) in 2019. Survey methodology followed current CAGN survey protocol (USFWS 1997) and the conditions of the permitted biologists' species recovery permits. A total of three breeding season CAGN surveys were conducted by USFWS-permitted biologists Heather Franklin on August 13, 21, and 29, 2019. Each survey was conducted during favorable weather Chambers Group, Inc. 54 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California conditions to maximize detection probability. Survey periods generally occurred between 0600 and 1200 hours. All surveys were conducted on foot by looking and listening for the target species in suitable habitat within the Survey Area for CAGN. Observations of the songs, scolds, whisper calls, flight patterns, behaviors, and plumage characteristics were used in conjunction to ascertain presence/absence of CAGN. The biologists conducted the surveys from optimal stationary locations to see and hear the target species without harming any other wildlife species in the area. Finally, Chambers Group conducted a field survey delineation for the Project to determine the identification and mapping of wetlands within and immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site that may be subject to potential California Coastal Commission (Commission) jurisdiction. An initial survey and jurisdictional delineation of the proposed Project site and adjacent areas including the off- site slope of the north side of Superior Avenue (survey area) were conducted by Chambers Group biologists Jim Harrison and Heather Franklin on August 5, 2019. Additional follow-up delineation work was conducted Mr. Harrison on August 15, 2019. The proposed Project site and the off-site slope along the north side of Superior Avenue were surveyed on foot in order to identify areas exhibiting wetland vegetation, hydric soil indicators, and/or wetland hydrology that might denote potential Commission wetland jurisdiction. Areas of potential wetland jurisdiction were evaluated according to the current Commission criteria and when applicable the boundaries of potential jurisdictional wetlands were recorded. Additional details of the delineation are provided below and within Appendix B-2. Biological Conditions in the Study Area The survey area is located in the City of Newport Beach and ranges from approximately 11 to 75 feet above mean sea level (AMSC) in elevation. The survey area is located along existing paved roads with high vehicular and human activity; therefore, a high level of disturbance exists adjacent to the roads due to the presence of non-native invasive plants. Vegetation within the survey area consists of areas with planted non-native ornamental landscaping, planted native vegetation communities, and disturbed ruderal vegetation with a high percentage of non-native weedy species. Residential homes and commercial businesses are located adjacent to (within 500 feet of) the survey area. Literature Search Prior to performing the biological reconnaissance -level field survey, Chambers Group biologists reviewed existing documentation relevant to the proposed Project site. This literature review consisted of examining the Trust Resource Report generated through USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) for critical habitat on or within the proposed Project vicinity and federally listed species identified as potentially occurring in or near the proposed Project area (USFWS 2019). The most recent records in the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2019) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2019) for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute Newport Beach OE S, Laguna Beach, Tustin, and Seal Beach, California, topographic quadrangles were examined. These records contain reported occurrences of federally and state listed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Special Concern, or otherwise documented sensitive species or habitats that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. All critical habitat units and federally and/or State listed and Chambers Group, Inc. 55 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California special status species occurrences that either overlap the proposed Projector that exist within 5 miles of the study area were mapped. 4.4.2 Impact Analysis (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A biological study was prepared in June 2019 by Chambers Group for the proposed Project. A literature review and biological field reconnaissance - level survey was conducted in the proposed Project site. The survey area includes the entirety of the proposed Project footprint comprised of approximately 3.45 acres (Appendix B-1). Special Status Animal Species Occurrences Based on current conditions of the proposed Project footprint, of the 34 special status wildlife species with known records of occurrences in the survey area identified during the literature search, two regional sensitive wildlife species have a potential to be present within the proposed Project footprint, the coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl. The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally listed threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. Known occurrences of this species are within one mile of the survey area; however, the habitat within and directly surrounding the proposed Project footprint is sparsely vegetated and is composed of open, low lying shrubs providing poor quality nesting habitat for this species. Two adult CAGN individuals were observed foraging in the western edge of the 500 -foot buffer near the western edge of Sunset Park during the surveys conducted on August 13 and 21. No individuals were observed within the 500 -foot buffer during the last survey on August 29. The two individuals were observed utilizing the area within the 500 -foot buffer for foraging, no active nests or nesting behavior was observed within the buffer area. Both individuals would fly over to the southwest portion of the 500 -foot buffer from Newport Banning Ranch area located west of Sunset Ridge Park to forage briefly and then return to the Newport Banning Ranch area for extended lengths. The habitat within the Newport Banning Ranch area consists of moderate to high quality. The suitable habitat that occurs within the 500 -foot buffer consists of moderate to low quality habitat near the western edge of the buffer area and decreases in value to low quality throughout the areas surrounding Sunset Ridge Park (north, south, immediately west and east of the park) and within the proposed Project site. The habitat within the majority of the 500 -foot buffer and the proposed Project site is low quality, consisting primarily of low-lying shrubs with an average height of 1.5 to 2 feet and is sparsely vegetated with patches of bare ground intermixed throughout. The areas surrounding Sunset Park and within the proposed Project site are lacking the higher density vegetation and mature shrubs that is required by this species for nesting. Therefore, it is likely the CAGN are utilizing the western edge of the buffer area for foraging only and nesting in the Newport Banning Ranch area, outside of the 500 -foot buffer. No CAGN were observed flying or foraging closer than 480 feet to the proposed Chambers Group, Inc. 56 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Project site; therefore, no impacts to CAGN are anticipated to occur as a result of proposed Project activities. The burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. This species inhabits dry, open, native or non-native grasslands, deserts, and other arid environments with low -growing and low-density vegetation. It mayoccupygolf courses, cemeteries, road rights -of way, airstrips, abandoned buildings, irrigation ditches, and vacant lots with holes or cracks suitable for use as burrows. Burrowing owls often are found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures. Prey sources for this species include small rodents; arthropods such as spiders, crickets, centipedes, and grasshoppers; smaller birds; amphibians; reptiles; and carrion. Threats to the burrowing owl include loss of nesting burrows, habitat loss, and mortality from motor vehicles. Low quality habitat occurs within the eastern portion of the proposed Project footprint; however, the proposed Project site lacks connectivity to additional suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, this species has a low potential to occur within the proposed Project footprint. Approximately 0.01 acre of Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland will be directly impacted due to proposed Project construction activities. Due to the level of disturbance in the area of the proposed Project and the high level of human activity directly adjacent to the Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland, the sensitive wildlife species with a potential to occur are not expected on the proposed Project footprint; therefore, no Project impacts to the species are expected. Direct and indirect impacts to habitat for sensitive wildlife species or to sensitive wildlife species that may be present within natural communities located adjacent to the proposed Project footprint will be avoided or minimized with the implementation of the minimization measures. The following avoidance/minimization measures (MMs) are proposed in order to mitigate for potential indirect impacts that may occur to natural communities located adjacent to the proposed Project footprint as a result of the proposed construction activities. Implementation of these measures to result in less than significant impacts to the existing habitats. ■ MM BIO -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 Chambers Group, Inc. 57 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California construction is occurring during the nesting season, preserved vegetation shall be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds. MM 13I0-2: Flag or install construction fencing or silt fencing along the proposed Project boundaries to delineate construction limits and to prevent encroachment into adjacent natural communities. The limits of both the Superior and West Coast Highway wetlands will be clearly demarcated in the field and all on-site construction personnel will be informed about the wetland avoidance area prior to the commencement of construction activities. The construction contractor will install a solid protective barrier that is clearly visible to construction personnel, particularly any construction equipment operators, and that prevents any incidental discharge of soil or debris into the jurisdictional wetlands. Furthermore, a biologist will monitor the construction work to ensure that encroachment into the wetlands does not occur. ■ MM 1310-3: Gravel bags should be placed along the tops of the v -ditches in order to minimize erosion and to prevent construction debris and potentially hazardous materials from entering the waterway during a rain event. The proposed Project will not result in significant impacts to sensitive animal species because of their low potential to occur within the proposed Project site. Implementation of the listed mitigation measures will result in less than significant impacts to sensitive wildlife species and habitats within the proposed Project site. Special Status Plant Species No sensitive plant species (defined as federally and state listed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Special Concern, or otherwise documented sensitive species or habitats) were found during the survey. Therefore, of the 32 special status plant species with records of occurrences within the vicinity of the survey area identified during the literature search, there are no regional sensitive plant species that have a potential to be present within the survey area. There are no Project impacts anticipated to special status plant species due to proposed Project construction activities. Indirect impacts to habitat for sensitive plant species or to sensitive plant species that may be present within natural communities located adjacent to the proposed Project footprint will be avoided. As no sensitive plant species have a potential to grow in the proposed Project footprint, impacts to sensitive plant species are not anticipated and therefore, minimization measures are not necessary. The Project site contains 0.01 acre of planted Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance (Coastal Sage Scrub; CSS). The Restored Coastal Sage Scrub was planted as part of a habitat restoration project in Sunset Ridge Park on the northwest side of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Construction of the project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to this planted vegetation, depending on the bridge design option selected. No matter which bridge design is chosen, permanent impacts would be limited to direct disturbance from load -supporting posts and limited impacts would occur due to shading. Areas that are temporarily impacted during construction will be replanted once construction is complete. These impacts are further described by bridge option below. Chambers Group, Inc. 58 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Steel Truss Bridge Design Option The construction of a proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge extending over Superior Avenue will result in both permanent and temporary impacts to the existing coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation along the slope on the north side of Superior Avenue. The extent of disturbance to the planted CSS vegetation along the slope will be limited to only those areas needed to complete the construction of the proposed bridge. In addition, the subsequent existence of the bridge structure will result in shading of the vegetation areas directly under the bridge and those areas immediately adjacent to the bridge. The duration and position of shading attributed to the bridge will vary both seasonally as well as daily. Permanent impacts to existing CSS vegetation on the slope will occur at the base of the bridge abutment along the slope. The actual footprint of the proposed bridge abutment structure where it would make physical contact with the slope will account for approximately 640 square feet of permanent impacts to the associated CSS vegetation on the slope. In addition, there is expected to be some shading effects that would result in the permanent loss of planted CSS vegetation on the slope directly under the bridge. It is important to note that the existing CSS vegetation, which was planted on the slope as part of the special condition of the Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit, is established albeit sparse, and most plants are not yet fully mature. It is assumed that at least 10 feet of vertical clearance between the bottom of the bridge (having a maximum width of 16 feet) and the surface of the slope is needed to provide sufficient sunlight (either fully or partially exposed light, depending on daily and/or seasonal conditions) to support the CSS vegetation on the slope directly under the bridge. The area of permanent CSS vegetation impacts due to shading would extend down the slope from the edge of the bridge abutment structure to the contour at which the 10 -foot vertical clearance limit, described above, exists. Where the bridge clearance described above is greater than 10 feet, there is expected to be enough sunlight throughout the year (even with the occurrence of some reduced light conditions and partial shading) to support the normal growth of existing CSS vegetation directly under the bridge. Given an approximate slope ratio of 2:1, the potential permanent impacts to vegetation on the slope attributed to shading would be approximately 246 square feet. Therefore, the total cumulative surface area of permanent impacts from both the installation of the actual bridge abutment (i.e., approximately 640 square feet) and shading of the CSS vegetation directly under the bridge (i.e., approximately 246 square feet) is estimated to be approximately 886 square feet (or 0.02 acre). . The temporary impacts to existing vegetation on the slope will consist of construction -related activities associated with the building of the proposed bridge structure. BMPs during construction will be implemented to minimize the disturbance to the maximum extent possible. Following completion of the bridge construction, any crushed native vegetation in the temporary impact areas that does not fully recover will be restored in place with the same plant species composition as existed prior to the project impacts. Further, the City replant and restore habitat to be equivalent to existing conditions, which consists of superior high quality native vegetation with coverage of primarily CSS. It is also recommended that adaptive management of these temporary impact areas (through coordination and consultation with the City and possibly others regarding monitoring, potential weed control, and periodic watering, to name a few) would help increase the likelihood of successfully reestablishing the affected CSS vegetation. Chambers Group, Inc. S9 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Therefore, given the information provided above, it is reasonable to conclude that the Steel Truss Bridge construction activities would result in approximately 886 square feet (or approximately 0.02 acre) of permanent impacts, which would include the area associated with the actual bridge abutment structure and the additional area of shading to CSS vegetation directly under the bridge. Also, areas of temporary impacts to CSS vegetation on the slope due to construction of the Steel Truss Bridge will be defined by the City and will be mitigated as outlined in MM BIO-4following completion of construction activities. Concrete Cast -in -Place Bridge Design Option Permanent impacts to existing CSS vegetation on the slope will occur at the base of the bridge abutment and the mid -span support along the slope. The build -out footprint of this bridge design option is similar to the Steel Truss Bridge option. The actual footprint of the proposed bridge abutment structure and the support column where it would make physical contact with the slope will account for approximately 528 square feet of permanent impacts to the associated CSS vegetation on the slope. In addition, there is expected to be shading effects that would result in the permanent loss of planted CSS vegetation on the slope directly under the bridge. As previously stated, it is assumed that at least 10 feet of vertical clearance between the bottom of the bridge (having a maximum width of 16 feet) and the surface of the slope is needed to provide sufficient sunlight (either fully or partially exposed light, depending on daily and/or seasonal conditions) to support the CSS vegetation on the slope directly under the bridge. The area of permanent CSS vegetation impacts due to shading would extend down the slope from the edge of the bridge abutment structure to the contour at which the 10 -foot vertical clearance limit, described above, exists. Where the bridge clearance described above is greater than 10 feet, there is expected to be enough sunlight throughout the year (even with the occurrence of some reduced light conditions and partial shading) to support the normal growth of existing CSS vegetation directly under the bridge. Given an approximate slope ratio of 2:1, the potential permanent impacts to vegetation on the slope attributed to shading would be approximately 358 square feet. Therefore, the total cumulative surface areas of the permanent impacts from both the installation of the actual bridge abutment (i.e., approximately 528 square feet) and the shading of the CSS vegetation directly under the bridge (i.e., approximately 358 square feet) is estimated to be approximately 886 square feet (or 0.02 acre). The temporary impacts to existing vegetation on the slope will consist of construction -related activities associated with the building of the proposed bridge structure. BMPs during construction will be implemented to minimize the disturbance to the maximum extent possible. Following completion of the bridge construction, any crushed native vegetation in the temporary impact areas that does not fully recover will be restored in place with the same plant species composition as existed prior to the project impacts. Further, the City will replant and restore habitat to be equivalent to existing conditions, which consists of superior high quality native vegetation with coverage of primarily CSS. It is also recommended that adaptive management of these temporary impact areas (through coordination and consultation with the City and possibly others regarding monitoring, potential weed control, and periodic watering, to name a few) would help increase the likelihood of successfully reestablishing the affected CSS vegetation. Therefore, given the information provided above, it is reasonable to conclude that the Concrete Cast - in -Place Bridge construction activities would result in approximately 886 square feet (or Chambers Group, Inc. 60 21169 L L+ Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California approximately 0.02 acre) of permanent impacts, which would include the area associated with the actual bridge abutment structure and the additional area of shading to CSS vegetation directly under the bridge. Also, areas of temporary impacts to CSS vegetation on the slope due to construction of the Concrete Cast -in -Place Bridge will be defined by the City and will be mitigated as outlined in MM BIO -4 following completion of construction activities. Mitigation measures for direct impacts that may occur to sensitive plant species that may be present within the proposed Project footprint are listed below. ■ MM BIO -4: Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland located within the proposed Project footprint should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. o Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland located within the proposed Project footprint, that may be avoided, shall be flagged or construction or silt fencing should be installed along the avoidable vegetation to delineate construction limits and to prevent encroachment into adjacent natural communities. o Any impacts to Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland which cannot be avoided will be mitigated through one of the following, in order of priority: ■ Onsite Mitigation: Any temporary impacts to CSS will be revegetated within the Sunset Ridge planted area, in areas that are not currently vegetated. Specifically, there is an opportunity for revegetation in an area outside of the delineated wetlands that, with approval from the Commission, could provide additive benefits to the Sunset Ridge Park planted area, immediately to the northeast of the Project site. This will provide a continuation of the CSS habitat previously revegetated onsite. The City will replant the area to be equivalent to existing conditions, which consists of superior high quality native vegetation with coverage of primarily CSS. If this area is not approved for revegetation by the Commission, alternative onsite mitigation opportunities will be evaluated. ■ Offsite Mitigation: Additive habitat assessment in the area adjacent to the project site within the replanted CSS would be provided to mitigate impacts from direct disturbance from the bridge structure and potential impacts from shading. The proposed Project will not result in significant impacts to sensitive plant species, as both temporary and permanent impacts will be mitigated as outlined above. Implementation of the listed mitigation measures will result in less than significant impacts to sensitive plant species and habitats within the proposed Project site. Impacts to areas determined by the Coastal Commission to be wetlands are discussed in item (b), below. (b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A small portion of the survey area is within Sunset Ridge Park. The park forms part of a riparian habitat corridor that stretches from Fairview Park in Costa Mesa to Sunset Ridge Park, Banning Ranch, and the Santa Ana River at the West Coast Highway Chambers Group, Inc. 61 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California .. in Newport Beach. This corridor provides habitat forte rrestrial wildlife as well as away to travel within the wildland urban interface. West Coast Highway, however, runs the width of the corridor and will discourage some wildlife from crossing. Wildlife can pass under the West Coast Highway in the Santa Ana River Channel, approximately 2 miles northwest of Sunset Ridge Park. Habitats and Natural Communities of Concern Four sensitive vegetation communities were identified in the literature search as being present within 5 miles of the survey area (CDFW 2019). These four communities include Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Foredunes, Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest. None of these communities occur within the survey area. The Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest is located within 5 miles of the survey area. Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest is of special concern because the community contains habitat requirements for special -status plant and wildlife species and is therefore, considered valuable to the ecosystem. The community is considered sensitive by CDFW due to the due to habitat loss and fragmentation from development and water infrastructure. Based on the list of species with potential to occur within the survey area that was generated in the NESMI, the Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian forest is not located within the survey area. There are no Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Foredunes, Southern Coastal Salt March, or Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest habitats within the survey area. No permanent or temporary impacts to these areas are proposed. Critical habitat has been designated in areas of Newport Beach for the coastal California gnatcatcher (USFWS 2011) and is located within the western portion of the survey area; however, the habitat within the proposed Project site is low quality and provides low quality nesting habitat. As discussed above, protocol surveys were conducted to assess habitat quality and potential use by CAGN. The habitat within the majority of the 500 -foot buffer on those surveys and the proposed Project site is low quality. The areas surrounding Sunset Park and within the proposed Project site are lacking the higher density vegetation and mature shrubs that is required by CAGN for nesting. Therefore, it is likely the CAGN are utilizing the western edge of the buffer area, for foraging only and nesting in the Newport Banning Ranch area, outside of the 500 -foot buffer. No CAGN were observed flying or foraging closer than 480 feet to the proposed Project site; therefore, no impacts to CAGN are anticipated to occur as a result of proposed Project activities. Coastal Land Use Plan 4.1.1-1 requires that the City define any area in which plant or animal life, or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). Utilizing the site-specific survey and analyses conducted for the project, the following attributes were evaluated the following attributes when to determining whether a habitat area meets the definition of an ESHA: A. The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by CDFW: As discussed above, none of the 4 habitats as identified as rare by CDFW that were found to be in the proximity of the Project site. Chambers Group, Inc. 62 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California B. The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law: Through the implementation of protocol surveys, it was determined that the presence of CAGN is unlikely within the project site. Over the course of the protocol surveys, CAGN were observed, however these observations indicated only foraging behavior within the outermost portion of the 500 -foot buffer applied to the limits of disturbance for the Project, adjacentto Newport Banning Ranch and on the otherside of Sunset Ridge Park, where habitat quality is considered to be high. Because Sunset Ridge Park is located between the Project site and the areas occupied by CAGN, the potential for presence of the species is considered to be low. No other threatened or endangered species have the potential to be present within the Project site. C. The presence or potential presence of plant or animal species that are not listed under State or Federal law, but for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity, such as designation as a 1B or 2 species by the California Native Plant Society: As indicated in Appendix B-1, there are no other species likely to be present within the Project vicinity that may be considered rare. D. The presence of coastal streams. There are no coastal streams present within the Project site. E. The degree of habitat integrity and connectivity to other natural areas. Because the project site is made up primarily of developed or previously disturbed areas, the degree of habitat integrity and connectivity to other natural areas is low. For these reasons and consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan, the Project site is not considered to contain ESHA. Implementation of the listed minimization and avoidance measures in Section 4.4.1 (a) would result in less than significant impacts to the existing habitats and other natural communities within the proposed Project site. Table 4-10: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Communities and Habitats Policv .T General Plan NR 10.3 Analysis of Environmental Studv Consistent. Several site specific surveys and analyses Areas were prepared and are presented within this section Require asite-specific survey and analysis prepared by of the IS and Appendix B. a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as ESAs. Chambers Group, Inc. 63 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Coastal Land Use Plan 4.1.1-1 Define any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). Using a site-specific survey and analysis by a qualified biologist, evaluate the following attributes when determining whether a habitat area meets the definition of an ESHA: A. The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by the California Department of Fish and Game. B. The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law. C. The presence or potential presence of plant or animal species that are not listed under State or Federal law, but for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity, such as designation as a 1B or 2 species by the California Native Plant Society. D. The presence of coastal streams. E. The degree of habitat integrity and connectivity to other natural areas. Attributes to be evaluated when determining a habitat's integrity/connectivity include the habitat's patch size and connectivity, dominance by invasive/non-native species, the level of disturbance, the proximity to development, and the level of fragmentation and isolation. Existing developed areas and existing fuel modification areas required by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department or the Orange County Fire Authority for existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA. Coastal Land Use Plan 4.1.1-2 Require a site-specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for coastal development permit applications where development would occur within or adjacent to areas identified as a potential ESHA. Identify ESHA as habitats or natural communities listed in Section 4.1.1 that possess any of the attributes listed in Policy 4.1.1-1. Consistent. As discussed above, an evaluation was conducted based on site-specific surveys and analyses which determined that the Project site does not contain ESHA. Consistent. Several site-specific surveys and analyses were prepared and are presented within this section of the IS and Appendix B. An evaluation was conducted to assess whether any of the habitats present in the Project site should be identified as ESHA. Those habitats were not found to meet any of the attributes listed in Policy 4.1.1-1. Chambers Group, Inc. 64 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Coastal Land Use Plan 4.1.1-6 Require development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas to be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas, and to be compatible with the continuance of those habitat areas. Coastal Land Use Plan 4.1.1-14 Require mitigation in the form of habitat creation or substantial restoration for allowable impacts to ESHA and other sensitive resources that cannot be avoided through the implementation of siting and design alternatives. Priority shall be given to on-site mitigation. Off-site mitigation measures shall only be approved when it is not feasible to fully mitigate impacts on-site. Mitigation shall not substitute for implementation of the project alternative that would avoid impacts to ESHA. Consistent. While no located adjacent to ESHA, the project has been designed to avoid impacts that could degrade adjacent areas and, through a combination of minimization and mitigation measures, it was found that the project will not impact adjacent sensitive habitat areas. Any temporary impacts will be mitigated through revegetation and, to the extent that permanent impacts cannot be avoided, they will be mitigated. Consistent. The project will not impact ESHA. Any temporary impacts will be mitigated through revegetation and, to the extent that permanent impacts cannot be avoided, they will be mitigated using the following order of priority: 1. Onsite Mitigation: any temporary impacts to CSS will be revegetated. 2. Offsite Mitigation: Additive habitat assessment in the area adjacent to the project site within the replanted CSS would be provided to mitigate impacts from direct disturbance from the bridge structure and potential impacts from shading. (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. There are no riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, or waters of the United States or State are present within the proposed Project footprint. Within the survey area conducted for the jurisdictional delineation surveys, wetlands, as defined by the Coastal Act and the City's LCP were identified both on and off the Project site. Superior Avenue Wetlands There is one distinct wetland area located off site within relatively close proximity to the Proposed Project site, along the slope on the north side of Superior Avenue. The Superior Avenue wetland area is approximately 115 feet from its closest point to the proposed bridge impact boundary is approximately 0.15 -acre in size. Per Title 21, Section 21.30B.040.0 of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan: C. Wetland Buffers. A protective open space buffer shall be required to horizontally separate wetlands from development areas. Wetland buffers shall be of a sufficient size Chambers Group, Inc. 65 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. 1. Exception: Smaller wetland buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that: A one hundred (100) foot wide buffer is not possible due to site- specific constraints; and b. The proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance." The Superior Avenue wetlands is outside of the 100 -foot buffer. Further, the existing wetlands are already surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, primarily attributed to recreational and maintenance activities associated with the Sunset Ridge Park above and immediately adjacent to the wetlands, as well as the pedestrian and vehicle traffic adjoining the wetlands below. These on-going urban activities are less than 20 feet (and in some cases only a few feet away) from the wetlands. In addition, the wetlands are upslope from the proposed impact area, and moreover, the intensity of the bridge construction impacts would be strictly confined to the identified impact area, which would be approximately 115 feet from the nearest point to the wetlands. To further obviate concerns regarding any unforeseen impacts to the wetlands, the limits of the wetlands will be clearly demarcated in the field prior to the commencement of construction activities, and a biologist shall monitor the construction work to ensure that encroachment into the wetlands does not occur. Also, the construction contractor should install a suitable barrier (e.g., snow fencing) that is clearly visible to construction personnel, particularly any construction equipment operators, to prevent any incidental construction impacts to these jurisdictional wetland areas. Therefore, given the information above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed bridge construction activities would not temporarily or permanently impact those wetlands nor jeopardize the biological integrity or preservation of the wetlands. Following its completion, the pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue is not expected to create any adverse shading impacts to the existing wetlands identified upslope along the north side of Superior Avenue because of the distance the bridge will be from the nearest point to the wetlands (i.e., 115+ feet). West Coast Highway Wetlands There is one small area (approximately 1,090 square feet, or 0.025 acre) adjacent to the proposed Project site that exhibits sufficient hydrology to establish a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation and/or the formation of hydric soils. This West Coast Highway wetland is situated on a moderately steep slope facing West Coast Highway near the southeast corner of the proposed Project site. These wetlands are composed mostly of coastal freshwater (cattail) marsh vegetation having several strong wetland indicator plants, but some portions of the wetland area are completely unvegetated (bare Chambers Group, Inc. 66 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California ground), likely attributed to past disturbance. Upon seeing a moderately steep slope with prominent but very localized saturation at or near the surface, the original suspicion was that a leaky irrigation line was responsible, but there was no direct evidence of this observed during the fieldwork. It was reported to the City who then had the irrigation system in the area tested for leaks. The City also had the mainline tested for leaks. The testing results were all negative, however additional testing and evaluation are ongoing. Nevertheless, the presence of wetland hydrology is sufficient to meet the Commission's definition/criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. The proposed Project has been designed to avoid directly impacting the Commission wetlands located on the slope along West Coast Highway (see Figure 2 in the Jurisdictional Delineation, Appendix B-2). Project features are approximately 10 feet from the wetlands; however impacts are estimated to be only a few feet from the edge of the wetlands along West Coast Highway, well within the 100 -foot wetland buffer specified in Title 21, Section 21.30B.040.0 of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan. The following is an excerpt from that plan: "C. Wetland Buffers. A protective open space buffer shall be required to horizontally separate wetlands from development areas. Wetland buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. 1. Exception: Smaller wetland buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that: a. A one hundred (100) foot wide buffer is not possible due to site-specific constraints; and b. The proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance." Exception (C)(1)(a): The project area is too confined in area, relative to the location of the existing wetlands, to accommodate a 100 -foot buffer around the wetlands without eliminating essential components of the proposed project. Exception (C)(1)(b): The existing wetlands are already surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, primarily attributed to landscape maintenance and transient activities immediately adjacent to the wetlands, as well as the pedestrian and vehicle traffic adjoining the wetlands below, along West Coast Highway. These on-going urban activities are less than 20 feet (and in some cases only a few feet away) from the existing wetlands. In addition, the wetlands are relatively small in size (i.e., approximately 1,090 square feet, or less than 0.03 acre) and are isolated from any adjacent habitat having substantive ecological value as a resource. Since the wetlands, both along Superior Avenue and along West Coast Highway, do not contain habitat of ecological value, these areas do not qualify as ESHA. The adjacent habitat is very disturbed and dominated by ornamental landscape vegetation, non-native weeds, and bare ground. Chambers Group, Inc. 67 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Although proposed construction activities will occur within a few feet of the existing West Coast Highway wetlands, impacts to these wetlands will be prevented through the implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures (e.g., protective fencing, signage, on-site monitoring, construction worker awareness). For instance, the limits of the wetlands will be clearly demarcated in the field and all on-site construction personnel will be informed about the wetland avoidance area prior to the commencement of construction activities. Also, the construction contractor will install a solid protective barrier that is clearly visible to construction personnel, particularly any construction equipment operators, and that prevents any incidental discharge of soil or debris into the jurisdictional wetlands. Furthermore, a biologist will monitor the construction work to ensure that encroachment into the wetlands does not occur. The measures identified above are intended to protect and preserve the wetlands along West Coast Highway. Therefore, the proposed Project construction activities are not expected to result in any impacts to the existing vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology associated with the West Coast Highway wetlands. Surface water (sheet flow) on the slope where the wetlands occur is currently captured and conveyed to the storm drain system by a concrete v -ditch above the wetlands and another at the toe of the slope below the wetlands. It does not appear that surface water is conveyed to the wetlands; the only surface water currently utilized by the wetlands is the incidental rainfall that hits the wetlands. The surface water conveyance system proposed with the expansion of the parking lot and dog park will be consistent with what currently exists on site. Since surface water does not appear to be what's supporting the wetland hydrology, surface water conveyed to the storm drain system is not expected to adversely affect the wetlands. The wetlands appear to subsist by the existing ground water. Due to the depth of construction activities (approximately 6 feet), it is not expected that the Project will interrupt the existing flow of groundwater to the wetlands. However, the City will implement Mitigation Measure 13I0-5, below, to ensure that the Project will not impact the wetlands. This adaptive management approach would safeguard the biological integrity of, as well as protect and preserve, the existing West Coast Highway wetlands. ■ MM 13I0-5: Following completion of the construction activities, the City will conduct monthly monitoring of the West Coast Highway wetlands to evaluate and document the associated conditions to determine if any unforeseen impacts from the proposed construction activities are occurring. This monthly monitoring will continue for up to one year, or until such time as it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the wetlands will continue to persist in perpetuity. If it is determined during post -construction monitoring that construction has resulted in an unexpected impact to the wetlands, appropriate remedial actions will be implemented by the City. For instance, an unforeseen disruption or obstruction of subsurface hydrology to the wetlands may warrant the City's provision of an alternative water source that would continue to supply sufficient water to sustain the wetlands. Therefore, given the available information and analysis provided above, a smaller than 100 -foot wetland buffer would meet the LCP conditions identified above, in this particular case and impacts to wetlands would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure 13I0-5. Chambers Group, Inc. 68 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California I axle 4-11: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Wetlands Policy Consistency with Policy General Plan NR 13.1 Wetland Protection Consistent. The Project was developed to avoid known Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, wetlands on the northern side of Superior Avenue as recreational, water quality, and habitat value. well as newly discovered wetlands along West Coast Highway south of the Project area. General Plan NR 13.2 Wetland Delineation Consistent. Appendix B-2 provides the results of the Require a survey and analysis with the delineation of survey and delineation of potential wetlands, in all wetland areas when the initial site survey indicates accordance with the definitions provided by CDFW, the presence or potential for wetland species or USFWS, ACOE, and the Coastal Commission. indicators. Wetland delineations will be conducted in accordance with the definitions of wetland boundaries established by California Department of Fish and Game, and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (Imp 14.7, 14.11, 14.12) Coastal Land Use Plan 4.2.2-1 Consistent. Appendix B-2 provides the results of the Define wetlands as areas where the water table is at, survey and delineation of potential wetlands, in near, or above the land surface long enough to bring accordance with this policy. about the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes. Such wetlands can include areas where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentration of salts or other substances in the substrate. Wetlands do not include areas which in normal rainfall years are permanently submerged (streams, lakes, ponds and impoundments), nor marine or estuarine areas below extreme low water of spring tides. Coastal Land Use Plan 4.2.2-2 Consistent. Appendix B-2 provides the results of the Require a survey and analysis with the delineation of survey and delineation of potential wetlands, in all wetland areas when the initial site survey indicates accordance with this policy. the presence or potential for wetland species or indicators. Wetland delineations will be conducted in accordance with the definitions of wetland boundaries contained in section 13577(b) of the California Code of Regulations. Chambers Group, Inc. 69 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Coastal Land Use Plan 4.2.2-3 Require buffer areas around wetlands of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are designed to protect. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible. Smaller wetland buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 100 -foot wide buffer is not possible due to site- specific constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance. Consistent. The Superior Avenue wetlands are outside of the 100 -foot buffer and these wetlands would remain amply protected. For the reasons discussed above, reducing the buffer between the project's limits of disturbance and the West Coast Highway wetlands is required to due the onsite and engineering constraints; however, the West Coast Highway wetland will remain protected through MM 1310-5. Therefore, the buffer size provided is consistent with this policy. (d) Would the project Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to previous Section 4.4.(b). According to the Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix B), the results of the survey and literature review states that essential fish habitats are not present within the proposed Project. There are 18 listed bird species with potential to occur within the survey area. Of the 18 species, only two have been identified as having low potential to occurwithin the proposed Project, the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica colifornica). All other species are considered to be absent. All migratory, non -game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (USFWS 2013). Pursuant to the MBTA, it is unlawful to "take" (i.e., capture, kill, pursue, or possess) migratory birds or their nests. Virtually all native bird species are covered by the MBTA, as listed in 50 Code of Federal Regulation 10.13. To avoid impacts to other birds protected by the MBTA, ground disturbance or removal of vegetation should be done outside the breeding season. If ground disturbance or vegetation removal will take place during the breeding season (generally February 15 through September 1), then, to minimize impacts, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey within the proposed Project footprint at least two weeks prior to construction with a buffer at a minimum of 300 feet around the Project footprint and again within three days of construction activities. If a nest is found within the proposed Project footprint, minimization measures will be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist. These measures may include a no -work zone around the nest, noise minimization measures, and biological monitoring of the nest to assess if the breeding birds are being disturbed by construction. The applicant is responsible for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In compliance with the MBTA, grading, brush removal, building demolition, tree trimming, and similar construction activities shall occur between August 16 and January 31, outside of the peak nesting period. If such Chambers Group, Inc. 70 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California activities must occur inside the peak nesting season from February 1 to August 15, compliance with the following is required to prevent the taking of Native Birds pursuant to the MBTA: The construction area shall be inspected for active nests. If birds are observed flying from a nest or sitting on a nest, it can be assumed that the nest is active. Construction activity within 300 feet of an active nest shall be delayed until the nest is no longer active. Continue to observe the nest until the chicks have left the nest and activity is no longer observed. When the nest is no longer active, construction activity can continue in the nest area. Due to the low potential of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), and with ground disturbances and vegetation removal to occur outside of the breeding season, impacts would be less than significant with regard to wildlife species. As discussed in Section 4.4.1 (b), a portion of the survey area is within Sunset Ridge Park, and the park forms part of a riparian habitat corridor that stretches from Fairview Park in Costa Mesa to Sunset Ridge Park, Banning Ranch, and the Santa Ana River at the West Coast Highway in Newport Beach. However, because West Coast Highway runs the width of the corridor, it will discourage some wildlife from crossing. Wildlife can pass under the West Coast Highway in the Santa Ana River Channel, approximately 2 miles northwest of Sunset Ridge Park. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant regarding interfering with wildlife corridors. (e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would involve the removal of trees that are located adjacent to the existing parking lot. These trees are ornamental and new trees will be installed within the larger proposed parking lot. A Tree Removal or Reforestation Application will be submitted to the Municipal Operations Department prior to tree removal activities. New trees will be installed in accordance with the tree planting specifications and street tree designation list by the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach 2019b). The proposed Project would not conflict with any tree preservation ordnances. The proposed Project is not located within the City of Newport Beach's environmental study areas according to the Local Coastal Program (City of Newport Beach 2005). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. See previous response in Section 4.4.1 (e). The proposed Project is not located within the City of Newport Beach's environmental study areas. The County of Orange—in conjunction with the State and federal resource agencies, local jurisdictions, utility companies, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, and major private landowners—has prepared the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Central/Coastal Subregion (approved on July 10, 1996). These plans are intended to ensure the long-term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub -dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with State -sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The Project site occurs within the Central/Coastal Subregion. Sunset Ridge Park and a portion of the northern area of the Chambers Group, Inc. 71 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California proposed Project is designated as 'existing use' according to the Orange County Central Coastal Habitat Conservation Plan Reserve. However, based on the results of the Biological Study, there are no potentially significant impacts anticipated to the habitats or species that have the potential to occur. In addition, avoidance and minimization efforts would result in direct and indirect impacts to be less than significant to habitats, natural communities, and wildlife. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 4-12: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Conservation Plans Policy Consistency witn Lolicy General Plan NR 10.2 Orange County Natural Consistent. For the reasons described above, the Communities Conservation Plan Project complies with the policies contained within the Orange County NCCP. Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.5.1 Existing Conditions A records' search dated May 28, 2019, was obtained from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The records' search provided information on all documented cultural resources and previous archaeological investigations within 0.5 -mile of the Project area. Resources consulted during the records search conducted by the SCCIC included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory. Based upon the records search conducted by the SCCIC, 22 cultural resource studies have previously been completed within the 0.5 -mile records search radius. Of the 22 previous studies, six of these studies were within the current proposed Project area. Chambers Group, Inc. 72 21169 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than No 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Significant With Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact p Incorporated (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ §15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ ® ❑ ❑ to §15064.5? (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ® ❑ FEI outside of dedicated cemeteries? 4.5.1 Existing Conditions A records' search dated May 28, 2019, was obtained from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The records' search provided information on all documented cultural resources and previous archaeological investigations within 0.5 -mile of the Project area. Resources consulted during the records search conducted by the SCCIC included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory. Based upon the records search conducted by the SCCIC, 22 cultural resource studies have previously been completed within the 0.5 -mile records search radius. Of the 22 previous studies, six of these studies were within the current proposed Project area. Chambers Group, Inc. 72 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Based upon the records search conducted by the SCCIC, three previously recorded cultural resources were recorded within the 0.5 -mile records search radius. None of the previously recorded resources are within the study area. Field Methods On May 31, 2019, Chambers Groups Cultural Resources Department Head Ted Roberts, RPA completed an archaeological pedestrian survey of the proposed Project area. The proposed Project site was surveyed using transects spaced no greater than 15 meters apart and oriented in an east - west direction. The archaeologist examined exposed ground surface for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, milling tools, ceramics), ecofacts (e.g., marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as burrows were visually inspected for both cultural resources and paleontological resources. A Cultural Resources Technical Report was prepared, and is included as Appendix C. A separate Paleontological Report was prepared, and is included as Appendix D, which discusses the methods and results of the paleontological sensitivity of the proposed Project. Further discussion is provided in Section 4.7.1(b). Results of the Archaeological Survey Other than the existing paved parking lot, no geographic obstructions or impediments were present, which allowed the site to be surveyed in its entirety. The current proposed Project area is disturbed and contains large areas of anthropogenic mounding with extra local fill sediments and soils. Evidence of modern use and visitation of the current Project area was abundant and consisted of common trash. A temporary homeless encampment is located in the southeast of the proposed Project, adjacent to the parking lot. No historic or prehistoric resources were identified as a result of the field survey indicating the likelihood of encountering previously unrecorded resources is low. 4.5.2 Impact Analysis a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. Since no historical resources were identified within the proposed Project area, no further work for historical resources is recommended and no impact would occur. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Archival record searches and background studies of the proposed Project area were conducted as part of a Phase I cultural resource study. The Chambers Group, Inc. 73 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California NAHC Sacred Lands File search did identify sacred sites or tribal cultural resources within the search radius or surrounding vicinity. The cultural record search identified six previous cultural resource studies conducted within the proposed Project area. No archaeological sites were identified within the study area. Based on the record search and pedestrian survey, no resources were identified within the proposed Project area. Based on the archaeological survey, no geographic obstructions or impediments were present, and no historic or prehistoric resources were identified as a result of the field survey indicating the likelihood of encountering previously unrecorded resources is low. However, buried cultural materials may be encountered during construction. It is the City of Newport Beach and Caltrans policy that work will stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. Additional surveys would be required if the proposed Project changes to include areas not previously surveyed. In addition, the following mitigation would be implemented should resources be discovered: ■ MM CUL -1: If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, all construction activities in the general area of the discovery shall be temporarily halted until the resource is examined by a qualified monitor, retained by the Developer. The monitor shall recommend next steps (i.e., additional excavation, curation, preservation, etc.).Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The survey and record search did not result in the identification of prehistoric or historical archaeological resources within the proposed Project site and it is not expected that significant archaeological or historical resources would be on- site. However, because resources are often buried and not easily identifiable, the proposed Project will be subject to the standard condition of approval that any cultural resources identified. The following mitigation measure would be implemented should resources be identified. ■ MM CUL -2: During proposed Project construction, activities will be halted and an archaeologist must be available to evaluate the find. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. As a result, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Chambers Group, Inc. 74 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.6 ENERGY This section describes the potential energy usage effects from implementation of the proposed Project. Construction and operational energy usage modeling was performed through use of the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 and EMFAC2017 models. The EMFAC2017 model output files are provided in Appendix E and the CalEEMod model output files are provided in Appendix F and were also utilized for the greenhouse gas emissions analysis. 4.6.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. The following calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the proposed Project and provides a determination if energy consumption utilized by the proposed Project is wasteful, inefficient, or an unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Construction Energy Usage Construction activities for the proposed Project ,would consume energy in three general forms: 1. Petroleum- based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off-site reuse and disposal facilities); 2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and, 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Chambers Group, Inc. 75 21169 Less than ENERGY Potentially Significant Less Than No 6• Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary ® El of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for ® El energy or energy efficiency? 4.6.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. The following calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the proposed Project and provides a determination if energy consumption utilized by the proposed Project is wasteful, inefficient, or an unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Construction Energy Usage Construction activities for the proposed Project ,would consume energy in three general forms: 1. Petroleum- based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off-site reuse and disposal facilities); 2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and, 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Chambers Group, Inc. 75 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Construction -Related Electricity During construction the proposed Project would consume electricity to construct the new bridge, and parking lot and dog park. Where possible, electricity would be supplied to the proposed Project site by Southern California Edison and would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The use of electricity from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators would minimize impacts on energy use. Electricity consumed during project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the proposed Project would require limited electricity consumption that would not be expected to have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during Project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Since the proposed Project site is located in a developed area of the City, it is anticipated that only nominal improvements would be required to Southern California Edison distribution lines and equipment with development of the proposed Project. Where feasible, the new service installations and connections would be scheduled and implemented in a manner that would not result in electrical service interruptions to other properties. Compliance with City's guidelines and requirements would ensure that the proposed Project fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure installation, coordinates any electrical infrastructure removals or relocations, and limits any impacts associated with grading, construction, and development. Construction of the project's electrical infrastructure is not anticipated to adversely affect the electrical infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity. Construction -Related Natural Gas Construction of the proposed Project typically would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Natural gas would not be supplied to support construction activities, thus there would be no demand generated by construction. Since the proposed Project site is located in a developed portion of the City that has natural gas lines in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, construction of the proposed Project would be limited to the potential relocation of existing natural gas line (if necessary) within the proposed Project site. Construction -related energy usage impacts associated with the potential relocation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to place the lines below surface. In addition, prior to ground disturbance, the proposed Project would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depth of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. Therefore, construction -related impacts to natural gas supply and infrastructure, if needed, would be less than significant. Chambers Group, Inc. 76 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Construction -Related Petroleum Fuels Construction of the proposed Project would utilize petroleum fuels for both off-road equipment and from on -road vehicles that include automobiles for transporting workers to and from the project site as well as trucks transporting dirt from the project site and building supplies to the project site. The off-road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off-road equipment assumptions utilized in the CalEEMod model run (see Appendix E) and the fuel usage calculations provided in the 2017 Off-road Diesel Emission Factors spreadsheet, prepared by CARB (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/ordiesel.htm). The off-road construction equipment fuel calculations are shown in Appendix E, which found that the off-road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed Project would consume 47,069 gallons of fuel. For the on -road construction trips, the fleet average miles per gallon rates have been calculated through use of the EMFAC2017 model (https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/) and the EMFAC2017 model printouts are provided in Appendix E. Appendix E also shows the on -road construction vehicle trips modeled in CalEEMod and the fuel usage calculations, which found that the on -road construction -related vehicle trips would consume 12,893 gallons of fuel. As shown above, the combined fuel used from off-road construction equipment and on -road construction trips for the proposed Project would result in the consumption of 59,908 gallons of fuel. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment and on -road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant. Development of the proposed Project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed Project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Operational Energy Usage The on-going operation of the proposed Project would require the use of energy resources for multiple purposes, including electrical usage associated with lighting and transport of water, as well as petroleum fuel usage associated with new vehicle trips to the proposed Project site and landscape equipment. No natural gas is anticipated to be consumed as part of the operation of the proposed Project. Operations -Related Electricity Usage Operation of the proposed Project would result in consumption of electricity at the project site. According to the CalEEMod model run provided in Appendix F, operation of the proposed Project Chambers Group, Inc. 77 21169 rn Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California would utilize 17,920 kilowatt-hours per year of electricity. It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of electricity, including the California Green (CalGreen) Building Standards. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed Project will be designed and built to minimize electricity use and that existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project's electricity demand. Thus, impacts with regard to electrical supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operations -Related Petroleum Fuel Usage Operation of the proposed Project would result in increased consumption of petroleum-based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the project site. According to the CaIEEMod model run provided in Appendix F, operation of the proposed project would generate 8,047 vehicle miles traveled per year. According to the EMFAC2017 model run (see Appendix E), the fleet average miles per gallon rate for all gasoline -powered vehicles in Southern California is 23.9 miles per gallon. Based on this rate, operation of the proposed Project would use 336 gallons of transportation fuel per year. It should be noted that, the proposed Project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy that includes California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 CalGreen Building Standards that require all new non-residential parking lots to provide preferred parking for clean air vehicles as well as provide electric vehicle charging spaces. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed Project will be designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of electric -powered vehicles and it is anticipated that existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation fuels would be sufficient to support the proposed Project's demand. Thus, impacts with regard transportation energy supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. In conclusion, the proposed Project would comply with regulatory compliance measures outlined by the State and City related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Transportation/Circulation, and Water Supply. Additionally, the proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable City Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. Energy consumption from new projects that do not include building structures, such as the proposed Project are primarily controlled by Title 24, Part 11 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), which provides minimum requirements for bicycle parking, carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle parking spaces, use of water efficient plumbing and landscaping fixtures, recycling and use of recycled materials in building products. Specific CalGreen requirements that are applicable to the proposed Project include requiring that a minimum of 65 percent of construction waste to be diverted from landfills, the providing of bicycle parking spaces, as well as the provision of electric vehicle charging stations within the proposed parking lot. Through Chambers Group, Inc. 78 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California implementation of the above programs, regulations, and policies, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4.7.1 Impact Analysis o)i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project area is located within the seismically active region of southern California; and regional earthquakes have the potential to occur. The nearest fault to the Chambers Group, Inc. 79 21169 Less than GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Potentially Significant Less Than No 7. Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including El ❑ ® Elliquefaction? iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El El ® Eltopsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site ❑ ❑ ® ❑ landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-6 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use f septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal El E] Elystems IK where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1:1 ® El El or site or unique geologic feature? 4.7.1 Impact Analysis o)i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project area is located within the seismically active region of southern California; and regional earthquakes have the potential to occur. The nearest fault to the Chambers Group, Inc. 79 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California proposed Project is the Newport -Inglewood -Rose Canyon fault zone located approximately 700 feet northwest from the proposed Project site. The Seismic Hazards map from the City's General Plan shows that south of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue are areas designated as Fault Disclosure Zone for real-estate disclosure purposes. The intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway contains major fault traces presumed to be active (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (USGS 2019). Structural plans will be provided to the City to indicate that the proposed Project will meet the seismic design parameters within the California Building Code and policies outlined in the Safety Element in the General Plan. Impacts will be less than significant. a)ii)Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. See previous response in Section 4.7.1 (a(i)). The proposed Project may experience ground shaking due to its location within Southern California, a seismically active region. Seismic ground shaking could result in potential impacts to persons using the bridge. However, the proposed Project will be built in accordance to the seismic design parameters from the California Building Code. The proposed Project would also comply with the Caltrans Engineering Manuals per the Division of Engineering Services. The manuals include bridge standard details, design criteria, construction records and procedures, geotechnical, materials, and engineering. As provided in the table below, the proposed Project would be consistent with policies for natural geological resources. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 4-13: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Seismic Hazards General Plan NR 4.4: Erosion Minimization/ Coastal Land Use Plan 4.3.1-6: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. General Plan Policy NR 3.5 Storm Sewer System Permit/Coastal Land Use Plan 4.3.2 (4.3.2-1 to 4.3.2-25) Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy H138.5). Coastal Land Use Plan 4.3.1-7: Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, Consistent. During construction, the proposed Project would implement grading and erosion control plans to minimize erosion within the proposed Project in the event of a seismic disturbance or ground instability. Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with the NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirements to minimize or control surface runoff. Consistent. The proposed Project would include BMPs to minimize erosion. The proposed Project would also implement slope stabilization methods to reduce erosion, and the area would be flattened to reduce erosion and landslide potential. Chambers Group, Inc. 80 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. a)iii)Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. West Coast Highway, and the neighborhoods south of West Coast Highway are located in an area subject to liquefaction due to its vicinity to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Project site, however, is not located within a liquefaction zone, and risk of seismic -related ground failure is low (City of Newport Beach 2006). Impacts would be less than significant. a)iv)Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less than Significant Impact. According to the City's General Plan, the are several areas within the proposed Project site designated to be prone to landslides (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed bridge would not be located within a landslide or liquefaction zone; however, portions of the proposed parking lot are located within a landslide zone. During construction, the vacant lot of the proposed Project will be graded flat. During this phase, the proposed Project will implement slope stabilization methods and best management practices (BMPs) to reduce surface erosion and reduce the potential of landslides. Once the parking lot and park is constructed, the area will be landscaped and relatively flat thereby reducing the potential for landslides. In addition, retaining walls along Coast Highway will be installed as part of the proposed Project and will reduce impacts associated with landslides. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Erosion is a concern for the City of Newport Beach especially for shoreline areas including bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay and slopes and canyons within the San Joaquin Hills (City of Newport Beach 2006). The soil profiles in the proposed Project area consists of sandy loam, fine sandy loam, and gravelly coarse sand (USDA 2019). The proposed Project is located in an urbanized area and not within the bluffs along the upper bay or canyons. The proposed Project consists of significant grading and earthwork to construct the bridge, parking lot, and fenced park. The proposed Project will comply with the policies listed in the Natural Resources Element to minimize soil erosion or loss of topsoil by implementing best management practices, site design and source control (City of Newport Beach 2006). As provided in the table below, the proposed Project would be consistent with policies under the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan for erosion minimization. Impacts would be less than significant. Chambers Group, Inc. 81 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Table 4-14: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Erosion General Plan NR 4.4: Erosion Minimization/Coastal Consistent. During construction, the proposed Project Land Use Plan 4.3.1-6 would implement grading and erosion control plans to Require grading/erosion control plans with structural minimize erosion within the proposed Project. BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is not located in an area identified to have the potential for liquefaction. Areas prone to liquefaction are located south of West Coast Highway (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project is not located within a seismic hazard zone of required investigation according to the Department of Conservation data viewer for the Seismic Hazards Program (DOC 2019). There are no proposed buildings to be built as part of the proposed Project. The design and construction of the bridge will be built in compliance with Section 3104 of the California Building Code of Pedestrian Walkways and Tunnels and Goal S 4 of the General Plan that states the following: ■ Adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards are minimized by reducing the known level of risk to loss of life, personal injury, public and private property damage, economic and social dislocation, and disruption of essential services (City of Newport Beach 2006). As stated in the table below, the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan policies for seismic strengthening by complying with applicable seismic design parameters. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 4-15: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Seismic General Plan S 4.2: Retrofitting of Essential Facilities Support and encourage the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage in the event of seismic or geologic hazards. Consistent. While the proposed Project is not considered an essential facility nor would it include retrofits, it would comply with applicable seismic design parameters within the California Building Code and the Caltrans Engineering Manuals per the Division of Engineering Services to reduce the risk of damage from a fault line or significant seismic activity. Chambers Group, Inc. 82 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not include the construction of any buildings in the proposed area. The proposed location of the pedestrian bridge would not be built on a landslide or liquefaction zone. A portion of the parking lot would be built in a landslide zone. During construction, the proposed Project will comply with Section 3104 of the California Building Code for Pedestrian Walkways and Tunnels and the General Plan Goal S 4 to minimize the potential risk to life or property for both construction of the pedestrian bridge and parking lot (See previous Section 4.7.1 part c). Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact. The proposed Project would not include the installation of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Paleontological Resources Report and record search was conducted for the proposed Project on June 3, 2019 (Appendix D). The results of the literature review indicate that both geological units underlying the Project area are determined to have high paleontological sensitivity. That is, the current proposed Project area contains an above average potential for paleontological resources. Therefore, any project -related ground disturbance may result in an adverse impact to non-renewable fossil resources. The Department of Paleontology and PaleoServices staff at the San Diego National History Museum (SDNHM) performed a paleontological records search to locate fossil localities within an in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project area. Museum records indicate that three vertebrate fossil localities have been documented within a one -mile radius from the Project site. None of the fossil localities are located within the proposed Project area. The destruction of fossils as a result of human -caused ground disturbance has a significant cumulative impact, as it makes biological records of ancient life permanently unavailable for study by scientists. Implementation of proper mitigation measures can, however, reduce the impacts to the paleontological resources to below the level of significance. Implementation of the following mitigation measures developed in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists (SVP) standards have been used throughout California and have been demonstrated to be successful in protecting paleontological resources while allowing timely completion of construction. Impacts would therefore be reduced to less than significant. ■ MM PALEO-1: All project -related ground disturbance that could potential impact the Monterey Formation and the Old Paralic Deposits will be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor Chambers Group, Inc. 83 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California on a full-time basis, as these geologic units are determined to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Project -related excavations that occur in surficial younger alluvial deposits (not mapped in the current study area but existing in the vicinity) will be monitored on a part-time basis to ensure that underlying paleontologically sensitive sediments are not being impacted. Excavations exceeding 5 feet in depth in Quaternary alluvium will be monitored on a full-time basis. ■ MM PALEO-2: A qualified paleontologist will be retained to supervise monitoring of construction excavations and to produce a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the proposed project. Paleontological resource monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading away from exposed fossils and halt construction activities in the immediate vicinity in order to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The qualified paleontologist will prepare progress reports to be filed with the lead agency. ■ MM PALED -3: At each fossil locality, field data forms will be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate sediment samples will be collected and submitted for analysis. ■ MM PALEO-4: Matrix sampling would be conducted to test for the presence of microfossils. Testing for microfossils would consist of screen -washing small samples (approximately 200 pounds) to determine if significant fossils are present. If microfossils are present, additional matrix samples will be collected (up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per locality to ensure recovery of a scientifically significant microfossil sample). ■ MM PALED -5: Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposited in a designated paleontological curation facility. The most likely repository is the SDNHM. ■ MM CUL -1: If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, all construction activities in the general area of the discovery shall be temporarily halted until the resource is examined by a qualified monitor, retained by the Developer. The monitor shall recommend next steps (i.e., additional excavation, curation, preservation, etc.). 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section describes the potential global climate change effects from implementation of the proposed Project. GHG emission modeling was performed through use of the CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2. The CalEEMod model output files are provided in Appendix F. Chambers Group, Inc. 84 21169 Less than potentially Significant Less Than No 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Significant With Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Chambers Group, Inc. 84 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ greenhouse gases? 4.8.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Significant legislative and regulatory activities directly and indirectly affect climate change and GHGs in California. The primary climate change legislation in California is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California, and AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In addition to AB 32, Executive Order B-30-15 was issued on April 29, 2015 that aims to reduce California's GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In September 2016, AB 197 and SB 32 codified into statute the GHG emission reduction targets provided in Executive Order B-20-15. CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs in California that contribute to global warming in order to reduce emissions of GHGs. The CARB Governing Board approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) on December 6, 2007. Therefore, in 2020, annual emissions in California are required to be at or below 427 MtCO2e. The CARB Board approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in December 2008, the First Update to the Scoping Plan in May 2014, and California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan in November 2017. The Scoping Plans define a range of programs and activities that will be implemented primarily by state agencies but also include actions by local government agencies. Primary strategies addressed in the Scoping Plans include new industrial and emission control technologies; alternative energy generation technologies; advanced energy conservation in lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation; reduced -carbon fuels; hybrid and electric vehicles; and other methods of improving vehicle mileage. Local government will have a part in implementing some of these strategies. The Scoping Plans also call for reductions in vehicle -associated GHG emissions through smart growth that will result in reductions in vehicle miles traveled (CARB 2008, 2014, 2017). The CalEEMod model used above to calculate the criteria pollutant emissions was also utilized to calculate the GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project (see Appendix F). The CaIEEMod model calculated GHG emissions generated from the proposed Project that include construction and operation of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot, and a fenced dog park. Per the analysis methodology presented in the SCAQMD Working Group meetings, the construction emissions were amortized over 30 years. Table 4-16 shows the estimated GHG emissions that would be predicted from development of the proposed Project. Chambers Group, Inc. 85 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Table 4-16: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the P Area Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage 5.71 0.00 0.00 5.73 Mobile Sources 3.06 0.00 0.00 3.06 Solid Waste 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 Water and Wastewater 1.69 0.00 0.00 1.69 Total Construction Emissions Amortized over 30 Years' 24.23 0.00 0.00 24.34 Total Project Emissions 34.70 0.00 0.00 34.84 SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 Exceed Threshold? No Notes: 1 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009. Source: CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (see Appendix F). This analysis proposes to use the "Tier 3" quantitative threshold for all land use projectsz as recommended by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD proposes that if a project generates GHG emissions below 3,000 MtCO2e, it could be concluded that the Project's GHG contribution is not "cumulatively considerable" and is therefore less than significant under CEQA. As shown in Table 4-17, the proposed Project would generate 34.84 MtCO2e per year, which would not exceed SCAQMD draft annual threshold of 3,000 MtCO2e. As such, it could be concluded that the Project's GHG contribution is not "cumulatively considerable" and is therefore less than significant under CEQA. c) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006, that requires the State's GHG emissions by 2020 to meet the GHG emissions level created in 1990 and adopted AB 197 and SB 32 in 2016, that requires the State's GHG emissions to be 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In order to achieve the target provided in AB 32, the SCAQMD developed a Working Group that developed a tiered approach in order to determine if proposed land use projects would contribute to an exceedance of the GHG emissions targets detailed in AB 32. As shown above in Section 4.8.1(a), the proposed Project would generate 34.84 MTCO2e per year from construction and operation of the proposed Project. The GHG emissions generated from the proposed Project would be within the "Tier 3" quantitative threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use projects as recommended by the SCAQM D. 2 Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting # 15. South Const Air Quality Management District. September 2010. L Chambers Group, Inc. 86 21169 l.r Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California The SCAQMD has not yet updated its "Tier 3" quantitative threshold to address AB 197 and SB 32. However, it is anticipated that the "Tier 3" thresholds would be reduced around 40 percent, which is equivalent to how much more stringent AB 197 and SB 32 are over AB 32. Since the proposed Project's GHG emissions are 99 percent below the "Tier 3" threshold, it is anticipated that the proposed Project's GHG emissions would remain less than significant under any future thresholds developed to address AB 197 and SB 32. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs. A less than significant impact would occur. 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.9.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Chambers Group, Inc. 87 21169 Less than HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Potentially Significant Less Than No 9. Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset ❑ ® El Eland accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste El El® ❑ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan had not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would ❑ El the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ evacuation plan? (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death ❑ ❑ ❑ involving wildland fires? 4.9.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Chambers Group, Inc. 87 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge, as well as an asphalt parking lot and fenced dog park. Construction activities would result in the temporary transport and storage of hazardous materials. During construction, the proposed Project will utilize hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents. Potentially hazardous materials will be stored and disposed of according to regulations set forth by local, State, and federal regulations during construction operations. Once the construction of the bridge, parking lot, and dog park are completed, the proposed Project would not introduce new land uses that would require the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. On site activities and uses would be consistent with what currently exists on site. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Hazardous Materials Assessment (HMA) was prepared for the proposed Project by Ninyo & Moore on July 2019 (Appendix G). The objective of the HMA is to evaluate for recognized environmental conditions (RECs), which is, "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions." Identification of RECs fall into the following three categories: existing RECs (as defined above); Historical RECs (HRECs); or Controlled RECs (CRECs). HRECs and CRECs are defined as follows: HREC—An HREC is defined as "a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations [AULs], institutional controls, or engineering controls)." An HREC is an environmental condition, which in the past, would have been considered a REC, but currently may or may not be considered a REC. An example of an HREC may be a former gas station where a release of gasoline had occurred, but the site was cleaned up to an unrestricted land use standard. CREC — A CREC is defined as a "recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by a regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, AULs, institutional controls, or engineering controls)." An example of a CREC could be a former gas station where a release of gasoline has been cleaned up to a commercial use standard, but does not meet unrestricted residential cleanup criteria. Chambers Group, Inc. 88 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Additional Environmental Record Sources According to the ASTM Standard, "if the property or any of the adjoining properties is identified on one or more of the standard environmental record sources, pertinent regulatory files and/or records associated with the listing should be reviewed." The review of regulatory agency records for these addresses is discussed in the following sections. South Coast Air Quality Management District Ninyo & Moore reviewed the South Coast Air Quality Management District Facility Information Detail Search (FIND) website for records regarding the site addresses. The site and adjoining addresses were not included in the FIND database. The "adjoining" address of 377 Superior Avenue was listed on this database as Unocal Corp, "Union DLR, Barbara Wilcox," and "Union DLR, Harry Wilcox Y." According to the database, this property is approximately 0.40 -mile northeast of the site and was incorrectly plotted by EDR as adjoining the site. Based on the distance and regulatory status, this facility is not considered an environmental concern. Online Regulatory Databases Online regulatory databases were reviewed by Ninyo & Moore to supplement the environmental database search conducted by EDR. The following is a summary of information. Table 4-17: Online Regulatory Database Findi California Department of Toxic Substances Control The site and adjoining properties were not included in (DTSC) EnviroStor the EnviroStor database. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) The site was not included in the GeoTracker database. GeoTracker The former TOSCO Oil facility, previously located at 4625 Pacific Coast Highway, was included in the GeoTracker database as a closed LUST case. A summary of this LUST case is provided in Appendix G. State of California, Department of Conservation, The site is located within the administrative boundaries Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources of the Newport Oil Field. The nearest oil well (State of (DOGGR) Well Finder website California No. 4), approximately 100 feet east- southeast and down to cross -gradient of the site, was listed as plugged. According to the review of the Newport Beach website, the site is located within a methane gas mitigation district. The parcel was listed as "That certain parcel of land bounded by Superior Avenue, the southerly line of Tract No. 8336 (commonly known as Villa Balboa), Newport Boulevard, and the southerly right-of-way of West Coast Highway." Based on this information, there this a potential for encountering methane during excavation. Chambers Group, Inc. 89 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Historic Aerial Photographs Historical aerial photographs were provided by EDR and reviewed online using Google Earth for select years from 1938 through 2016. A listing of the photographs reviewed and summary of notable observations from the photograph review are provided in the HMA. The proposed Project site and vicinity were used for agricultural purposes from 1938 to 1953. Superior Avenue was developed through the southern portion of the proposed Project site by 1963 and was redeveloped in its current configuration adjoining the site to the north and west by 1987. A parking lot was developed on the site by 1990. Residential and commercial development of the vicinity progressed from the 1930s to the 1980s. Because Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (in both its former and present positions) were used as roadways prior to 1992, when leaded gasoline was utilized, the potential presence of aerially deposited lead (ADL) in shallow unpaved soil adjoining the roadways (i.e., within 20 feet of the rights-of-way) represents a REC for the site. Based on the historical agricultural use of the property, commercial pesticides and herbicides may have been applied to the site and site vicinity during the agricultural use of the land. Residual concentrations of these substances and/or their breakdown derivatives may be present in the site soils. The historical aerial photographs reviewed by Ninyo & Moore did not indicate the presence of buildings or other structures on the site where pesticides or herbicides may have been mixed or stored. Based on the duration since pesticides/herbicides may have been applied (more than 60 years), it is assessed that the former agricultural usage of the site is considered a de minimis condition. Because Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (in both its former and present locations) were used as roadways prior to 1992, when leaded gasoline was utilized, the potential presence of ADL in shallow unpaved soil adjoining the roadway represents a REC for the site. The presence of a closed LUST case adjoining the site to the south-southwest (formerTOSCO Oil at 4625 Pacific Coast Highway) is considered an HREC for the site. The HMA revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the proposed Project site, except for the following: • The potential for ADL in shallow soil adjacent to roadway (i.e., within 20 feet of the rights-of- way) along Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. • The presence of a closed LUST case adjoining the site to the south-southwest (former TOSCO Oil at 4625 Pacific Coast Highway) is considered an HREC. • Based on historical research and the results of the VESM conducted by Ninyo & Moore, a VEC cannot be ruled out beneath the southwestern portion of the site. • Although not considered a REC, the site is located within a methane gas mitigation district. Based on this information, there this a potential for encountering methane during excavation. As stated in Section 4.9.1 Impact (a), the proposed Project will require the use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials during construction activities. Based on the results of the HMA, construction activities may result in some potential release of contaminants during ground disturbing activities. Implementation of mitigation HAZ-1 would result in the impacts to less than significant (City of Newport Beach 2009). Chambers Group, Inc. 90 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California ■ MM HAZ-1: Any contaminated soils or other hazardous materials removed from the proposed 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 Community Development Departments shall verify that only Licensed Haulers who are operating in compliance with regulatory requirements are used to haul hazardous materials. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The nearest school is Pacifica Christian High School located approximately 0.45 miles from northeast from the proposed Project site on 883 West 15th Street in the City of Newport Beach (Google Maps 2019). The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. No impact would occur. d) Would the project 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? No Impact. The HMA included the results from an environmental database search for the proposed Project area. An environmental information database search was performed by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) on June 11, 2019. The search included federal, state, tribal, and local databases. A summary of the environmental databases searched, their corresponding search radii, and number of noted properties of potential environmental concern, is presented in the EDR report of the HMA appendices. The review was conducted to evaluate whether the proposed Project site or properties within the site vicinity have been documented as having experienced significant unauthorized releases of hazardous substances or other events with potentially adverse environmental effects. The proposed Project site was not listed on searched environmental databases. Off-site properties/facilities listed in the database report were evaluated as to their potential to impact soil and/or groundwater at the site. To supplement the information in the EDR report, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker online database and Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC's) EnviroStor database (where applicable) were reviewed. Of the seven locations located nearby the proposed Project, none were listed within the proposed Project. Because the proposed Project is not included on a list of hazardous materials site, no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan had not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 4.5 miles north from the proposed Project site. The nearest private heliport is located at Hoag Memorial Hospital Chambers Group, Inc. 91 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California approximately 0.5 miles northeast from the proposed Project site. The proposed Project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport and is not within the John Wayne Airport runway protection and accidental potential zones (City of Newport Beach 2006). No impact would occur. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach prepared an Emergency Operations Plan in 2004 to provide guidance in the City's response to emergency situations ranging from natural disasters, technology incidence, and nuclear defense operations. Superior Avenue and West Coast highway have been identified as potential tsunami run up zones, and evacuation route signs are located along Superior Avenue, and at the intersection of West Coast Highway (City of Newport Beach 2006). Superior Avenue has the potential to be temporarily closed at night to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge's superstructure, depending on the bridge design chosen. However, all other roads in the vicinity would remain open for travel, and Superior Avenue would maintain its current accessibility once construction is complete. The proposed Project would not impair the implementation of, or interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed Project would not include any significant roadway work, or altering the routes of Superior Avenue or West Coast Highway. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, too significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No impact. The proposed Project site is located in a low/no susceptibility area for wildfire hazards (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project would not include construction of new, habitable structures. No impact would occur. 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Chambers Group, Inc. 92 21169 rl r) r) r) Less than Potentially Significant Less Than No 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Significant With Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially ❑ ❑ ® ❑ degrade surface or ground water quality? (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge ❑ ❑ ❑ such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or ❑ off-site; Chambers Group, Inc. 92 21169 rl r) r) r) Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.10.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant. According to the City's General Plan, construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit, 99-08 DWQ and will require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The proposed Project could generate potential pollutants during construction including sediment, organic compounds, trash, debris, oils, grease, and solvents. Implementation of these requirements will minimize any potential of violating water quality standards and waste discharge requirements (City of Newport Beach 2006). Implementation of BMPs that would be outlined in the SWPPP would prevent impacts to the water quality. These practices include but are not limited to litter control, landscape design, efficient irrigation system, and general waste management. And as stated in the table below, the proposed Project would comply with the policies identified in the Local Coastal Implementation Plan for water quality control (City of Newport Beach 2017b). Impacts would be less than significant. Table 4-18: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Water Quality Control Local Coastal Implementation Plan: Chapter 21.35: Water Quality Control Development that requires a coastal development permit and has the potential for adverse water quality or hydrologic (i.e., due to changes in runoff flows) impacts to coastal waters shall in most cases require both a construction -phase plan and a post - development plan for water quality protection. Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Consistent. The proposed Project is located within the coastal zone. The proposed Project has the potential to result in hydrologic impacts. However, BMPs would be implemented throughout the proposed Project. The development of the proposed Project would include the application for a Coastal Development Permit. 93 Less than HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Potentially Significant Less Than No 10. Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ flood on- or off-site; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned El F-1 ® El drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of pollutants due to project inundation? (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ management plan? 4.10.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant. According to the City's General Plan, construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit, 99-08 DWQ and will require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The proposed Project could generate potential pollutants during construction including sediment, organic compounds, trash, debris, oils, grease, and solvents. Implementation of these requirements will minimize any potential of violating water quality standards and waste discharge requirements (City of Newport Beach 2006). Implementation of BMPs that would be outlined in the SWPPP would prevent impacts to the water quality. These practices include but are not limited to litter control, landscape design, efficient irrigation system, and general waste management. And as stated in the table below, the proposed Project would comply with the policies identified in the Local Coastal Implementation Plan for water quality control (City of Newport Beach 2017b). Impacts would be less than significant. Table 4-18: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Water Quality Control Local Coastal Implementation Plan: Chapter 21.35: Water Quality Control Development that requires a coastal development permit and has the potential for adverse water quality or hydrologic (i.e., due to changes in runoff flows) impacts to coastal waters shall in most cases require both a construction -phase plan and a post - development plan for water quality protection. Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Consistent. The proposed Project is located within the coastal zone. The proposed Project has the potential to result in hydrologic impacts. However, BMPs would be implemented throughout the proposed Project. The development of the proposed Project would include the application for a Coastal Development Permit. 93 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. According to the City's General Plan, the Santa Ana River transports reclaimed water from the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. There are no designated recharge areas in the City (City of Newport Beach 2006), and no monitoring or production wells within the proposed Project vicinity (OCWD 2018). The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Sunset Ridge Park states that groundwater levels in the area range between 54 and 86 feet below ground level. The depth of excavation would not reach the groundwater depth (City of Newport Beach 2009). Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge because it will not be constructed in a recharge area. No impact would occur. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: iJ result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Orange County Flood Control District drainage system maps, the proposed Project is located in Watershed G which includes unincorporated areas of Orange County, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. The proposed Project is not located near any of the identified channels or storm drains (OCFCD 2005). The proposed Project is not located within a stream or river, nor would include activities that would alter a water resource, channel, or storm drain facilities. The drainage patterns of the area, as indicated in the Sunset Ridge Park Environmental Impact Report, routes runoff to the south and west through existing concrete V -ditches and terrace drains. All runoff would flow into an 8 -foot by 5 -foot concrete box culvert that is maintained by the California Department of Transportation. The culverts are located along West Coast Highway (City of Newport Beach 2009). The location for the proposed expanded parking lot and dog park has an estimated elevation of approximately 70 feet above sea level. The southern boundary of the proposed Project along West Coast Highway to the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior has an approximate elevation of 10 feet above sea level. The existing area slopes south towards West Coast Highway, and southwest northeast corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (Google Earth 2019). Surface runoff currently flows south towards West Coast Highway and southwest towards Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Runoff currently flows southbound along the concrete road channels on the northbound lane of Superior Highway. These channels eventually reach the storm drains located along Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Three storm drains are located on the northbound lane of Superior Avenue from Sunset Park Lane to the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. Two storm drains are located along the westbound lane of West Coast Highway south of the Hoag Memorial parking lot, and existing Superior Parking Lot. An additional storm drain is located along West Coast Highway in front of the existing bus stop. Chambers Group, Inc. 94 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Once constructed, the proposed Project area would be graded and have a relatively uniform slope and elevation. Drainage flows would be altered and be redirected towards the concrete channels along Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway to flow into the existing storm drains. The proposed Project would result in the alteration of drainage patterns due to the proposed ground disturbing activities and grading of the vacant land. The proposed Project will include development of approximately 65,000 square feet of impervious surfaces consisting of asphalt parking lot and sidewalks that would increase surface runoff. The proposed Project would comply with Policy NR 3.11 and NR 4.4 of the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan (stated below) to minimize erosion, runoff, and flooding during and after construction. Table 4-19: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — BMP and Erosion General Plan Policy NR 3.11: Best Management Consistent. The proposed Project would implement Practices site specific BMPs during the construction and Implement and improve upon Best Management operation of the proposed Project to enhance and Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, protect water quality for all natural water bodies. development projects, and City operations. (Policy H 88.11) General Plan NR 4.4: Erosion Minimization / Coastal Land Use Plan 4.3.1-6 Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. Consistent. During construction, the proposed Project would implement grading and erosion control plans to minimize erosion within the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not involve the alteration or blockage of the concrete culverts. The proposed Project would not include the construction of any buildings or facilities, or introduce permanent populations such as residents and employees that would significantly increase the capacities for the existing stormwater systems. The proposed Project would implement BMPs provided in the Orange County Stormwater Program to control pollutant discharges from construction sites. Impacts would be less than significant. ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, areas within the Project site would be compacted and the drainage patterns would be altered. The proposed Project would introduce impervious surfaces to the area with the development of the parking lot and dog park. The development of the dog park, which would be composed of grass, granite, and other permeable surfaces, would be more pervious to stormwater, and would not result in flooding. The proposed Project would result in increased pervious surfaces, and increased run-off forthe parking lot area. The City of Newport Beach Chambers Group, Inc. 95 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California is subject to requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the area -wide urban runoff Orange County MS4 permit. Construction and post -construction activities would implement BMPs identified in the proposed Project SWPPP and NPDES permit to minimize the amount of surface runoff (SWRCB 2014). The development of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plans would identify site specific BMPs that would manage and control surface runoff, and minimize flooding. Impacts would be less than significant. iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. See previous response to Section 4.10.1 c)i to c)ii. While the proposed Project's construction and operational activities would introduce impervious surfaces and increase runoff to the area, compliance with the General Plan's goals and policies to minimize runoff would reduce impacts to less than significant. In addition, the proposed Project would not include the development of residential, commercial, or industrial facilities that could require expansion of existing stormwater drainage capacities. Per the goals of the Natural Resources Element (NR3) to enhance and protect the water quality, the proposed Project would comply with the following General Plan policies to minimize runoff and therefore would not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems, nor would it result in additional polluted runoff. Table 4-20: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Water Quality Control General Plan Policy NR 3.5 Storm Sewer SVstem Permit/Coastal Land Use Plan 4.3.2 (4.3.2-1 to 4.3.2-25) Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy HB8.5). General Plan Policy NR 3.10: Water Quality Management Plan Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction. (Policy HB8.10) General Plan Policy NR 3.18 Parking Lots and Rights -of - Way Require that parking lots, and public and private rights- of-way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. (Policy HB8.18) Coastal Land Use Plan 2.17-2: New development shall provide for the protection of the water quality of the bay and adjacent natural habitats. New development shall be designed Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with the NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirements to minimize or control surface runoff. Consistent. Prior to ground disturbance, the City will prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post construction. Consistent. Once developed, the proposed parking lot and dog park would be maintained and cleaned to minimize waste and contamination that could result in the degradation of water quality. Consistent. The proposed Project is not located within a coastal bluff. However, there are scenic views of the water from the proposed Project. Construction of the pedestrian bridge and dog park will comply with the 96 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California and sited to minimize impacts to public views of the General Plan policies to minimize contamination and water and coastal bluffs degradation of water quality, and minimize or control surface runoff with the implementation of site specific BMPs. The proposed Project's addition of the dog park would introduce dog wastes (feces and urine) to the area which could introduce polluted runoff and impact water quality. In addition to compliance with the proposed Project's BMPs, the proposed Project would comply with the following Municipal Code Chapter 7.20.020 Nuisances Committed by Animals (City of Newport Beach 2019a). A. It is unlawful for the owner or person having charge, custody or control of any animal to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property otherthan that of the owner or person who has custody or control of the animal. B. No person having the care, custody, charge or control of any animal shall permit or allow that animal on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property, or on any private property other than that of the owner or person who has custody or control of the animal, unless that person has, in his or her possession, an implement or device capable of removing any feces deposited by the animal. Impacts would be less than significant with the Project's compliance with existing Municipal Code requirements. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located approximately 1,000 feet northeast from the Pacific Ocean. According to the General Plan, the City is susceptible to low probability, but high-risk tsunami events (a wave generated by an earthquake, landslide or volcanic eruption creating a large displacement of water). Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway are identified as potential tsunami run up zones. There are evacuation route signs along Superior Avenue, and at the intersection of West Coast Highway (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project would not introduce new structures that could expose people to a tsunami or seiche. The existing conditions of the area identified as within a tsunami run up zone would remain consistent. During construction, the proposed Project could result in the release of pollutants due to flooding. As such, the proposed Project would handle potentially hazardous materials according to local, State, and federal regulations and would implement site control measures to minimize flooding. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Chambers Group, Inc. 97 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would comply with the NPDES permit and would implement BMPs to reduce any impacts associated with water quality to less than significant. Additionally, the proposed Project would not include activities that would impact or modify groundwater resources. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater Management Plan manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The proposed Project would not be located within any sampling wells or groundwater replenishment systems. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.11.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed Project includes the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge to connect a new, larger parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park. The proposed Project also includes the addition of a fenced dog park adjacent to the new parking lot. The proposed Project will not physically divide an established community and would instead provide a needed connection between a parking lot and existing park for bicycle and pedestrian users. The uses onsite will remain as a public facility for public use. The bridge, parking lot, and park would not result in a new barrier in the community. No impact would occur. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed Project's surrounding land uses are parks and recreation for areas west and east of Superior Avenue (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project will maintain the current land uses and better support them because the proposed activities consists of the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, expansion of the existing parking lot to accommodate additional vehicles, and the addition of a fenced dog park. The uses will be consistent to what is currently onsite. No impact would occur. The majority of the project is located within the boundaries of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Project would be consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) for issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. As is described in detail in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project will be developed in accordance with Section 4.2.2, Wetland Definition and Delineation of the City Coastal Land Use Plan. Chambers Group, Inc. 98 21169 Less than LAND USE/PLANNING Potentially Significant Less Than No 11. Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact P Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ (b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 4.11.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed Project includes the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge to connect a new, larger parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park. The proposed Project also includes the addition of a fenced dog park adjacent to the new parking lot. The proposed Project will not physically divide an established community and would instead provide a needed connection between a parking lot and existing park for bicycle and pedestrian users. The uses onsite will remain as a public facility for public use. The bridge, parking lot, and park would not result in a new barrier in the community. No impact would occur. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed Project's surrounding land uses are parks and recreation for areas west and east of Superior Avenue (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project will maintain the current land uses and better support them because the proposed activities consists of the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, expansion of the existing parking lot to accommodate additional vehicles, and the addition of a fenced dog park. The uses will be consistent to what is currently onsite. No impact would occur. The majority of the project is located within the boundaries of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Project would be consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) for issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. As is described in detail in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project will be developed in accordance with Section 4.2.2, Wetland Definition and Delineation of the City Coastal Land Use Plan. Chambers Group, Inc. 98 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Specifically, the three policies 4.2.2-1, 4.2.2-2, and 4.2.2-3 within this section require a delineation by the Coastal Commission method and a minimum 100 -foot buffer, unless it can be demonstrated that a narrower buffer would be "amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland...". Consistency with the LCP and Coastal Land Use Plan are detailed in respective resource area sections. The portion of the Project which will be constructed within Sunset Ridge Park is expected to require an amendment to the CDP issued for the construction and use of Sunset Ridge Park. The Project is consistent with the requirements in the CDP and provides an increase in access and ease of use of Sunset Ridge Park. 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.12.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The State of California Division of Mines and Geology classified the proposed Project vicinity as a Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). These are areas as "continuing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance" (DOC 1981). There is no active mining within the area (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project would not include any mining activities that would result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. While the proposed Project will require heavy ground disturbance and earthwork activities, excavation depths are not anticipated to be deep enough to uncover significant mineral resources. No impact would occur. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The proposed Project area does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value and the proposed Project is not located in a mineral resource recovery site and no mining or mineral extracting activities are proposed. No impact would occur. Chambers Group, Inc. 99 21169 Less than MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than No 12. Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ❑ residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑ general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 4.12.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The State of California Division of Mines and Geology classified the proposed Project vicinity as a Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). These are areas as "continuing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance" (DOC 1981). There is no active mining within the area (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project would not include any mining activities that would result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. While the proposed Project will require heavy ground disturbance and earthwork activities, excavation depths are not anticipated to be deep enough to uncover significant mineral resources. No impact would occur. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The proposed Project area does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value and the proposed Project is not located in a mineral resource recovery site and no mining or mineral extracting activities are proposed. No impact would occur. Chambers Group, Inc. 99 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.13 NOISE This section describes the existing noise setting and potential noise and vibration effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Construction noise modeling was performed through use of the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 1.1. The model output is provided in Appendix H along with the noise measurement printouts and a photo index of the noise measurement locations. 4.13.1 Environmental Setting The proposed Project site is located within the City of Newport Beach. Currently, the primary sources of noise within the study area consists of vehicle noise from Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. In addition, the cooling plant for the Hoag Hospital is located on the east of the Project site and contributes to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity of the cooling plant. In order to determine the existing noise levels, three long-term (24-hour) ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the proposed Project between 12:06 p.m. on Tuesday June 25, 2019 and 12:27 p.m. on Wednesday, June 26, 2019. The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 4-21 and the noise measurement printouts and photos of the noise measurements sites are provided in Appendix H. Chambers Group, Inc. 100 21169 lr u 00 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than No 13. NOISE Would the project result in: Significant With Significant Impact p Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne noise levels? (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ® ❑ airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? This section describes the existing noise setting and potential noise and vibration effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Construction noise modeling was performed through use of the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 1.1. The model output is provided in Appendix H along with the noise measurement printouts and a photo index of the noise measurement locations. 4.13.1 Environmental Setting The proposed Project site is located within the City of Newport Beach. Currently, the primary sources of noise within the study area consists of vehicle noise from Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. In addition, the cooling plant for the Hoag Hospital is located on the east of the Project site and contributes to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity of the cooling plant. In order to determine the existing noise levels, three long-term (24-hour) ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the proposed Project between 12:06 p.m. on Tuesday June 25, 2019 and 12:27 p.m. on Wednesday, June 26, 2019. The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 4-21 and the noise measurement printouts and photos of the noise measurements sites are provided in Appendix H. Chambers Group, Inc. 100 21169 lr u 00 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Table 4-21: Existine Noise Level Measurements Site Average (dBA Leq) 1 -hr Average (d"BAL!q/Time) Average Site Description No. D. 1 Southwest Side of Coast 55.6 72.6 Hwy/Superior Ave Intersection 69 .6 66.5 3:37 AM 10:34 PM 74.6 2 Northwest Side of Superior 51.6 69.6 Avenue 67.0 56.7 3:41 AM 2:55 PM 67.4 3 South Side of Coast Hwy 76.2 68.3 60 6 78 0 77.7 3:21 6:46 ivotes: ' Daytime defined as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Section 10.26.025 ofthe Municipal Code) z Nighttime defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code) Source: Larson -Davis Model LXT1 Type 1 sound level meters programmed in "slow' mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. City of Newport Beach Noise Standards For construction activities within the City of Newport Beach, Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(A) exempts construction noise from the City's noise standards, provided that construction activities are conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday or between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Section 10.28.040(D)(2)(b) of the Municipal Code exempts public works construction projects from the City noise standards provided that the City Manager or department director determines that the construction activities cannot be conducted during normal business hours. Operational activities are subject to the City's exterior noise standards detailed in Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code that limits noise to 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. at the exterior of the nearby homes. 4.13.2 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would consist of construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot, and a fenced dog park. Both construction and operation of the proposed Project would have the potential to generate noise in excess of standards and have been analyzed separately below Construction -Related Noise Construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to begin in early 2021 and would be completed in 14 to 18 months. The first phase of construction would consist of demolition of the existing parking lot that has been estimated to require the export of up to 1,000 tons of paving debris from the project site. The second phase would be grading of the proposed Project site that would require the export of up to 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from the project site. Bridge construction would occur after the completion of grading, which may occur concurrently with paving and landscaping Chambers Group, Inc. 101 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California activities for the proposed Project. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are multi -family homes located as near as 165 feet to the south and 220 feet to the northeast and single-family homes located as near as 300 feet to the southwest of the proposed area to be disturbed as part of the proposed Project Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(A) exempts construction noise from the City's noise standards, provided that construction activities are conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday or between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. However, the City has stated that it may be necessary for portions of bridge construction activities to close Superior Avenue, which will need to occur outside of the allowable hours for construction, in order to minimize traffic impacts. Section 10.28.040(D)(2)(b) of the Municipal Code exempts public works construction projects from the City noise standards provided that the City Manager or department director determines that the construction activities cannot be conducted during normal business hours. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby residents. In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria thresholds' have been utilized, which show that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise exceeds 80 dBA during the daytime or 70 dBA during the nighttime at any of the nearby homes. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) compiled noise level data regardingthe noise generating characteristics of several different types of construction equipment used during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston. Table 4-22 below provides a list of the construction equipment measured, along with the associated measured noise emissions and measured percentage of typical equipment use per day. From this acquired data, FHWA developed the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The RCNM, which uses the Spec 721.560 Lmax at 50 feet, has been used to calculate the construction equipment noise emissions (see Appendix H). 3 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, prepared by Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. Chambers Group, Inc. 102 21169 L.r Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Table 4-22: Construction Equipment Noise and Usage Factors Auger Drill Rig 20 85 N/A Backhoe 40 80 78 Compressor (air) 40 80 78 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85 79 Concrete Pump 20 82 81 Concrete Saw 20 90 90 Crane 16 85 81 Dozer 40 85 82 Dump Truck 40 84 76 Excavator 40 85 81 Flatbed Truck 40 84 74 Front End Loader 40 80 79 Generator 50 82 81 Gradall (Forklift) 40 85 83 Mounted Impact Hammer 20 90 90 Paver 50 85 77 Roller 20 85 80 Tractor 40 84 N/A Welder/Torch 40 73 74 r Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. z Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the Roadway Construction Noise Model program. 3 The "slow" response averages sound levels over 1 -second increments. A "fast" response averages sound levels over 0.125 -second increments. 4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s. Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006. The anticipated areas of construction and construction equipment that will be utilized during development of each area were obtained from the Project applicant. For each area of development, the nearest piece of equipment was placed at the shortest distance of the proposed area to the nearest sensitive receptor and each subsequent piece of equipment was placed an additional 50 feet away. The results are shown below in Table 4-23. Table 4-23: Construction Noise Levels at Nearbv Homes Demolition of Existing Parking Lot 71 71 67 Grading (Excavation) 72 66 66 Bridge Construction 66 65 68 Paving 68 65 63 Landscaping 70 68 65 Construction Noise Threshold (day/night)' 80/70 80/70 80/70 Chambers Group, Inc. 103 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Notes: ' Construction Noise Thresholds from Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Source: RCNM Version 1.1 (see Appendix H). Table 4-23 shows that the greatest construction noise impacts would occur during grading (excavation) activities with a noise level as high as 72 dBA Leq at the multi -family homes located south of the project site. Table 4-23 also shows that construction noise impacts from the proposed Project would be below the 80 dBA daytime noise standard for all phases of construction, however the Demolition and Grading phases of construction would exceed the 70 dBA nighttime noise standard. This would be considered a significant noise impact. City Manager or department director would be restricted from utilizing the public works exemption to construction times as detailed in Section 10.28.040(D)(2)(b) of the Municipal Code for the Demolition or Grading (Excavation) phases of construction activities. This restriction does not apply to the Bridge Construction, Paving, or Landscaping phases of construction. Compliance with the municipal code would minimize nighttime construction noise impacts. Operation -Related Noise The proposed Project consists of development of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot, and a fenced dog park. The operation of the proposed Project may create an increase of onsite noise levels from the new parking lot, pedestrian bridge and dog park. The proposed Project may also generate additional vehicle trips from the dog park, however according to the CaIEEMod model runs (see Appendix H), the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above what the existing park and parking lot already generate, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roads noise levels and therefore no additional roadway noise analysis is provided in this analysis. Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code limits exterior noise impacts to the nearby residential uses to 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In order to determine potential noise impacts from the proposed parking lot, pedestrian bridge, and dog park, reference noise measurements were taken of similar activities at other Parks, which are shown in Table 4-24. The dog park noise was obtained from the Draft Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Beverly Hills Dog Park Project4, which found that a dog park creates noise from both dogs barking and dog owners talking. The study found that a dog park creates a noise level of 51.8 dBA Leq at a distance between 10 to 50 feet from the dog park. Table 4-24 also shows the calculated noise levels at the nearest homes to each activity, based on a standard attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient 4 Source: Rincon Consultants, July 2015, http://www.beverlyhills- ca.gov/cbhfiles/storage/files/1622915470371464222/DogParkM N DDraft.pdf Chambers Group, Inc. 104 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California noise levels. The noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, so it would not provide a quantitative contribute to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. Table 4-24: Operational On -Site Noise Impacts to the Nearest Homes New Parking Lot 5 63.1 200 31 Pedestrian Bridge 5 45.0 330 9 Dog Park 50 51.8 260 37 City Noise Standard (day/night)2 55/50 Exceed City Standards (day/night)? No/No Notes: ' Project noise impacts calculated based on typical noise propagation rates of 6 dB per doubling of distance. 2 City Noise Standard from Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code. The data provided in Table 4-24 shows that anticipated worst-case noise levels created from the proposed parking lot, pedestrian bridge, and dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards at the nearest home to each activity. As such, operations -related onsite noise impacts to the nearby homes would be less than significant for the proposed Project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established by the City of Newport Beach. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would consist of construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot, and a fenced dog park. Construction activities would require the operation of off-road equipment and trucks that are known sources of vibration. Construction activities may occur as near as 165 feet to the multi -family homes located on the south side of the proposed Project site. Since neither the City's General Plan nor the Municipal Code provide any thresholds related to vibration, Caltrans guidances has been utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch -per -second peak particle velocity (PPV). Table 4-25 shows the typical PPV produced from some common construction equipment. s From Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, prepared by Caltrans, September 2013. Chambers Group, Inc. 105 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Table 4-25: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Emissions Pile Driver (impact) 0.644 104 Pile Driver (sonic) 0.170 93 Clam Shovel Drop 0.202 94 Hydromill - in soil -in rock 0.008 0.017 66 75 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson Drill 0.089 87 Loaded truck (off road) 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006. From the list of equipment shown in Table 4-25, an impact pile driver with a vibration level of 0.644 inch -per -second PPV would be the source of the highest vibration levels of all equipment utilized during construction activities for the proposed Project. Based on typical propagation rates this would result in a vibration level of 0.081 inch -per -second PPV at the nearest home to construction activities. The construction -related vibration levels would be within the 0.25 inch -per -second PPV threshold detailed above. Construction -related vibration impacts would be less than significant. The on-going operation of the proposed Project would not result in the creation of any known vibration sources. Therefore, a less than significant vibration impact is anticipated from the operation of the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport and is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the proposed Project site. The project site (� is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of John Wayne Airport. The proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the surrounding area to excessive levels of airport- generated noise. As such, airport and airstrip noise impacts to the proposed Project would be less dor than significant. L., M: Chambers Group, Inc. 106 21169 l.r Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.14.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed Project will not directly induce a substantial unplanned population growth because the proposed activities do not include the development of new homes and businesses that would promote relocation into the proposed Project area. The proposed Project may include extending an access road through the parking lot to connect to the Hoag Memorial Hospital property. However, the proposed Project would not indirectly induce population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure within public roads, as the potential access road extension would be intended to serve the existing population. The proposed Project is limited to the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, parking lot, and the addition of a fenced dog park. No impact would occur. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed Project would not include construction of any residences or housing units and would not involve any activities that would result displacing existing residents or housing. No impact would occur. Chambers Group, Inc. 107 21169 Less than POPULATION AND HOUSING. Potentially Significant Less Than No 14. Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? lace substantial numbers of existing people or [Th sing, necessitating the construction ofacement housing elsewhere? 4.14.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed Project will not directly induce a substantial unplanned population growth because the proposed activities do not include the development of new homes and businesses that would promote relocation into the proposed Project area. The proposed Project may include extending an access road through the parking lot to connect to the Hoag Memorial Hospital property. However, the proposed Project would not indirectly induce population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure within public roads, as the potential access road extension would be intended to serve the existing population. The proposed Project is limited to the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, parking lot, and the addition of a fenced dog park. No impact would occur. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed Project would not include construction of any residences or housing units and would not involve any activities that would result displacing existing residents or housing. No impact would occur. Chambers Group, Inc. 107 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.15.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. The proposed Project would not include the construction of new fire protection facilities or require the alteration of nearby fire protection facilities. The nearest fire station to the proposed Project site is the Newport Beach Fire Department Lido Station located at 475 32nd Street, approximately 0.7 miles southeast from the proposed Project site (Google Maps 2019). The proposed Project would not result in increased populations that would require additional public services. The proposed Project does not include any activities that would require the modification of the Lido Fire Station or other fire stations. The construction of the proposed Project would temporarily increase the risk of fire due to the presence of construction equipment at the Project site. However, compliance with the Newport Beach Fire Department requirements for fire protection standards would minimize the risk of fire. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios for police protection. The proposed Project would be provided by police protection services by the Newport Beach Police Department, and supplemented by the Costa Mesa Police Department. The nearest Chambers Group, Inc. 108 21169 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of Less than new or physically altered governmental facilities, Potentially Significant Less Than 15. need for new or physically altered governmental Significant With Significant No facilities, the construction of which could cause Impact Mitigation Impact Impact significant environmental impacts, in order to Incorporated maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ (c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ (d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ 1 ® ❑ 4.15.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. The proposed Project would not include the construction of new fire protection facilities or require the alteration of nearby fire protection facilities. The nearest fire station to the proposed Project site is the Newport Beach Fire Department Lido Station located at 475 32nd Street, approximately 0.7 miles southeast from the proposed Project site (Google Maps 2019). The proposed Project would not result in increased populations that would require additional public services. The proposed Project does not include any activities that would require the modification of the Lido Fire Station or other fire stations. The construction of the proposed Project would temporarily increase the risk of fire due to the presence of construction equipment at the Project site. However, compliance with the Newport Beach Fire Department requirements for fire protection standards would minimize the risk of fire. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios for police protection. The proposed Project would be provided by police protection services by the Newport Beach Police Department, and supplemented by the Costa Mesa Police Department. The nearest Chambers Group, Inc. 108 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California police station is the Costa Mesa Police Department located at 99 Fair Drive in the City of Costa Mesa, approximately 4.5 miles north from the proposed Project. The Newport Beach Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, and is approximately 5 miles northeast from the proposed Project (Google Maps 2019). The proposed Project would not result in increased populations that would require additional public services, nor would it impact the nearest police station. The development of the proposed bridge would result in a beneficial impact related to emergency responses because the bridge would provide increased safety for pedestrians and bicyclists that would typically cross the busy West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue intersection which are considered major arterials. No impact would occur. c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in increased populations that would require additional school facilities, nor would it impact the nearest school. The nearest school to the proposed Project site is Pacifica Christian High School, approximately 0.45 miles from the proposed Project site located at 883 West 15th Street in Newport Beach (Google Maps 2019). There are no proposed activities that would occur within or adjacent to the high school area. No impact would occur. d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, as well as an asphalt parking lot and dog park at the northwest corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. The proposed Project would connect the southeast portion of the Sunset Ridge Park with the enlarged parking lot at the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Construction activities would be scheduled during low usage months, or events would be relocated to an alternate location temporarily if parking cannot be provided closer to the park. While the presence of the bridge will change the surrounding area, the proposed Project will provide pedestrians additional parking and a safe passageway to access Sunset Ridge Park. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The Hoag Child Center building is located approximately 0.15 miles east from the proposed parking lot, and the Hoag Hospital is located in the immediate Project vicinity. The proposed Project would not result in increased populations that would require an increase in hospital services. While the proposed Project would occur near the Hoag Child Center parking lot, the Chambers Group, Inc. 109 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California proposed activities would not require physical alterations of the center, and would not impact service, response, or performance. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.16 RECREATION 4.16.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge, as well as an asphalt parking lot and fenced dog park. The proposed Project will connect the southeast portion of the Sunset Ridge Park and the parking lot at the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. The proposed Project will not alter Sunset Ridge Park; however, the southeast portion of the park will be disturbed for the construction of the bridge. Construction activities would be scheduled during low usage months, or events would be relocated to an alternate location temporarily if parking cannot be provided closer to the park. While the presence of the bridge will change the surrounding area, the proposed Project will provide park users additional parking and a safe passageway to access Sunset Ridge Park. The proposed Project would not result in the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities. The proposed Project would involve the addition of a bridge and parking lot to provide additional routes forvisitors of Sunset Ridge Park and would provide additional parking to existing users. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in the new construction of a 0.2 to 0.3 acre dog park to the area. The dog park would include benches, trash cans, and new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation needs. The construction of the dog park would convert the existing vacant lot located at the northeastern area of the proposed Project. As stated in Section 4.4.1, Biological Resources, the proposed Project does not contain habitats for sensitive or endangered Chambers Group, Inc. 110 21169 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than No 16. RECREATION. Significant With Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact p Incorporated (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 4.16.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge, as well as an asphalt parking lot and fenced dog park. The proposed Project will connect the southeast portion of the Sunset Ridge Park and the parking lot at the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. The proposed Project will not alter Sunset Ridge Park; however, the southeast portion of the park will be disturbed for the construction of the bridge. Construction activities would be scheduled during low usage months, or events would be relocated to an alternate location temporarily if parking cannot be provided closer to the park. While the presence of the bridge will change the surrounding area, the proposed Project will provide park users additional parking and a safe passageway to access Sunset Ridge Park. The proposed Project would not result in the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities. The proposed Project would involve the addition of a bridge and parking lot to provide additional routes forvisitors of Sunset Ridge Park and would provide additional parking to existing users. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in the new construction of a 0.2 to 0.3 acre dog park to the area. The dog park would include benches, trash cans, and new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation needs. The construction of the dog park would convert the existing vacant lot located at the northeastern area of the proposed Project. As stated in Section 4.4.1, Biological Resources, the proposed Project does not contain habitats for sensitive or endangered Chambers Group, Inc. 110 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California species. The Project is avoiding sensitive resources to the maximum extent feasible. Any impacts tc sensitive habitats will be mitigated consistent with City policies. This is further discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the adverse effect on the environment for sensitive species. In addition, the proposed Project would result in the conversion of the vacant lot and provide visitors and residents access to a recreational area specific for dogs. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 4-26: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis — Recreation General Plan R 3.1: Adequate Access / Coastal Land Use Plan 3.2.3-1 Ensure that parks and recreation facilities include provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities and that existing facilities are appropriately retrofitted to include such access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. General Plan R 3.3: Facility Design / Coastal Land Use Plan 3.2.3-3 Design guardrails on parks, piers, trails, and public viewing areas to take into consideration the views at the eye level of persons in wheelchairs. General Plan R 7.1: Public Coastal Access / Coastal Land Use Plan 3.2.2-1 Protect public coastal access recreational opportunities through the provision of adequate support facilities and services. General Plan R 9.1: Provision of Public Coastal Access Provide adequate public access to the shoreline, beach, coastal parks, trails, and bay, acquire additional public access points to these areas and provide parking, where possible. (Policy 1-166.1) Coastal Land Use Plan: Public Access and Recreation 3.2.1-1: Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities in the coastal zone. Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Consistent. Access to the pedestrian bridge, dog park, and parking facilities would be accessible for persons with disabilities and compliant with the American Disabilities Act. Consistent. The proposed Project will be designed in consideration with the viewing level of persons in wheelchairs. Consistent. The proposed Project provides a facility for public use to access coastal views, and access to recreational areas. The removal of the dirt mound on the eastern portion of the proposed Project would improve current public views of the coastal area. The proposed Project would not prevent public coastal access, or access to recreational facilities. Consistent. The proposed Project would provide additional viewing areas for coastal views and access to locations designed to contain viewing areas. The proposed Project includes additional parking facilities for users of the dog park and accommodates users of Sunset Ridge Park. Consistent. The proposed Project provides additional viewing areas for coastal views and access to locations designed to contain viewing areas which expands opportunities to access coastal views. The removal of the dirt mound on the eastern portion of the proposed Project would improve current public views of the coastal area. 111 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Coastal Land Use Plan: Public Access and Recreation 3.2.2-4: Develop parking management programs for coastal zone areas to minimize parking use conflicts between commercial uses, residential uses, and coastal zone visitors during peak summer months. 4.17 TRANSPORTATION Consistent. The proposed Project is located within a coastal zone and provides additional parking facilities for users of the area, including Sunset Ridge Park. This allows users to park their vehicles within a designated area and minimizes parking within commercial and residential areas. 4.17.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not involve the significant modification of roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes and therefore would not conflict with applicable circulation plans. The proposed Project would provide an additional bicycle and pedestrian path to Sunset Ridge park with the addition of the bicycle and pedestrian bridge. The proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase of users that would generate a significant increase in traffic because no construction of businesses or residences would occur and no expansion of park facilities other than dog park are proposed. In addition, the larger parking lot would serve the existing park users. During construction, the proposed Project would result in intermittent sidewalk closures to construct bridge abutments, grading, entrance to the new parking lot, and landscaping. During this phase, alternate routes will be provided to pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed Project would have the potential to include temporary road closures during construction. Superior Avenue may be closed at night depending on the bridge design chosen to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge's superstructure; all other roads in the vicinity would remain open. Superior Avenue, as listed as a tsunami run up area, would not be modified to prevent its use during an emergency. A traffic control plan would be prepared prior to construction Chambers Group, Inc. 112 21169 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than No 17, TRANSPORTATION. Significant With Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths? (b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines ❑ ❑ ® ❑ section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ® ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (d) Result in inadequate emergency access? -01 ❑ ® ❑ 4.17.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not involve the significant modification of roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes and therefore would not conflict with applicable circulation plans. The proposed Project would provide an additional bicycle and pedestrian path to Sunset Ridge park with the addition of the bicycle and pedestrian bridge. The proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase of users that would generate a significant increase in traffic because no construction of businesses or residences would occur and no expansion of park facilities other than dog park are proposed. In addition, the larger parking lot would serve the existing park users. During construction, the proposed Project would result in intermittent sidewalk closures to construct bridge abutments, grading, entrance to the new parking lot, and landscaping. During this phase, alternate routes will be provided to pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed Project would have the potential to include temporary road closures during construction. Superior Avenue may be closed at night depending on the bridge design chosen to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge's superstructure; all other roads in the vicinity would remain open. Superior Avenue, as listed as a tsunami run up area, would not be modified to prevent its use during an emergency. A traffic control plan would be prepared prior to construction Chambers Group, Inc. 112 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California to specify any potential reroutes, speed limits, etc. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. Uses at the proposed Project site would be similar to existing conditions. Land uses would remain the same with no permanent or significant changes in the number of residences or workers in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would not change activities that are currently occurring onsite. As per the CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled, such as pedestrian, bicycle and transit projects, should have a less than significant impact. As per the CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(2), transportation projects which reduce vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. The proposed Project is not a land use project and would not involve changes to the existing land uses. The proposed Project would provide additional bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, with safe access between the dog park, parking lot, and Sunset Ridge Park via pedestrian bridge. Public transit services are provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA routes 1 and 47 pass through the proposed Project area. The nearest transit stops are Coast -Superior located south of Sunset Ridge Park, Coast -Balboa located south of the proposed parking lot along West Coast Highway, Balboa -River located on West Balboa Boulevard and Superior Avenue, and Balboa -46th located across the Balboa -River stop. The proposed Project would not impact or modify public transit stops provided by OCTA. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. Depending on the bridge design, temporary re -striping of Superior Avenue may occur to build a support structure during construction. However, the proposed Project would not change the roadway design that would include sharp curves, nor would it involve incompatible uses. The addition of the bicycle and pedestrian bridge would not pose a hazard to high profile vehicles because height of the bridge (from ground to base) would be built above the vertical clearance of 14 feet as identified in the California Vehicle Code (Caltrans 2018). The pedestrian bridge would provide access which would increase pedestrian safety. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not include change to nearby roadways or emergency access routes. While Superior Avenue has the potential to be closed at night, depending on the bridge design chosen, to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge's superstructure, all other roads in the vicinity would remain open. Superior Avenue, as listed as a tsunami run up area, would not be modified to prevent its use during an emergency. A traffic control plan would be prepared prior to construction to specify any potential reroutes, speed limits, etc. Emergency personnel would be able to access the proposed parking lot and dog park. Emergency access would be provided and maintained off Superior Avenue for the proposed dog park. Therefore, Chambers Group, Inc. 113 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an impact associated with emergency access. 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the potential tribal cultural resources effects from implementation of the proposed Project. 4.18.1 Impact Analysis i) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in a listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5.1(a), the proposed Project does not have historic or prehistoric resources identified. In addition, the proposed Project area does not contain any structures of historic significance. No impact would occur. ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. On May 22, 2019, Chambers Group requested that the NAHC conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File to determine if cultural resources significant Chambers Group, Inc. 114 21169 Less than TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Potentially Significant Less Than No 18, Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact p Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 4.18.1 Impact Analysis i) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in a listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5.1(a), the proposed Project does not have historic or prehistoric resources identified. In addition, the proposed Project area does not contain any structures of historic significance. No impact would occur. ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. On May 22, 2019, Chambers Group requested that the NAHC conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File to determine if cultural resources significant Chambers Group, Inc. 114 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California to Native Americans have been recorded in the Project footprint and/or buffer area. On June 7, 2019, Chambers Group received a response from NAHC stating that the search of its Sacred Lands File was positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources within 0.5 mile of the Project area or surrounding vicinity. A letter dated June 7, 2019 from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) identified the culturally affiliated tribes and provided the positive results of NAHC Sacred Lands File search. On June 27, 2019, the City of Newport Beach submitted AB 52 notification letters to two Native American tribal governments or designated tribal representatives. Of the two tribes or tribal representatives, the City received responses from one tribe. Responses and consultation requests were received from the following tribes within 30 -days: • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation (July 8, 2019): The tribe responded within the 30 -day timeframe under AB 52 and requested consultation if ground disturbance was planned. Since the project does call for ground disturbance, the City of Newport Beach engaged in consultation with Tribal Councilmembers on July 25, 2019. During the consultation, the Tribal Councilmembers indicated that the Project is within a culturally sensitive area. Because of this information, the City of Newport Beach proposed the following mitigation measure on July 26, 2019: MM TCR -1: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence that a Native American monitor (i.e., Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation), has been retained to observe ground disturbance activities during grading and excavation. In the eventthat tribal cultural resources are discovered, the Native American monitorshall be included in the consultation on the recommended next steps. The Tribal Councilmembers reviewed the proposed mitigation measure, and confirmed that they approve the proposed mitigation measure. With the tribe's approval, consultation is considered complete. Pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1(d), each tribal government or representative was given 30 days upon receipt of the AB 52 notification letter to provide a request for consultation on the Project. The 30 -day request period for consultation expired on July 27, 2019. One of the two tribal representatives responded to the initial notification letter, with one requesting consultation. Tribal consultation between the City of Newport Beach and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation is ongoing. The City of Newport Beach, as lead agency, has fulfilled its obligations under AB 52 to engage in tribal consultation with all other tribal governments. 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Utilities and service systems include potable water and wastewater treatment. The quantity of water consumed and wastewater generated by a project is determined by several factors, including the size, type and characteristics of the project. The need for construction of new or replacement water and wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., reservoirs, storage tanks, water mains, filtration plants, pumps, Chambers Group, Inc. 115 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California wells, and other connections or distribution facilities) would depend on the existing capacity and anticipated demand for the proposed Project site. 4.19.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or expansion of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed Project would not require relocation or construction of new utilities for wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. The proposed Project consists of the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, asphalt parking lot, and fenced dog park. The proposed construction activities would require water for construction needs; however, expanded or new water entitlements would not be required. The dog park would include new water service for the drinking fountain and for irrigation needs. The dog park would result in demand for water services.; however, the amount of water uses for the dog park would be less than what is required to service commercial, residential, or industrial properties. According to the City of Newport Beach Water Master Plan, the majority of the existing water demands are from land uses for residential and commercials uses. The water needs of the dog park would not result in depletion of existing water services (City of Newport Beach 2019c). There are no proposed structures or facilities, Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 116 Less than UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Potentially Significant Less Than No 19. Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated (a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or ❑ ❑ ❑ telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future ❑ ❑ ® ❑ development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ solid wastes? 4.19.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or expansion of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed Project would not require relocation or construction of new utilities for wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. The proposed Project consists of the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, asphalt parking lot, and fenced dog park. The proposed construction activities would require water for construction needs; however, expanded or new water entitlements would not be required. The dog park would include new water service for the drinking fountain and for irrigation needs. The dog park would result in demand for water services.; however, the amount of water uses for the dog park would be less than what is required to service commercial, residential, or industrial properties. According to the City of Newport Beach Water Master Plan, the majority of the existing water demands are from land uses for residential and commercials uses. The water needs of the dog park would not result in depletion of existing water services (City of Newport Beach 2019c). There are no proposed structures or facilities, Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 116 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California including commercial and residential properties that would require new utility connections. No impact would occur. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. Irvine Rancho Water District, Mesa, and the City all provide water services within Newport Beach. Water for the proposed Project will be provided by the City, and the City has acknowledged that there is adequate water supply to support the Project. The proposed Project would not involve in the construction of residential, commercial, or industrial buildings that would require large, frequent amounts water supplies for operation and maintenance. The dog park would require new water service for the drinking fountain, and for irrigation purposes. However, as stated in Section 4.19.1 a), the water uses for the dog park would not result in the significant depletion of existing water services, or interrupt water services within the area. The proposed Project would comply with local, regional, and state water conservation policies, and follow best management practices to reduce water consumption during construction including Policy NR 1.1, Water Conservation in New Development, of the General Plan (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project would include drought tolerant landscaping and the construction of a fenced dog park. Recycled water will be used for maintenance and operation of these areas. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in an impact associated with new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed Project would not involve the construction of residential, commercial, or industrial buildings that would require a significant need in wastewater treatment. Furthermore, the proposed Project would comply with the General Plan goals and policies in water conservation and recycled water use during development. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not involve in an increase in populations within the proposed Project area and would not result in an increase in waste generation. The construction of the proposed Project would generate solid waste including scrap lumber, concrete, residual waste, packaging material, plastics, etc. Underthe General Plan, the Orange County landfills will have adequate capacity to operate until 2035. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department owns and operates three active landfills. Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill services the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach has a recycling program which has resulted in recycling over 25 percent of its residential waste stream in 2002, and 100 percent of concrete, asphalt, and green and brown Chambers Group, Inc. 117 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California wastes from City operations. Landscape, turf maintenance, and tree trimming contractors, under the General Plan, are required to recycle 100 percent of waste generated (City of Newport Beach 2006). To ensure optimal diversion of solid wastes generated, the proposed Project would recycle, or salvage solid waste generated to minimize disposal into landfills. After construction, once the pedestrian bridge, parking lot, and park have been developed, the generation of solid waste would be reduced. Compliance and incorporation of the City's guidelines in waste reduction and recycling goals would result in less than significant impacts related to solid waste. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. During construction and operation of the proposed Project, all activities would comply with all City, county, and state solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling mandates, including compliance with the county -wide the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with waste regulations. 4.20 WILDFIRE 4.20.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.9.1 Impact (g), the proposed Project site is located in a low/no susceptibility area for wildfire hazards (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project would not impair emergency access or an emergency response plan. No impact would occur. Chambers Group, Inc. 118 21169 Less than WILDFIRE. Potentially Significant Less Than No 20' If located in or near state responsibility areas or Significant With Significant lands classified as very high fire hazard severity Impact Mitigation Impact Impact zones, would the project: Incorporated (a) Impair an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ emergency evacuation plan? (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project ❑ ❑ ❑ occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other ❑ El utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or El El ❑ landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 4.20.1 Impact Analysis a) Would the project impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.9.1 Impact (g), the proposed Project site is located in a low/no susceptibility area for wildfire hazards (City of Newport Beach 2006). The proposed Project would not impair emergency access or an emergency response plan. No impact would occur. Chambers Group, Inc. 118 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The proposed Project is located within an established and built urban community that has low/no susceptibility for wildfire. The proposed Project would not include the installation or expansion of associated infrastructures (such as fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or other utilities) that could exacerbate a fire risk. No impact would occur. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. As discussed above in Section 4.20.1 Impact (b), the proposed Project is in an area of low/no susceptibility for wildfire. No impact would occur. d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability or drainage changes? No Impact. The proposed Project site is located in an area of low/no susceptibility to wildfire. The proposed Project would not include construction of structures that could be exposed to significant risks of post fire induced landslides. No impact would occur. 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Chambers Group, Inc. 119 21169 Less than Potentially Significant Less Than 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated (a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ ❑ ® ❑ beings, either directly or indirectly? Chambers Group, Inc. 119 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 4.21.1 Impact Analysis a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the construction of a pedestrian bridge and bicycle bridge, as well as an asphalt parking lot and dog park. The proposed Project is located in an urbanized area with a currently active park and parking lot. The proposed Project will not result in significant impacts to sensitive animal species because of their low potential to occur within the proposed Project site. However, the proposed Project may result in direct and indirect impacts to habitat for sensitive wildlife species or to sensitive wildlife species that may be present within natural communities adjacent to the proposed Project. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would result in less than significant impact to natural communities and sensitive plant species. MM BIO -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 BIO -2: Flag or install construction fencing or silt fencing along the proposed Project boundaries to delineate construction limits and to prevent encroachment into adjacent natural communities. The limits of both the Superior and West Coast Highway wetlands will be clearly demarcated in the field and all on-site construction personnel will be informed about the wetland avoidance area prior to the commencement of construction activities. The construction contractor will install a solid protective barrier that is clearly visible to construction personnel, particularly any construction equipment operators, and that prevents any incidental discharge of soil or debris into the jurisdictional wetlands. Furthermore, a biologist will monitor the construction work to ensure that encroachment into the wetlands does not occur. Chambers Group, Inc. 120 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California MM BIO -3: Gravel bags should be placed along the tops of the v -d itches in order to minimize erosion and to prevent construction debris and potentially hazardous materials from entering the waterway during a rain event. ■ MM 13I0-4: Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland located within the proposed Project footprint should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. o Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland located within the proposed Project footprint, that may be avoided, shall be flagged or construction or silt fencing should be installed along the avoidable vegetation to delineate construction limits and to prevent encroachment into adjacent natural communities. o Any impacts to Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland which cannot be avoided will be mitigated through one of the following, in order of priority: ■ Onsite Mitigation: Any temporary impacts to CSS will be revegetated within the Sunset Ridge planted area, in areas that are not currently vegetated. Specifically, there is an opportunity for revegetation in an area outside of the delineated wetlands that, with approval from the Commission, could provide additive benefits to the Sunset Ridge Park planted area, immediately to the northeast of the Project site. This will provide a continuation of the CSS habitat previously revegetated onsite. The City will replant the area to be equivalent to existing conditions, which consists of superior high quality native vegetation with coverage of primarily CSS. If this area is not approved for revegetation by the Commission, alternative onsite mitigation opportunities will be evaluated. ■ Offsite Mitigation: Additive habitat assessment in the area adjacent to the project site within the replanted CSS would be provided to mitigate impacts from direct disturbance from the bridge structure and potential impacts from shading. One wetland area is located off site along the slope on the north side of Superior Avenue. Another wetland area is located along West Coast Highway, south of the proposed Project site. The proposed Project has been designed to avoid these wetlands. Mitigation Measure 13I0-5, below, to ensure that the Project will not impact the wetlands. This adaptive management approach would safeguard the biological integrity of, as well as protect and preserve, the existing West Coast Highway wetlands. ■ MM BIO -5: Following completion of the construction activities, the City will conduct monthly monitoring of the West Coast Highway wetlands to evaluate and document the associated conditions to determine if any unforeseen impacts from the proposed construction activities are occurring. This monthly monitoring will continue for up to one year, or until such time as it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the wetlands will continue to persist in perpetuity. If it is determined during post -construction monitoring that construction has resulted in an unexpected impact to the wetlands, appropriate remedial actions will be implemented by the City. For instance, an unforeseen disruption or obstruction of subsurface hydrology to the wetlands may warrant the City's provision of an alternative water source that would continue to supply sufficient water to sustain the wetlands. Chambers Group, Inc. 121 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California Implementation of the listed minimization measures will result in less than significant impacts to sensitive plant species, wildlife species, and natural communities within the proposed Project site. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact. The following project has been identified to be located near the proposed Project site according to the City of Newport Beach proposed Capital Improvement Program (City of Newport Beach 2019d) Project No: 181-11: West Coast Highway Median Landscaping: This project is the installation and enhancement of the landscaping and irrigation systems in the medians along West Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard, and West Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue. PA2008-047: Old Newport GPA Project: 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard: This project is the demolition of 3 existing buildings to construct a medical office building. This project is currently under construction and is expected to be completed at the end of 2019. 15R19: Old Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway Widening: This project is the widening of the westbound side of West Coast Highway, and realignment of Old Newport Boulevard. In combination with other planned and pending development in the area, development of the proposed Project would have less than significant cumulative impacts. The proposed Project impacts will not contribute to cumulative impacts because the proposed activities will not occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project along West Coast Highway. The median landscaping will not occur concurrent with the proposed Project and the demolition at Newport Boulevard is ongoing and will be completed prior to the proposed Project construction. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact. Effects to human beings are generally associated with air quality, noise, traffic safety, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials. Hazardous materials used during construction will be handled, stored, and disposed of according to local, State, and federal regulations. These impacts will cease upon completion of the proposed activities. Impacts will be less than significant. Chambers Group, Inc. 122 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California SECTION 5.0 — REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors) 2012 The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press. Second Edition. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2018 Height and Low Clearances. Accessed May 2019. http:Hwww.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/­t---rucks/height.html City of Newport Beach 2005 Environmental Study Areas Map. Local Coastal Program; Coastal Land Use Plan. Available online at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/LCP/LCP 2005 CLUP/MAP4- lLCP05 ESA.pdf 2006 General Plan. Available online at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General Plan/COMPLETE FEB 2019/General P Ian 2006 Complete.pdf 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Ridge Park Project. Banning Ranch Conservancy 2013 Energy Action Plan 2017a Coastal Land Use Plan. Available online at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/LCP/Internet%20PDFs//CLUP Cover%20and%2 0Ta ble % 20of% 20Contents. pdf 2017b Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. Available online at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/html/pdfs/NewportBeach2l.pdf 2019a Newport Beach Municipal Code. Accessed May 2019. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/ 2019b Municipal Operations — Parks and Trees 2019c Water Master Plan 2019d Capital Improvement Program Proposed for Fiscal Year 2019-20 Department of Conservation (DOC) 1981 Generalized Aggregate Resource Classification Map. Orange County — Temescal Valley and Adjacent Production. California Division of Mines and Geology. Chambers Group, Inc. 123 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 2004 Agricultural Preserves. Williamson Act Parcels. 2019 Data Viewer. DOC Maps. Accessed May 2019. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/dataviewer/ Department of Transportation (DOT) 2019b California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available online at: http•//www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16 livability/scenic highways/ Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Google 2019 EnviroStor. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Accessed May 2019 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov 2019 Google Maps. Accessed May 2019. https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5081521,- 117.3263889,14z Gray, J. and D. Bramlet 1992 Habitat Classification System, Natural Resources, Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, CA. Holland, R.F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) 2005 Watershed G Drainage Map Orange County Water District (OCWD) 2018 Well Locations Map 2015 Groundwater Management Plan Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J.M. Evens 2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, CA. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Appendix IV -B. CARB's Mobile Source Strategy State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Chambers Group, Inc. 124 21169 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, California 2014 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) Permit. Order No. R8-2014- 0002. NPDES Permit No. CAS 618030. Accessed June 2019. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water issues/programs/stormwater/docs/o cpermit/2014/Draft R8-2014-0002.pdf 2019 GeoTracker Database. Accessed May 2019. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2019 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Accessed May 2019. https:Hwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoi[Survey.aspx United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2019 U.S. Quaternary Faults Map. Accessed May 2019. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/­webappviewer/index.html Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Exhibit "B" Final Mitigated Negative Declaration including Responses to Comments and Errata Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 (PA2019-014) State Clearinghouse Number 2019099074 FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT PROJECT Newport Beach, CA (Orange County) Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, California 92707 November 5, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...............................................4 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................4 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................................4 1.3 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY......................................................................................................... 4 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE..................................................................................................4 1.5 LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................ 6 1.6 PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................ 6 1.7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................. 7 1.7.1 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge.............................................................. 7 1.7.2 Superior Parking Lot......................................................................................................... 8 1.7.3 Dog Park........................................................................................................................... 9 1.7.4 Construction.....................................................................................................................9 1.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS.......................................................................................... 9 SECTION 2.0—FINDINGS............................................................................ SECTION 3.0 — MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................. ............11 12 SECTION4.0 — CIRCULATION.............................................................................................................15 SECTION 5.0 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES....................................................................................16 5.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ........................................... 16 5.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT IS/MND .................... 16 SECTION 6.0 — REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ...............................148 SECTION 7.0— MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.......................................................................153 SECTION 8.0 — REFERENCES............................................................................................................154 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Commenting Individuals and Agencies............................................................................ .......16 SECTION 1.0 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Newport Beach (City) proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 parking spaces and a fenced dog park (Project) on an approximately 3.4 -acre site. The proposed bridge will connect Sunset Ridge Park to the new asphalt parking lot located at the northeast corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 2100- 21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study (IS) to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the IS, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency must find that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and must prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for that project. Such determination can be made only if, "there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency" that such impacts may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code). This environmental documentation is intended as a formal document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits, and other discretionary approvals would be required. The environmental documentation and supporting analysis are subject to a public review period. Following review of any comments received, the City of Newport Beach will consider these comments as part of the Project's environmental review and include them with the IS documentation for consideration by the City. 1.3 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY The City has prepared this IS to provide the public and responsible agencies with information about the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project. This IS includes a project -level analysis of the potential effects associated with the Project. 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines 15150 — Incorporation by Reference, this Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration shall incorporate by reference all or portions of other technical documents and reports as a matter of public record. The documents listed below relate to the proposed Project or provides additional materials related to the proposed Project setting. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The information incorporated into this document is referenced in Section 5. References. The information is based on the following technical studies and/or planning documents. City of Newport Beach General Plan (Approved on November 7, 2006) The General Plan Environmental Impact report addresses the potential environmental effects of the City of Newport Beach's proposed General Plan Updates. This is a comprehensive plan that discusses the future potential growth and development within the City. The General Plan consists of ten of elements that covers the following areas: • Land Use Element • Harbor and Bay Element • Housing Element • Historical Resources Element • Circulation Element • Recreation Element • Arts and Cultural Element • Natural Resources Element • Safety Element • Noise Element Each element discusses specific goals and policies to maintain the natural and built environments within the City. Since its adoption, sections of the General Plan have been updated including the 2008 Safety Element and the 2014-2021 Housing Element Update. The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and would be subject to the general plans' goals, policies, and guidelines to maintain the City's long-term vision. Coastal Land Use Plan (Adopted on July 26, 2016) The Coastal Land Use Plan was prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The plan sets for the objectives and policies of land and water use within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Project is located within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach and would be subject to the guidelines and policies under the plan. Local Coastal Implementation Plan (Approved on November 22, 2016). The Local Coastal Implementation Plan is also available at the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code website which is updated as of 2019. The Local Coastal Implementation Plan is the primary tool used by the City of Newport Beach to carry out the objectives and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan and ensure activities and other proposed development are consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed Project is located within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach and would be subject to the guidelines and policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Approved on April 23, 2019) The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code covers all aspects of regulations including zoning, vehicle requirements, planning and zoning, local coastal program implementation, ordinance listing, and other development related requirements. Approved on October 26, 2010, the purpose of the Zoning Code is to carry out the policies identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The Zoning Code also promotes the development of the City, protection of public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare. It provides guidance in the protection of the character, social, and economic vitality of the neighborhoods. The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and would be required to comply with the objectives and policies relating to construction land uses, and development within the City of Newport Beach. 1.5 LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and is located approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline (Figure 2-1). Due to the proximity to the coast, the area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sunset Ridge Park, constructed in December 2014, is a 13.7 -acre active park with a baseball field and two soccer fields. Visitors to Sunset Ridge Park use the existing parking lot across Superior Avenue and cross at the at -grade Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection because no on-site parking is provided at Sunset Ridge Park. Currently, an existing City -owned parking lot with 64 metered parking stalls is located at the northeast corner of this intersection. The existing Superior Parking Lot is approximately 0.64 acres, with the driveway to the parking lot at approximately 0.17 acres. Access to the existing parking lot is available via an entrance off Superior Avenue for vehicles, and via a concrete pathway from the intersection of Superior Avenue and Coast Highway for pedestrians and bicyclists. Directly east of the existing parking lot is an undeveloped piece of land with steep slopes with ground elevations ranging from approximately 10 feet near West Coast Highway to approximately 75 feet near Sunset View Park based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), with some existing vegetation. Properties and land uses adjacent to the Project site include Sunset Ridge Park, Sunset View Park, Villa Balboa and Newport Crest residential communities, and the lower campus of Hoag Hospital. A shopping center and the Lido Sands residential community are located to the south across West Coast Highway from the Project site. The entire Project site is within the boundary of the coastal zone as established by the California Coastal Act and is therefore under the land use planning and regulatory jurisdiction not only of local government agencies but also the California Coastal Commission (Commission). The City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program includes a Coastal Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (City of Newport Beach 2017a, City of Newport Beach 2017b). The Coastal Land Use Plan sets the goals, objectives, and policies that administers uses of the land and water within its sphere of influence (excluding Newport Coast and Banning Ranch). The Coastal Land Use Plan is divided in subsections for land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection (City of Newport Beach 2017a). The purpose of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan is to implement policies of the California Coastal Act to protect, maintain, enhance, and restore the coastal zone environment. Site development must be consistent with the requirements of the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Act. 1.6 PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue are major arterials with a high volume of vehicular traffic. The purpose of the bridge is to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to improve the vehicular efficiency of the Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection. Specifically, the objectives of the Project are: To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. 1.7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot and a fenced dog park approximately 3.4 acres in size. Individual Project components are outlined below. 1.7.1 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicvcle Bridee The Steel Truss bridge option would span Superior Avenue and would be approximately 240 feet long, approximately 12 to 16 feet wide, and 16 feet tall. The bottom of the bridge's superstructure would be approximately 17 to 25 feet above the asphalt surface. The Steel Truss bridge would have steel members across the top of the bridge. This bridge option will be a single span bridge with steel piles to support the superstructure. The Concrete Cast -in -Place bridge option would span Superior Avenue and would be approximately 280 feet long, approximately 12 to 16 feet wide, and 8 feet tall. The bottom of the bridge's superstructure would be approximately 17 to 25 feet above the asphalt surface. The Concrete Cast -in -Place bridge would be open and not include any ceiling or roof. This bridge option will be a 3 -span structure with deep concrete foundations to structurally support the superstructure. Minimal lighting would be provided along the bridge for safety and security. The security lighting would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. A new staircase will provide access to the parking lot and bridge from the north side of West Coast Highway. Additionally, the proposed Project would include the construction of a new sidewalk/bike path from the modified parking lot entrance to the proposed bridge. Access to the bridge from Sunset Ridge Park will be from the southeastern edge of the park, adjacent to the intersection of the path from Superior Avenue to the park and the bike/pedestrian path surrounding the park. The bridge access from the Sunset Ridge Park side will be approximately 145 feet from the intersection of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. Due to the installation of the bridge, the location of the traffic signal at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue will need to be moved in order to provide proper height and visibility. The proposed bridge would help facilitate movement of pedestrians and bicyclists across Superior Avenue. The bridge is being designed to be mindful of view lines and the potential for visual obstruction. The two options being considered for the bridge design include either a steel truss bridge or a concrete cast -in- place bridge as shown in the images below. Steel Truss Bridge Concept (Single Span) Concrete Cast -in -Place Bridge Concept (3 -Span) 1.7.2 Superior Parkine Lot The proposed bridge would connect Sunset Ridge Park to a new, larger asphalt parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 parking spaces approximately 3.4 acres in size. The total area of impervious surface will include the parking lot and sidewalks, which totals approximately 65,000 square feet. Minimal additional security lighting would be provided within the parking lot for safety purposes. The security lighting would be down - shielded to prevent light scatter. Drought tolerant landscaping will be provided, and new trees will be planted. The parking lot will be operated in the same manner as the existing parking lot with paid metered parking spaces from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and the parking lot would remain open for 24 hours per day. The construction of the proposed parking lot will require demolition of the existing parking lot and significant grading and earthwork. Excavation would be greatest (up to 27 feet) at the east side of the Project site. The construction of the new parking lot would also require installation of several retaining walls with a height of up to 25 feet on the southern border of the Project site along West Coast Highway. The existing Project site is on a relatively steep slope with ground elevations ranging from approximately 10 feet by West Coast Highway to approximately 75 feet by Sunset View Park per NVAD 88. Construction of the parking lot may include a bicycle node (fix -it station) and a drinking water fountain. Optional Road Extension to Adjacent Property The City is currently working with the adjacent land owner (Hoag Memorial Hospital) to determine the feasibility of extending an access road through the redeveloped parking lot to connect to the lower campus of Hoag Memorial Hospital. If this option is to be exercised, the entrance from Superior Avenue will be extended to connect with the existing parking lot within Hoag Memorial Hospital. 1.7.3 Dog Park Construction of the proposed Project would also include the installation of a fenced dog park with 6 -foot tall fences, separating large and small dogs, which may include benches and trash cans. The dog park will be 0.2 to 0.3 acres in size. The dog park would require a new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation. Security lighting at the dog park would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. Hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. In addition, a shade structure may be installed at the dog park, approximately 10 to 15 feet in height. The top of the shade structure would be below the Sunset View Park ground elevation and would be designed to protect public coastal views. 1.7.4 Construction Construction of the proposed Project is scheduled to begin in early 2021 and reach completion in approximately 14 to 18 months. Since existing recreational activities occur at Sunset Ridge Park (soccer in the Fall and baseball in the Spring), construction activities would be scheduled during low usage months to avoid recreational events, or these events could be relocated to an alternate location temporarily if alternate/temporary parking cannot be allowed closer to the park. The work will occur predominantly during daytime work hours (7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.); however, occasional nighttime work may be required depending on bridge design to minimize public inconvenience and provide public safety. If the City decides to proceed with the steel truss bridge option, it is anticipated that Superior Avenue would be closed at night to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge superstructure. For nights where street closures would occur, alternate traffic routes and detour signage would be posted so as not to interfere with the public's access to the beach per Section 21101 of the Vehicle Code and Section 21.44.055 Temporary Street Closures of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (City of Newport Beach 2107b). In addition, depending on the bridge design, temporary re -striping of Superior Avenue may need to occur to construct the bridge supports. Construction equipment would include a grader, excavator, dozer, loader, crane, pile driver or drilling rig, grinder, dump trucks, rollers, and asphalt paving machine. Construction staging for the proposed Project would occur within the existing parking lot. After construction of the proposed Project, Superior Avenue may need pavement rehabilitation or restoration. Construction of the proposed Project may require intermittent sidewalk closures on Superior Avenue and the north side of West Coast Highway for the construction of bridge abutments, grading, and modifying the existing entrance to the new parking lot and landscaping. Construction will result in the excavation of excess soil, beyond what is required for fill purposes. This excess soil of approximately 20,000 to 25,000 cubic yards will be used to fill the need for soil in local projects and is expected to be transported to locations within a radius of approximately 50 miles. Any other construction debris would be disposed of by the construction contractor consistent with City disposal requirements and those of the receiving site. 1.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS A public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that has discretionary approval power over a project is referred to under the CEQA Guidelines as a "Responsible Agency." Reviewing Agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary powers but may review the IS/MND for adequacy and accuracy. Potential Reviewing Agencies and Responsible Agencies include the following: Responsible Agencies State of California • California Coastal Commission —Coastal Development Permit Amendment • Caltrans — NEPA document lead agency Local City of Newport Beach— CEQA document Lead Agency Coastal Development Permit, Grading and Building Permits SECTION 2.0— FINDINGS An Initial Study has been prepared to assess the Proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment and the significance of those impacts and was incorporated in the Draft MND. Based on this Initial Study, it has been determined that the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts on the environment once all proposed mitigation measures have been implemented. This conclusion is supported by the following findings: ■ No potential was found for adverse impacts on agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, recreation, wildfire threats associated with the Proposed Project. Al Potential adverse impacts resulting from the Proposed Project were found to be less than significant in the following areas: aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, ■ Full implementation of the proposed mitigation measures included in this MND would reduce potential project -related adverse impact on biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. SECTION 3.0— MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures and project conditions have been incorporated into the scope of work for the Proposed Project and will be fully implemented by the District to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts identified in this MND. These mitigation measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for this project. MM 13I0-1: 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 13I0-2: Flag or install construction fencing or silt fencing along the proposed Project boundaries to delineate construction limits and to prevent encroachment into adjacent natural communities. The limits of both the Superior and West Coast Highway wetlands will be clearly demarcated in the field and all on- site construction personnel will be informed about the wetland avoidance area prior to the commencement of construction activities. The construction contractor will install a solid protective barrier that is clearly visible to construction personnel, particularly any construction equipment operators, and that prevents any incidental discharge of soil or debris into the jurisdictional wetlands. Furthermore, a biologist will monitor the construction work to ensure that encroachment into the wetlands does not occur. MM 13I0-3: Gravel bags should be placed along the tops of the v -ditches in order to minimize erosion and to prevent construction debris and potentially hazardous materials from entering the waterway during a rain event. MM BIO -4: Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland located within the proposed Project footprint should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. • Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland located within the proposed Project footprint, that may be avoided, shall be flagged or construction or silt fencing should be installed along the avoidable vegetation to delineate construction limits and to prevent encroachment into adjacent natural communities. • Any impacts to Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland which cannot be avoided will be mitigated through one of the following, in order of priority: o Onsite Mitigation: Any temporary impacts to CSS will be revegetated within the Sunset Ridge planted area, in areas that are not currently vegetated. Specifically, there is an opportunity for revegetation in an area outside of the delineated wetlands that, with approval from the Commission, could provide additive benefits to the Sunset Ridge Park planted area, immediately to the northeast of the Project site. This will provide a continuation of the CSS habitat previously revegetated onsite. The City will replant the area to be equivalent to existing conditions, which consists of superior high-quality native vegetation with coverage of primarily CSS. If this area is not approved for revegetation by the Commission, alternative onsite mitigation opportunities will be evaluated. o Offsite Mitigation: Additive habitat assessment in the area adjacent to the project site within the replanted CSS would be provided to mitigate impacts from direct disturbance from the bridge structure and potential impacts from shading. MM BIO -5: Following completion of the construction activities, the City will conduct monthly monitoring of the West Coast Highway wetlands to evaluate and document the associated conditions to determine if any unforeseen impacts from the proposed construction activities are occurring. This monthly monitoring will continue for up to one year, or until such time as it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the wetlands will continue to persist in perpetuity. If it is determined during post -construction monitoring that construction has resulted in an unexpected impact to the wetlands, appropriate remedial actions will be implemented by the City. For instance, an unforeseen disruption or obstruction of subsurface hydrology to the wetlands may warrant the City's provision of an alternative water source that would continue to supply sufficient water to sustain the wetlands. MM CUL -1: If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, all construction activities in the general area of the discovery shall be temporarily halted until the resource is examined by a qualified monitor, retained by the Developer. The monitor shall recommend next steps (i.e., additional excavation, curation, preservation, etc.). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. MM CUL -2: During proposed Project construction, activities will be halted, and an archaeologist must be available to evaluate the find. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. MM PALEO-1: All project -related ground disturbance that could potential impact the Monterey Formation and the Old Paralic Deposits will be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis, as these geologic units are determined to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Project -related excavations that occur in surficial younger alluvial deposits (not mapped in the current study area but existing in the vicinity) will be monitored on a part-time basis to ensure that underlying paleontologically sensitive sediments are not being impacted. Excavations exceeding 5 feet in depth in Quaternary alluvium will be monitored on a full-time basis. 'f MM PALEO-2: A qualified paleontologist will be retained to supervise monitoring of construction excavations and to produce a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the proposed project. Paleontological resource monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading away from exposed fossils and halt construction activities in the immediate vicinity in order to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The qualified paleontologist will prepare progress reports to be filed with the lead agency. MM PALEO-3: At each fossil locality, field data forms will be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate sediment samples will be collected and submitted for analysis. MM PALEO-4: Matrix sampling would be conducted to test for the presence of microfossils. Testing for microfossils would consist of screen -washing small samples (approximately 200 pounds) to determine if significant fossils are present. If microfossils are present, additional matrix samples will be collected (up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per locality to ensure recovery of a scientifically significant microfossil sample). MM PALEO-5: Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposited in a designated paleontological curation facility. The most likely repository is the SDNHM. MM HAZ-1: Any contaminated soils or other hazardous materials removed from the proposed 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 Community Development Departments shall verify that only Licensed Haulers who are operating in compliance with regulatory requirements are used to haul hazardous materials. MM TCR -1: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence that a Native American monitor (i.e., Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation), has been retained to observe ground disturbance activities during grading and excavation. In the event that tribal cultural resources are discovered, the Native American monitor shall be included in the consultation on the recommended next steps. SECTION 4.0—CIRCULATION On September 23, 2019, the City of Newport Beach circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups, and the general public. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30 -day public review period for the Final IS/MND was provided from September 23, 2019 to October 23, 2019. Copies of the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting materials were made available for review online at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347 and at the following City public facilities during regular business hours: Newport Beach City Hall Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Public Library Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Public Library Balboa Branch 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Public Library Mariners Branch 1300 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Library Corona Del Mar Branch 410 Marigold Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 SECTION 5.0—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (b) outlines parameters forsubmitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of negative declarations should be, "on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect; (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and; (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204 (d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility. " Section 15204 (e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." In accordance with Public Resources Code 21092.5 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall notify any public agency which comments on a negative declaration of the public hearing or hearings, if any, on the project for which the negative declaration was prepared. If notice to the commenting public agency is provided pursuant to Section 21092, the notice shall satisfy the requirement of this subdivision. 5.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT IS/MND This section provides responses to written comments received during the 30 -day public review period. Table 1: Commenting Individuals and Agencies Letter 1 W. I Jack Rose September 23, 2019 2 Jack Rose September 24, 2019 3 Michael Call, Mark Wilser, Deborah Gero September 25, 2019 4 REO Nationwide September 25, 2019 5 REO Nationwide September 25, 2019 6 REO Nationwide September 25, 2019 7 David Tanner September 26, 2019 8 Sandy Frizzell September 26, 2019 9 Surish Parikh October 1, 2019 10 Tinnelly Law Group (Villa Balboa Attorney) October 1, 2019 11 Michael Call, Mark Wilser, Deborah Gero October 2, 2019 12 Mali Satchi October 4, 2019 13 REO Nationwide October 5, 2019 14 Sandv Frizzell October 5. 2019 15 Wendy Kaiser October 14, 2019 16 Sudhir Banker October 15, 2019 17 Ryan Darby October 18, 2019 18 Ryan Darby October 18, 2019 19 Sudhir Banker October 18, 2019 20 City of Irvine October 21, 2019 21 Barry Macpherson October 22, 2019 22 Deborah Gero October 22, 2019 23 California Department of Fish & Wildlife October 22, 2019 24 California Department of Transportation October 22, 2019 25 Michael Call October 22, 2019 26 Sandy Frizzell October 22, 2019 27 Doug Tamkin October 23, 2019 Comment Letter#1—Jack Rose COMMENT LETTER#1 From: Jack <yankeeliack@sbcgloba1.net> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 8:06 PM To: Tran, Andy Subject: Fwd: City of Newport Beach: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Hi MrTran Would this include a bridge over PCH? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: T Comment 1-1 From: City of Newport Beach News <noreplyac newportbeachca.go_v_> Date: September 23, 2019 at 5:27:31 PM PDT To: < aankeeIjackLa-)sbcglobal.net> Subject: City of Newport Beach: Notice ofAvailability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Reply -To: <noreplyAnewportbeachca.gov> Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration SuperiorAvenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (PA2019-014) Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Post Date: 09/23/2019 5:00 pm N e S P I ash Planning Division News Splash: NOTICE OFAVAILABILITYAND INTENTTOADOPTA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SUPERIORAVENUE PEDESTRIANAND BICYCLE BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT PROJECT (PA2019-014) Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) has completed an Initial Study and intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines. Project Title: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach Project Location: The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and is located approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline in Orange County, California. The entire Project site is within the boundary of the coastal zone as established by the California Coastal Act. Currently, an existing City -owned parking lot with 64 metered parking stalls is located at the northeast corner of this intersection. Directly east of the existing parking lot is an undeveloped piece of land with steep slopes. The Project site is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, Sunset View Park, Sunset Ridge Park, vegetated hillsides, major roads, and residential homes. Superior Avenue runs along the western boundary and the West Coast Highway runs along the southern boundaries of the Project site, respectively. Project Description: The City proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot and a fenced dog park totaling approximately 3.4 acres in size. Due to the proximity to the coast, the area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sunset Ridge Park, constructed in December 2014, is a 13.7 -acre active park with a baseball field and two soccer fields. Currently, visitors to Sunset Ridge Park use the existing parking lot across Superior Avenue and cross at the at -grade Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection because no on-site parking is provided at Sunset Ridge Park. The new pedestrian and bicycle ramp will provide access to the parking lot and bridge from the north side of West Coast Highway. Additionally, the proposed Project would include the construction of a new sidewalk/bike path from the modified parking lot entrance to the proposed bridge. The proposed bridge would help facilitate movement of pedestrians and bicyclists across Superior Avenue. The proposed bridge would connect Sunset Ridge Park to a new, larger asphalt parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 parking spaces. Construction of the proposed Project would also include the installation of a fenced dog park, separating large and small dogs, which may include benches and trash cans. The dog park will be 0.2 to 0.3 acres in size. The dog park would require a new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation. Security lighting at the dog park would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. Hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. In addition, a shade structure may be installed at the dog park, approximately 10 to 15 feet in height. The top of the shade structure would be below the Sunset View Park ground elevation and would be designed to protect public coastal views. Development of the proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • Coastal Development Permit (CDP) — To allow development of the project including the parking lot, dog park, and pedestrian/bicycle bridge in the Coastal Zone. • Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals pursuant to CEQA. Development of the proposed project would require the following approval from the California Coastal Commission: • Coastal Development Permit Amendment — To amend the Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit No. 5-11-302 to allow the bridge development at the existing park. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore recommended preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, by implementing the identified mitigation measures, the project's potential significant adverse impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. The Initial Study is available for a 30 -day public review period beginning September 20, 2019, and ending October 21, 2019. Copies of the document are available for review in the Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay B, Newport Beach, CA 92660 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The document is available online: www.newportbeachca. og v/cega. Additionally, copies of the document are also available for review at the following City public libraries during regular business hours: *Newport Beach Public Library, Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA92660 *Newport Beach Public Library Mariners Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Corona Del Mar Branch, 410 Marigold Avenm- ('nrnnn TPI Mar CA 9'1675 Response To Comment Letter #1— Jack Rose Response to Comment 1-1: Thank you for your comment. As described in Section 2.3 of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed Project includes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. This Project does not include a bridge over Pacific Coast Highway. Comment Letter#2 —Jack Rose COMMENT LETTER#2 From: Jack <vankeeljack@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:31AM To: Tran, Andy Subject: Re: City of Newport Beach: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Is there a space, engineering or financial constraint to doing bridge over PCH? Also, besides Comment improved pedestrian safety it would be an awesome view walking/riding over the "Andy Tran" 2-1 Bridge to go to beach. Comment 2-2 Jack Rose Newport Crest Homeowner Ebb Tide Homeower Sent from my Whone On Sep 24, 2019, at 7:50 AM, Tran, Andy <ATrannnewportbeachca.gov> wrote: Good morningJack, No, this project does not include the bridge over PCH. It only includes the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Superior Ave, a new larger parking lot and a dogpark. Thanks, Andy Tran, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA92660 Phone: 949-644-3315 From: Jack < jaankeeliack@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 8:06 PM To: Tran, Andy <ATran@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: City of Newport Beach: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Hi Mr Tran Would this include a bridge over PCH? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: City of Newport Beach News <noreply n,newportbeachca.gov> Date: September 23, 2019 at 5:27:31 PM PDT To: < a�ljack@sbcglobal.net> Subject: City of Newport Beach: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Reply -To: <noreply@newportbeachca.g_ov> Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration SuperiorAvenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (PA2019-014) Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Post Date: 09/23/2019 5:00 pm Nevvs Splash Planning Division News Splash: NOTICE OFAVAILABILITYAND INTENT TO ADOPTA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SUPERIORAVENUE PEDESTRIANAND BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT PROJECT (PA2019-014) Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) has completed an Initial Study and intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines. I Comment 2-3 Project Title: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach Project Location: The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and is located approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline in Orange County, California. The entire Project site is within the boundary of the coastal zone as established by the California Coastal Act. Currently, an existing City -owned parking lot with 64 metered parking stalls is located at the northeast corner of this intersection. Directly east of the existing parking lot is an undeveloped piece of land with steep slopes. The Project site is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, Sunset View Park, Sunset Ridge Park, vegetated hillsides, major roads, and residential homes. Superior Avenue runs along the western boundary and the West Coast Highway runs along the southern boundaries of the Project site, respectively. Project Description: The City proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot and a fenced dog park totaling approximately 3.4 acres in size. Due to the proximity to the coast, the area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sunset Ridge Park, constructed in December 2014, is a 13.7 -acre active park with a baseball field and two soccer fields. Currently, visitors to Sunset Ridge Park use the existing parking lot across Superior Avenue and cross at the at -grade Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection because no on-site parking is provided at Sunset Ridge Park. The new pedestrian and bicycle ramp will provide access to the parking lot and bridge from the north side of West Coast Highway. Additionally, the proposed Project would include the construction of a new sidewalk/bike path from the modified parking lot entrance to the proposed bridge. The proposed bridge would help facilitate movement of pedestrians and bicyclists across Superior Avenue. The proposed bridge would connect Sunset Ridge Park to a new, larger asphalt parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 parking spaces. Construction of the proposed Project would also include the installation of a fenced dog park, separating large and small dogs, which may include benches and trash cans. The dog park will be 0.2 to 0.3 acres in size. The dog park would require a new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation. Security lighting at the dog park would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. Hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. In addition, a shade structure may be installed at the dog park, approximately 10 to 15 feet in height. The top of the shade structure would be below the Sunset View Park ground elevation and would be designed to protect public coastal views. Development of the proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • Coastal Development Permit (CDP) — To allow development of the project including the parking lot, dog park, and pedestrian/bicycle bridge in the Coastal Zone. • Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals pursuant to CEQA. Development of the proposed project would require the following approval from the California Coastal Commission: • Coastal Development Permit Amendment — To amend the Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit No. 5- 11-302 to allow the bridge development at the existing park. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore recommended preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, by implementing the identified mitigation measures, the project's potential significant adverse impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. The Initial Study is available for a 30 -day public review period beginning September 20, 2019, and ending October 21, 2019. Copies of the document are available for review in the Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay B, Newport Beach, CA 92660 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The document is available online: www.ne"ortbeachca.gov/cega Additionally, copies of the document are also available for review at the following City public libraries during regular business hours: *Newport Beach Public Library, Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Mariners Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Corona Del Mar Branch, 410 Marigold Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA92625 Written comments on the proposed project must be received no later than October 21, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. to the attention of Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer, at the address listed below or via email. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee to submit comments. You are also invited to attend and testify at the public hearings as to the appropriateness of this document. The Newport Beach City Council will hold a hearing on the project at a future date in the City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. An additional public hearing notice will be sent out prior to the City Council's consideration of the project. For further information as to the future schedule of hearings, please check: https ://www. newportbeachca. gov/govemment/departm ents/pub l ic- works/superior-avenue-pedestrian-and-b icycle-bridge-and-parking= lot -project. For additional information, please contact Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer, at (949) 644-3315 or at atranknewportbeachca.gov. Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay D-2 Newport Beach, CA92660 Please note: This is an automated message from the City of Newport Beach. Subscription preferences may be changed by accessing your News & Alerts account from the City website. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Response To Comment Letter #2 — Jack Rose Response to Comment 2-1: Thank you for your comment. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue are major arterials with a high volume of vehicular traffic. The purpose of the bridge is to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to improve the vehicular efficiency of the Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection. Specifically, the objectives of the Project are: • To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. • To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. The provision of a bridge over PCH is outside the scope of this Project; however, your comment will be considered by City Council during their review of the Project and CEC1A document. Response to Comment 2-2: Please refer to Response to Comment 2-1. Response to Comment 2-3: Please refer to Response to Comment 1-1. Comment Letter #3 —Michael Call, Mark Wilser, Deborah Gero COMMENT LETTER#3 From: Tran, Andy Sent: Wednesday, September 2S, 2019 7:42 AM To: 'Michael Call' Cc: 'Mark Wilser'; 'Deborah Gero' Subject: RE: What is the MND public review period? How do we makeour comments know to the decision makes? Good morning everyone, The MND public review period is an opportunityfor the public to comment on the environmental documentthat was prepared for this project. MND's include manytechnical studies and mitigation measures to address potential impacts. These technical studies include noise and visual impacts to name a few. Feel free to send me your written commentsvia email or letter. We will provide a formal response at the end of the 30 -day reviewperiod. Thanks, Andy Tran, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic CenterDrive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone:949-644-3315 From: Michael Call <onecall4alll@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:13 PM To: Tran, Andy <ATran@newportbeachca.gov> Cc:'Mark Wilser'<mw@globalcapitalmarkets.com>;'Deborah Gero'<debigero@gmail.com> Subject: What is the MND public review period? How do we make our comments know to the decision makes? Andy, What is the MND public review period? How do we make our comments know to the decision makes? Thankyou, Michael Call From: Tran, Andy [mailto:ATran@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:16 AM Subject: FW: City of Newport Beach: UPDATED - Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment 3-1 Comment 3-2 Would this include a bridge over PCH? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: City of Newport Beach News <noreplyAnewportbeachca. ov> Date: September 23, 2019 at 5:27:31 PM PDT To: <yankeeIiackgsbcglobal.net> Subject: City of Newport Beach: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Reply -To: <noreply;anewportbeachca.gov> Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration SuperiorAvenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (PA2019-014) Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Post Date: 09/23/2019 5:00 pm Planning Division News Splash: NOTICE OFAVAILABILITYAND INTENT TO ADOPTA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SUPERIORAVENUE PEDESTRIANAND BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT PROJECT (PA2019-014) Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) has completed an Initial Study and intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines. IComment 3-3 Project Title: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach Project Location: The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and is located approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline in Orange County, California. The entire Project site is within the boundary of the coastal zone as established by the California Coastal Act. Currently, an existing City -owned parking lot with 64 metered parking stalls is located at the northeast corner of this intersection. Directly east of the existing parking lot is an undeveloped piece of land with steep slopes. The Project site is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, Sunset View Park, Sunset Ridge Park, vegetated hillsides, major roads, and residential homes. Superior Avenue runs along the western boundary and the West Coast Highway runs along the southern boundaries of the Project site, respectively. Project Description: The City proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot and a fenced dog park totaling approximately 3.4 acres in size. Due to the proximity to the coast, the area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sunset Ridge Park, constructed in December 2014, is a 13.7 -acre active park with a baseball field and two soccer fields. Currently, visitors to Sunset Ridge Park use the existing parking lot across Superior Avenue and cross at the at -grade Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection because no on-site parking is provided at Sunset Ridge Park. The new pedestrian and bicycle ramp will provide access to the parking lot and bridge from the north side of West Coast Highway. Additionally, the proposed Project would include the construction of a new sidewalk/bike path from the modified parking lot entrance to the proposed bridge. The proposed bridge would help facilitate movement of pedestrians and bicyclists across Superior Avenue. The proposed bridge would connect Sunset Ridge Park to a new, larger asphalt parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 parking spaces. Construction of the proposed Project would also include the installation of a fenced dog park, separating large and small dogs, which may include benches and trash cans. The dog park will be 0.2 to 0.3 acres in size. The dog park would require a new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation. Security lighting at the dog park would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. Hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. In addition, a shade structure may be installed at the dog park, approximately 10 to 15 feet in height. The top of the shade structure would be below the Sunset View Park ground elevation and would be designed to protect public coastal views. Development of the proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • Coastal Development Permit (CDP) — To allow development of the project including the parking lot, dog park, and pedestrian/bicycle bridge in the Coastal Zone. • Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) —To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals pursuant to CEQA. Development of the proposed project would require the following approval from the California Coastal Commission: • Coastal Development Permit Amendment — To amend the Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit No. 5- 11-302 to allow the bridge development at the existing park. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore recommended preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, by implementing the identified mitigation measures, the project's potential significant adverse impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. The Initial Study is available for a 30 -day public review period beginning September 20, 2019, and ending October 21, 2019. Copies of the document are available for review in the Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay B, Newport Beach, CA 92660 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The document is available online: www.newMortbeachca. ovicega. Additionally, copies of the document are also available for review at the following City public libraries during regular business hours: *Newport Beach Public Library, Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Mariners Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Corona Del Mar Branch, 410 Marigold Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Written comments on the proposed project must be received no later than October 21, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. to the attention of Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer, at the address listed below or via email. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee to submit comments. You are also invited to attend and testify at the public hearings as to the appropriateness of this document. The Newport Beach City Council will hold a hearing on the project at a future date in the City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. An additional public hearing notice will be sent out prior to the City Council's consideration of the project. For further information as to the future schedule of hearings, please check: https://www.nenTortbeachca. gov/govemment/departments/publ ic- works/superior-avenue-pedestrian-and-bicycle-bridge-and-parking= lot -project. For additional information, please contact Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer, at (949) 644-3315 or at atran@newportbeachea.gov. Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay D-2 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Please note: This is an automated message from the City of Newport Beach. Subscription preferences may be changed by accessing your News & .Alerts account from the City website. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all City of Newport Beach eNotification. Response To Comment Letter #3 — Michael Call, Mark Wilser, Debora Gero Response to Comment 3-1: Thank you for your comment. The purpose of the public review period is to allow both agencies and the public to comment on the Draft MND focusing on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects may be avoided or mitigated (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204). On September 23, 2019, the City of Newport Beach circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups, and the general public. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30 -day public review period for the Final IS/MND was provided from September 23, 2019 to October 23, 2019. Response to Comment 3-2: Comments received during the public review period will be part of the public record. These comments will be considered by the City Council during their consideration of the Project. Response to Comment 3-3: As described in Section 2.3 of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed Project includes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. This Project does not include a bridge over Pacific Coast Highway. Comment Letter #4 — REO Nationwide COIVLMENT LETTERM From: G Gehlke <ci@reonationwide.com> on behalf of Team <info reonationwide.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 6:52 PM To: Tran, Andy Subject: PCH and Superior plans The corner's highest and best use to serve the community best with the least amount of added danger Comment to that high traffic high death rate corner is a police substation as was previously proposed in 4-1 conjunction with the community center idea last year. The north side of Newport relies on a police station on the south side of the city and with crime and accidents up in our area, a police substation Comment established priorto the added new development destined to proceed in the future (Banning Ranch) this 4-2 will greatly help to serve ourcommunity. A dog park or other "social" plan will add more traffic and pedestrian's to this already dangerous 1Comment corner. 4-3 Thankyou. Response To Comment Letter #4 — REO Nationwide Response to Comment 4-1: Thank you for your comment. The purpose of the proposed Project is a construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. Response to Comment 4-2: Please refer to Response to Comment 4-1. Police and other public services will be evaluated if development is proposed for Banning Ranch in the future. Currently there is no application on file proposing development of Banning Ranch. The development of the proposed bridge would also result in a beneficial impact because the bridge would provide increased safety and direct access from the parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park. For pedestrians traveling along the eastern sidewalk along Superior Avenue, the access point to the parking lot would remain in the same location, therefore the Project would not result in a change in traffic patterns over what is already expected along the roadway. Thus, no negative impacts related to access and safety along Superior Avenue is anticipated due to the Project. Response to Comment 4-3: There are no traffic trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual for dog parks. To determine the potential trips associated with a dog park, a comparison to a similar dog park in Laguna Beach was reviewed. The dog park in Laguna Beach is 2.5 acres in size and generates 480 trips per day. By comparison, the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park would generate approximately 38 trips per day. Per the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic impact study is required when there are more than 300 trips per day generated by a project. Given the estimated trips, it was determined that there is less than significant impact with the dog park portion of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.14.1 Impact a) the proposed Project, including the dog park, would not indirectly induce population growth and is intended to serve the existing population in the area. No roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes would be significantly modified as a result of the proposed Project and therefore, would not conflict with applicable circulation plans. As discussed in Section 4.17.1 Impact a) of the MND, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase of users that would generate a significant increase in traffic because no construction of businesses or residences would occur and no expansion of park facilities other than the small dog park are proposed. Comment Letter #5 — REO Nationwide COMMENT LETTER#5 From: CJ Gehlke <ci@reonationwide.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 6:51 PM To: Tran, Andy Cc: 'Mark Willer'; dgero@gmaili.com; Onecall4al11@verizon.net Subject: See attached letter re: Proposed Dog Park on Superior Ave. Attachments: Scan.pdf Please note attached letter regardingthe dog park. NOTE: Highest and best use for this property --Can a police substation please be considered as it was brought up as a possibility last year in conjunction with the possibility of a community center. 1. Less additional traffic on an already dangerouscorner 2. Better response time for police to the entire north side of Newport 3. Police presence that will be in place when Banning Ranch starts development Thank you.. CJ Gehlke Thanks for letting me help you today! CJ Gehlke, CEOfFounder licensed since 1979 DRE No. 00803243 REO Nationwide, Inc. Beneficial RE Inc. DRE No. 01334671 www.reonationwide.com Office: Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mail: 1927Harbor Blvd. Suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ci@reonationwide.com phone: 888.700.0868 x326 fax: 888.700.0868 Linkedln: www.linkedin.com/pub/carol-jean-%22ci%22-Gehlke/a/9l5/7l4 REO Disposition Outsource Services BPO and APPRAISAL Services - Individual or VolumeBulk BULK Sale Facilitation Your Outsource company for life. My team and I are committed to providing you with extraordinary personalized service 100% of the time. Our mission is to build a solid, life-long relationship with you. The goal is to meet and exceed your expectations for the lifetime of our relationship. We want you to be so happy with our services that you feel compelled to refer people you respect to us. The greatest compliment we can receive is a referral from you. CJ Comment 5-1 Comment 5-2 Comment 5-3 Comment 5-4 September 4, 2019 Ms. Diane Dixon, Newport Beach Mayor Mr. Brad Avery, City Council Member Mr. Duffy Duffield, City Council Member Mr. Kevin Muldoon, City Council Member Mr. Jeff Hardman, City Council Member Ms. Joy Brenner, City Council Member Mr. Will O'Neill, City Council Member 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Via email: citvcouncil u.newr)rtbeachca.aov Recreation & Senior Services Director LDetweiler(a)newoortbeachca.aov CC: Villa Balboa Home Owner's Association C/O Ryan Darby RDarby@actionlife.com Re: Proposed Dog Park on Superior Avenue Dear Ms. Dixon and City Council Members: I have recently become aware of the proposed dog park on Superior Avenue that is included in the project to add more parking for and a bridge to Sunset Ridge Park. Important Note: The following text is an example but should be replaced or modified Comment with your personal thoughts ... for ideas see "Talking Points for Sunset View Dog Park". 5-5 I want to go on record with you and the Villa Balboa HOA in opposing the dog park. For its entire 40 -year existence the Villa Balboa community has prohibited dogs. This has been the basis for many residents to purchase homes there. The HOA Board has gone to considerable length to not modify any regulations as this would jeopardize this Comment grandfathered "no dogs" regulation. It is hard to see the logic of putting a dog park so 5-6 close to such a housing community when the city has other potential sites for a dog park. Research presented by a local resident at the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department hearing on August 6th confirmed other dog parks in our area (10 were profiled on google earth) have a material buffer zone between the dog park and residences. In this case the proposed dog park is immediately adjacent to a building with 54 homes (200 Paris Lane) and a complex (Villa Balboa) with 400 homes as well Comment as being next to a hospital property all connected to the proposed site by a walking 5-7 path. While the existing Newport Beach Civic Center dog park is shorter in distance to the few nearest homes it also has the busy MacArthur Boulevard with four lanes and a median with trees providing a meaningful buffer and containment of the dogs that leave the dog park. It is my understanding that Villa Balboa homeowners who have emotional support or other medically prescribed dogs and attended a Villa Balboa HOA meeting regarding Comment the agenda item of adding a bridge did so as they look forward to walking their dog in 5-8 the large Sunset Ridge Park across the street. There are a number of other very practical reasons why this is not the right place nor time for a dog park at this location. • Superior Avenue is already a dangerous road with many accidents, including cars veering onto the sidewalk and even crashing through the Villa Balboa fence, in the Comment vicinity of this location heading up hill from Pacific Coast Highway. The additional 5-9 cars, people, and dogs (some of whom will inevitably get -off leash outside the dog park) will add distractions to drivers on an already dangerous road. • Smells, sounds, and pathogens carry, and those who enjoy the Sunset View Park Comment and live near it will suffer. 5-10 • Newport Beach already fails to enforce leash laws in Sunset View Park. Comment • The shade and benches essential to making this a usable dog park will also attract 5-11 more homeless; there is already a homeless problem in the very parking lot that is being expanded. We know that neighbors near the existing Civic Center dog park, Comment which is also near a homeless encampment, complain of finding needle caps at the 5-12 dog park. For those of us who live near and use Sunset View Park, we know what a great job the City has done making that a tranquil vista for those seeking ocean, sunset, and even fireworks views. If you have been to Sunset View Park you will see that its many Comment visitors de facto have expanded the park into an area now slated to become part of the 5-13 dog park. There are many uses for this valuable land with a unique and beautiful view. And we encourage the City to consider expanding Sunset View Park or at a minimum providing further green space as part of its bridge and parking lot development. S?Jacerely, Ms. darol Jean Gehlke 200 Paris Lane Apt. 106 Newport Beach, CA. 92663 cj@reonationwide.com 949-500-9434 Response To Comment Letter #5 — REO Nationwide Response to Comment 5-1: Thank you for your comment. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. Response to Comment 5-2: Please refer to Response to Comment 5-1. All traffic trips associated with Sunset Ridge Park (land use) are generated by the park visitors. The proposed parking lot expansion and bridge are not land uses and do not generate new trips. The parking lot and bridge are ancillary to the land use. The addition of the dog park has the potential to add 38 trips per day. Currently, the Sunset Ridge visitors park their vehicles where there are available parking spaces in the area. If the existing parking lot is full, park visitors find alternate parking places in the area, or drop off visitors and users. The addition of the 38 trips per day as a result of the dog park would be accommodated within the parking lot expansion. This additional traffic anticipated from the dog park is not expected to increase traffic hazards along the existing roadways. Response to Comment 5-3: Please refer to Response to Comment 5-1. Police service impacts were analyzed based on the proposed Project. Response time for police to other areas of Newport Beach is outside the scope of CEQA analysis, however your comments will be included as a part of City Council's consideration of the project. Response to Comment 5-4: Please refer to Response to Comment 5-3. Police presence during the development of Banning Ranch is outside the scope of CEQA analysis and impacts to Police Services would be evaluated if development is proposed for Banning Ranch. Response to Comment 5-5: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 5-6: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 38 additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. Response to Comment 5-7: Please refer to Response to Comment 5-6. In addition, tree planting within the proposed Project site is included to provide a visual buffer around the Project site. The dog park is at a lower elevation that Sunset View Park and will be in a separate area. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, the design of the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park includes the installation of 6 -foot tall fences, separating large and small dogs, thus clearly designating a space, specifically catered towards dogs and the pet owners. Installation of the fences would prevent dogs from exiting the designated park area and prevent dogs from entering any private properties or public roadways. Response to Comment 5-8: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 5-9: Thank you for your comment. Signage will be included that off -leash dogs must remain within the dog park area. Please refer to response to Comment 5-1. As outlined in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 7.04.020: "No person having the care, charge or control of any dog shall cause or allow, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, such dog to be present upon any beach, street, alley, or public place, or upon any private property or premises other than his or her own without written consent of the owner or lessee of such land unless such dog is securely restrained by a substantial leash or chain not exceeding six feet in length and controlled by a person competent to restrain such dog. This section shall not be construed as allowing dogs on leashes in the areas from which dogs are prohibited as designated by Sections 7.04.025, 7.04.030, and 7.04.050. (Ord. 89-8 § 1, 1989: Ord. 1230 § 1, 1967: Ord. 796 (part), 1956: 1949 Code § 4107)." Park users shall comply with the City's code for use of dog restraints in public places. There are no traffic trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual for dog parks. To determine the potential trips associated with a dog park, a comparison to a similar dog park in Laguna Beach was reviewed. The dog park in Laguna Beach is 2.5 acres in size and generates 480 trips per day. By comparison, the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park would generate approximately 38 trips per day. Per the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic impact study is required when there are more than 300 trips per day generated by a project. Given the estimated trips, it was determined that there is less than significant impact with the dog park portion of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.14.1 Impact a) the proposed Project, including the dog park, would not indirectly induce population growth and is intended to serve the existing population in the area. No roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes would be significantly modified as a result of the proposed Project and therefore, would not conflict with applicable circulation plans. As discussed in Section 4.17.1 Impact a) of the MND, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase of users that would generate a significant increase in traffic because no construction of businesses or residences would occur and no expansion of park facilities other than the small dog park are proposed. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, the design of the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park includes the installation of 6 -foot tall fences, separating large and small dogs, thus clearly designating a space, specifically catered towards dogs and the pet owners. Installation of the fences would prevent dogs from exiting the designated park area and prevent dogs from entering any private properties or public roadways. Response to Comment 5-10: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Thus, the dog park is not expected to result in any significant impacts in relation to odor from pet waste. The Project site is not anticipated to introduce any other objectionable odors. Response to Comment 5-11: Thank you for your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 5-9. Response to Comment 5-12: Park hours will be enforced per the Municipal Code. A regular maintenance schedule will be maintained to ensure needles and other refuse are cleaned out of the dog park and proposed Project site. Park rangers will make regularly scheduled visits to parks. As outlined in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 7.04.020: "No person having the care, charge or control of any dog shall cause or allow, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, such dog to be present upon any beach, street, alley, or public place, or upon any private property or premises other than his or her own without written consent of the owner or lessee of such land unless such dog is securely restrained by a substantial leash or chain not exceeding six feet in length and controlled by a person competent to restrain such dog. This section shall not be construed as allowing dogs on leashes in the areas from which dogs are prohibited as designated by Sections 7.04.025, 7.04.030, and 7.04.050. N, v (Ord. 89-8 § 1, 1989: Ord. 1230 § 1, 1967: Ord. 796 (part), 1956: 1949 Code § 4107)." Park users shall comply with the City's code for use of dog restraints in public places. Response to Comment 5-13: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Comment Letter #6 — REO Nationwide COMMENT LETTER#6 From: G Gehlke <cj@reonationwide.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 6:53 PM To: Tran, Andy Cc: 'Mark Wilser' Subject: Signage on PCH and Superior Thank you for your work on this dog park issue. I consult by profession on highest and best use issues for developers and lenders nationwide, and have done so for over 30 years. So I bring some experience to my suggestion. Again, the highest and best use for that corner with both present fatalities and accidents on that corner and the future Banning Ranch projectis: Comment Police Sub -station. There is no police presence on this side of Newport. The quick response to the 6-1 accidents and thefts here would be such a great thing for the community. A sub station was previously proposed as part of the community center idea. At that time, the voices from the neighborhood were loudly hoping that if anything proposed were resisted, the corner might be left alone. That corner is too expensive and high value dirt to leave alone. It will be developed. So to suggest what might service the community best with the dangerous corner in mind would be a far better response than simple and repeated opposition. It is my understanding that the Police Dept could be approached again, as they were involved previouslyI Comment on the prior plan to incorporate a substation there, askingfor support for a substation. 6-2 Less traffic, less pedestrians, presence both at the ready when needed and a visual deterrent to the Comment problems currently occurring on that corner. Not one day goes by that on my twice daily walk I am 6-3 nearly run down by a car blowing through a red and cars speeding through nearly hitting pedestrians. A cash infusion could be the result of the ticket potential from both unleashed dogs in both adjacent parks and the constant traffic infractions on thatcorner. Comment 6-4 Please redirect attention to a police substation as an alternate concept which would be highly useful, life saving and provide much needed support for the upcoming development next to the Ridge Park as well. Thanks for letting me help you today! CJ Gehlke, CEO/Founder licensed since 1979 DRE No. 00803243 REO Nationwide, Inc. Beneficial RE Inc. DRE No. 01334671 www. reona tionwide. corn Office: Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mail: 1927 Harbor Blvd. Suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 cj@reonationwide.corn phone: 888.700.0868 x 326 fax: 888.700.0868 Linkedln: www.linkedin.com/pub/carol-jean-%22ci%22-gehlke/a/9l5/7l4 REO Disposition Outsource Services BPO and APPRAISAL Services - Individual or VolumeBulk BULK Sale Facilitation Your Outsource company for life. My team and 1 are committed to providing you with extraordinary personalized service 100% of the time. Our mission is to build a solid, life-long relationship with you. The goal is to meet and exceed your expectations for the lifetimeof our relationship. We want you to be so happy with our services that you feel compelled to refer people you respect to us. The greatest compliment we can receive is a referral from you. CJ Response To Comment Letter #6 — REO Nationwide Response to Comment 6-1: Thank you for your comment. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the objectives of the Project a re: • To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. • To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. For pedestrians traveling along the eastern sidewalk along Superior Avenue, the access point to the parking lot would remain in the same location, therefore the Project would not result in a change in traffic patterns over what is already expected along the roadway. Response to Comment 6-2: Please refer to Response to Comment 6-1. Police services were analyzed for potential impacts created by this particular project. Provision of a police substation at this site is outside the scope of this CEQA analysis; however, this comment will be considered by City Council during the review of this Project. Response to Comment 6-3: Please refer to Response to Comment 6-1. Response to Comment 6-4: Thank you for your comment. Police and other public services will be evaluated if development is proposed in the area in the future. Currently there is no application on file proposing development of Ridge Park. Signage will be included that off -leash dogs must remain within the dog park area. As outlined in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 7.04.020: "No person having the care, charge or control of any dog shall cause or allow, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, such dog to be present upon any beach, street, alley, or public place, or upon any private property or premises other than his or her own without written consent of the owner or lessee of such land unless such dog is securely restrained by a substantial leash or chain not exceeding six feet in length and controlled by a person competent to restrain such dog. This section shall not be construed as allowing dogs on leashes in the areas from which dogs are prohibited as designated by Sections 7.04.025, 7.04.030, and 7.04.050. (Ord. 89-8 § 1, 1989: Ord. 1230 § 1, 1967: Ord. 796 (part), 1956: 1949 Code § 4107)." Park users shall comply with the City's code for use of dog restraints in public places. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, the design of the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park includes the installation of 6 -foot tall fences, separating large and small dogs, thus clearly designating a space, specifically catered towards dogs and the pet owners. The dog park would also have ancillary facilities like a water fountain, benches, shade structure, security lighting, trash cans and waste bag dispensers for the pet owners' convenience and use. Some of these features would be absent in Sunset Ridge Park, namely the ability to allow dogs off -leash, thus acting as an incentive for pet owners to remain within the dog park. Installation of the fences would prevent dogs from exiting the designated park area and prevent dogs from entering any private properties, or public roadways. As noted above, provision of a police substation is outside the scope of the CEQA analysis for this project Comment Letter #7 — David Tanner COMMENT LETTER#7 From: Brine, Tony Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:19 PM To: 'dave@earsi.com' Cc: Jurjis, Seimone; Webb, Dave (Public Works); Tran, Andy Subject: RE: Clarification of Updated CEQA Guidelines Dear Mr. Tanner, I have been asked to respond to your question regarding CEQA analysis of transportation/traffic impacts with City CIP projects, or private development projects. As I'm sure you are aware, Senate Bill 743 contains Guidelines regarding assessment of projects using VMT as the measure of transportation impacts. The CEQA Guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved on December 28, 2018. July 1, 2020 is the statewide implementation date and agencies may opt -in use of new metrics prior to that date. Prior to that July date, the city will determine our most appropriate thresholds. For the Superior Bridge project, the CEQA Transportation analysis was appropriate because there is no trip generation associated with the project. For the Newport Village Mixed Use development project, there will be a traditional traffic level of service (LOS) analysis and a CEQA vehicle miles travelled (VMT) analysis. The traffic analysis "Traffic Study' will use LOS as the impact threshold and will be prepared per the city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines. The CEQA analysis will be prepared using the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines. The use of both LOS and VMT will be model for traffic and transportation analysis for CEQA documents. I hope this helps answer yourquestions. Tony Brine, P.E., T.E. City Traffic Engineer 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA92660 Phone: (949) 644-3329 e-mail : tbrineC&_newportbeachca.gov From: Jurjis, Seimone Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:00 PM To: Webb, Dave (Public Works) <DAWebb@newportbeachca.gov>; Brine, Tony <tbrine@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FW: Clarification of Updated CEQA Guidelines SEIMONEJURRS, P.E.,C.B.O. k� Community Development Department ,3,- 7 Community Development Director siugis@newoortbeachca.gov 949-644-3282 From: dave@earsi.com [mailto:dave@earsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:39 PM To: Jurjis, Seimone <siurlis@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Clarification of Updated CEQAGuidelines Hi Seimone, I intent to make the following request for clarification at today's City Council meeting. Non -Agenda Item Clarification on the City's position regarding the implementation of the Resource Agencies Updated CEQA Guidelines On December 28, 2018 the Resources Agency adopted updated Guidelines for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Updated Guidelines made significant changes reflecting recent court decisions and changes to streamline the CEQA process. One of these changes was the elimination of an analysis of a project's "Traffic" impacts and the inclusion of an analysis of a project's "Transportation" impacts. In simple terms "Traffic" is the evaluation of a project's vehicular delay and congestion. "Transportation" is the evaluation of a project's vehicular trip lengths and vehicle miles traveled. The City has published a Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for . the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project(Pa2019-014). (I supportthis project but feel that the parking capacity should be increased by one or more underground parking levels due to the scarcity of areas available for such uses.) The Draft CEQA document for this project does not contain an evaluation of the project's "traffic" impacts. It includes discussion of the project's "Transportation" impacts. In contrast Consent Calendar Items 13 on today's Agenda is the award of a contract for CEQA services for the Proposed NewportVillage Mixed -Use Project Located in the 2000 Block of West Coast Highway (PA2017-2S3). (I support Staff's conclusion an EIR be prepared for this project). However, the scope of work for this EIR includes a TrafficStudy. Therefore, I requestthe City clarify its position on this important element of CEQA. How will "Traffic" be considered in CEQAdocuments? Feel free to call if you havequestions. Comment 7-1 Comment 7-2 Comment 7-3 Cheers, Dave David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA92663 949 646-8958 wk 949 233-0895 cell Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the address(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, andany attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by e-mail by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of any email and any printout thereof. Response To Comment Letter #7 — David Tanner Response to Comment 7-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 7-2: The Draft IS/MND does contain analysis for transportation impacts, which includes a discussion on traffic patterns in the area and potential construction and operational impacts. Response to Comment 7-3: Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was certified, adopted, and was included in the updated CEQA Guidelines. Under SB 743, auto delays in traffic (intersection Level of Service) would not be considered a significant impact under CEQA, rather, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would be the metric for analyzing transportation impacts. There are no traffic trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual for dog parks. To determine the potential trips associated with a dog park, a comparison to a similar dog park in Laguna Beach was reviewed. The dog park in Laguna Beach is 2.5 acres in size and generates 480 trips per day. By comparison, the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park would generate approximately 38 trips per day. Per the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic impact study is required when there are more than 300 trips per day generated by a project. Given the estimated trips, it was determined that there is less than significant impact with the dog park portion of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.14.1 Impact a) the proposed Project, including the dog park, would not indirectly induce population growth and is intended to serve the existing population in the area. No roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes would be significantly modified as a result of the proposed Project and therefore, would not conflict with applicable circulation plans. As discussed in Section 4.17.1 Impact a) of the MND, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase of users that would generate a significant increase in traffic because no construction of businesses or residences would occur and no expansion of park facilities other than the small dog park are proposed. All traffic trips associated with Sunset Ridge Park (land use) are generated by the park visitors. The proposed parking lot expansion and bridge are not land uses and do not generate new trips. The parking lot and bridge are ancillary to the land use. Because there is no change to the park site with the Project area, there are no additional traffic trips that could be associated with the bridge and parking lot Project. The traffic trips associated with the park visitors, that will use the proposed bridge and expanded parking lot, already exist in the roadway system. Currently, the Sunset Ridge visitors park their vehicles where there are available parking spaces in the area. If the existing parking lot is full, park visitors find alternate parking places in the area, or drop off visitors and users. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.17.1 Impact a), the expanded parking lot associated with the proposed Project would serve existing park users and would not generate a significant increase in traffic because no businesses or residences are being constructed and no additional park facilities besides the dog park will be introduced. In fact, the parking lot would provide a designated parking area to diverge parking -related traffic from surrounding residential and commercial areas. Furthermore, there would be no conflict with applicable circulation plans due to no significant proposed modifications to roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes. Comment Letter #8 —Sandy Frizzell COMMENT LETTER#8 From: Sandy <sandyfrizzell@roadrunner.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 9:19 PM To: Tran, Andy Subject: Lower Sunset View Park/Superior Avenue Pedestrianand Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Dear Mr.Tran, I live at 200 Paris on the second floor at the far corner of Superior Avenue and PCH in Villa Balboa. Sunset View Park is my front yard. I can see it from most rooms in my condo. I love it here. I enjoy the people, activities and of course the awesome views. These changes will greatly affect my life. Comment I have read the Initial Studythat is on line, not all of it, of course, but the parts that interest me. I have 8-1 a few concerns. Would it be possible for us to meet, either in your office or even better at the site? I highly commend the city for both Sunset View and Sunset Ridge (except for the parking) Parks. They are both great additions to Newport Beach. I want to like this project, but I need to understand it Comment better. Let me know if meeting is possible and if so when. 8-2 Thank you, Sandy Frizzell 949-646-3248 Response To Comment Letter #8 — Sandy Frizzell Response to Comment 8-1: Thank you for your comment; this comment has been noted. Response to Comment 8-2: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. Due to West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue being major arterials with a high volume of vehicular traffic, the purpose of the bridge would not only improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park, but also improve the vehicular efficiency of the Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection. Specifically, the objectives of the Project are: • To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. • To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. The City has met with multiple local community groups to discuss the proposed Project, and appreciates the community's interest in the proposed Project. Comment Letter #9 — Suresh Parikh COMMENT LETTER 49 From: Detweiler, Laura Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 1:43 PM To: Tran, Andy Subject: FW: Proposed Dog Park on Superior Avenue Andy, making sure you received this as part of the public comment period. LAURA DETWEILER, MA I Director Recreation & Senior Services Department City of Newport Beach City Hall - 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay E, Newport Beach CA 92660 p:949-644-3157 1 f: 949-644-3155 1 e: Idetweiler@newportbeach_ca.gov visit us: www.new_pprtbeachca.gov/recreation 01391 @cityofnewportbeach ' ` From: SURESH PARIKH <suresh parikh@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 3:53 PM To: citycouncil@newprtbeachca.gov; Detweiler, Laura <LDetweiler@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ryan Darby <rdarby@action life.com>; SURESH PARIKH <suresh parikh hotmail.com> Subject: Proposed Dog Park on Superior Avenue Date: September 27, 2019 To: Ms. Diane Dixon, Newport Beach Mayor Mr. Brad Avery, City Council Member Mr. Duffy Duffield, City Council Member Mr. Kevin Muldoon, City Council Member Mr. Jeff Hardman, City Council Member Ms. Joy Brenner, City Council Member Mr. Will O'Neill, City Council Member City of Newport Beach, CA 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Dixon and City Council Members, We have just recently become aware of the proposed dog park on Superior Avenue, which will be a part of or next to Sunset View Park (SSVP). We would like to go on record for expressing our COMPLETE OPPOSITION to this Comment proposed Dog Park. 9-1 (1)We moved into Villa Balboa (VBB) in 2016 with an assurance that VBB does not allow dogs in the Community Association. This was one of our basis to move into VBB. (2)We enjoy the use of SSVP, for an evening walk or for a daytime visit to the greens Comment and seating benches. 9-2 Comment (3) The proposed Dog Park is so CLOSE to SSVP, without any buffer area between. 9-3 (4)We have never seen any enforcement of Leash Laws at SSVP or Sunset Ridge Park Comment (SSRP). 9-4 (5)Many dog owners HARDLY pick up after their dogs have excreted, leaving smell and Comment stench of feces and urine. 9-5 (6)There could be harmful pathogens, parasites and diseases left from the dog feces and urine in the air near by, which could adversely affect health of the residents living next door. Comment 9-6 We live JUST FEW FEET AWAY. We certainly disapprove of this proposal. Sincerely Suresh Parikh Usha Parikh 220 Nice Lane, # 315 Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 873-5656 suresh parikh�hotmail.com Response To Comment Letter #9 — Suresh Parikh Response to Comment 9-1: Thank you for your comment; this comment noted. Response to Comment 9-2: Comment noted. Response to Comment 9-3: The proposed dog park will be approximately 50 feet downslope of Sunset View Park, and approximately 100 feet to the southwest of Sunset View Park. . Response to Comment 9-4: Signage will be included that off -leash dogs must remain within the dog park area. As outlined in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 7.04.020: "No person having the care, charge or control of any dog shall cause or allow, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, such dog to be present upon any beach, street, alley, or public place, or upon any private property or premises other than his or her own without written consent of the owner or lessee of such land unless such dog is securely restrained by a substantial leash or chain not exceeding six feet in length and controlled by a person competent to restrain such dog. This section shall not be construed as allowing dogs on leashes in the areas from which dogs are prohibited as designated by Sections 7.04.025, 7.04.030, and 7.04.050. (Ord. 89-8 § 1, 1989: Ord. 1230 § 1, 1967: Ord. 796 (part), 1956: 1949 Code § 4107)." Park users shall comply with the City's code for use of dog restraints in public places. Response to Comment 9-5: Thank you for your comment. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, the design of the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park includes the installation of 6 -foot tall fences, separating large and small dogs and enclosing the dog park, thus clearly designating a space, specifically catered towards dogs and the pet owners. Installation of the fences would prevent dogs from exiting the designated area and prevent dogs from entering any private properties, or public roadways. The dog park would also have ancillary facilities like a water fountain, benches, shade structure, security lighting, trash cans and waste bag dispensers for the pet owners' convenience and use. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Thus, the dog park is not expected to result in any significant impacts in relation to odor from pet waste. The Project site is not anticipated to introduce any other objectionable odors. In addition, as noted above, the proposed dog park is located downslope from the nearest residents. Response to Comment 9-6: Please refer to Response to Comment 9-5. Comment Letter #10—TinnelIV Law Group (Villa Balboa Attorney) COMMENT LETTER #10 TINN'ELLY r , Septembe r 19, 2019 Sean Levin, Deputy Director Recreation and Senior Services Department City of Newport Beach - PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Ref 4 -428 RE: The Villa Balboa Community Association Objections to Proposed Sooset View Dog Park Dear Mr. Levin: Our office is general counsel to The Villa Balboa Community Association ("Association"), a 449 -unit condominium community located immediately nort he ast of the Sunset View Parkoff of Superior Blvd. in Newport Beach. Y(ie are aware that the City of Newport Beach has propo sed to construct a public dog park adjacent to Sunset View Park, directly next to the Association's community. T he Comment Association believes that this proposed dog park will have a significant and continuing 10-1 negative impact on the Association, its residents, and surrounding property values. To date, the City of Newport Beach has not indicated any willingness to minimize the harmful consequences of this propo sed dog park to neighboring communities. As a preliminary in atter, the Association already suffers from an influx of trespassers Comment who regularly abuse the Association's private amenities, such as parking, to access the 10-2 City's public parks and beaches located near the community. D esp ite the Association's diligent mitigation and enforcement measures, individuals routinely take advantage of Comment the Association's private parking to use the City's public amenities. These violations come with significant administrative costs required to deter this harmful conduct and to 10-3 protect the Association's cornnttmity Adding a r)&. -v public dog park next to the community will further cause irreparable harm to the Association and its residents as the Comment indiscriminate abuse of the parking facilities will continue to mount and increase with 10-4 new public amenities being added so close to the Association. In addition to the increase in trespass, the proposed dog park will constitute a nuisance to the Association and its residents as feces (including airborne fecal matter), urine, Comment noxious odors, and incessant dog barking will plague the residen is. The Association 10-5 already experiences routine lapses in pet owner obligations to clean up after their pets as they wall< through the public access path of Sunset View Park. Nearly every single day, afternoon onshore winds travel from the ocean towards and up the interior of peninsula. With the development of the proposed dog park, these winds will pass Comment 10-6 Levin September 19, 2019 Page 2 oft 428/6077-1 Comment through the dog park and direct a pervasive stream of excrement and urine odors directly through the 10-6 community every afternoon, almost without exception. Along with the nuisance odors, persistent barking, whistles, and loud noises will affect the Association's residents at allhours of the day. For the foregoing reasons, the Association is strongly opposed to any public dog park located near Comment the Association's community. The Association would like the City of Newport Beach to take into 10-7 consideration these significant and legitimate issues prior to approval any public dog park located in or around Sunset View park. We welcome the opportunity to open a dialogue with the City of Newport Beach to further review and discuss these concerns. Very truly yours, TINNELLYLAW GROUP MATTHEW PLAXTON, ESQ. i\fl" I':kk cc Bo.ird of I)jrc, In,, - V1ILi IhIhn, I <,Inni II In] `.,f,ci limon 11NEELY LAW GROUP \!'rOff-; ,ic,ti-=11i 1,1porullon 'U101 fucl tORf::nLSui/r; 2501/-.11ision Viejo, CA 92691 Response To Comment Letter #10 — Tinnelly Law Group (Villa Balboa Attorney) Response to Comment 10-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. The City of Newport Beach has met multiple times with the Villa Balboa community to hear concerns regarding the proposed Project. Response to Comment 10-2: Comment noted. This is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 10-3: Comment noted. The proposed Project will provide additional parking for users of the proposed dog park, Sunset View Park, and Sunset Ridge Park. Response to Comment 10-4: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.17.1 Impact a), the expanded parking lot associated with the proposed Project would serve existing park users and would not generate a significant increase in traffic because no businesses or residences are being constructed. In addition, the only park facility being introduced is the proposed 0.2 -0.3 -acre dog park expected to only generate approximately 38 vehicle trips per day. In fact, the expanded parking lot would provide a parking area to divert parking -related traffic from surrounding residential and commercial areas, as well as provide designated parking for the proposed dog park. Response to Comment 10-5: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Thus, the dog park is not expected to result in any significant impacts in relation to odor from pet waste. The Project site is not anticipated to introduce any other objectionable odors. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 38 additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. Response to Comment 10-6: Please refer to Response to Comment 10-5. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. With the use of artificial turf at the Civic Center dog park in the City, the maintenance schedule has ensured that no waste or odors remain. The City plans to use artificial turf for the proposed Project's dog park as well. The southwest edge of Sunset View Park will block the line -of -sight between the proposed dog park and the Villa Balboa Condos. In fact the proposed dog park will be located more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at Sunset View Park. Since sound travels in straight lines, the southwest edge of Sunset View Park will effectively act like a 20 foot high sound wall between the proposed dog park and the condos. As such, only nominal construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur from the proposed project at the Villa Balboa Condos and no operational noise impacts from the proposed dog park or any other noise sources are anticipated to occur at the Villa Balboa Condos. Response to Comment 10-7: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Comment Letter #11— Michael Call. Mark Wilser, Deborah Gero COMMENT LETTER 01 From: Tran, Andy Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 7:54 AM To: 'Michael Call' Cc: 'Mark Wilser'; 'Deborah Gero'; Ryan Darby (rdarby@actionlife.com) Subject: RE: Could you keep us informed as to any meetings or general communications with Ryan Darby? It is my understanding that you will be contacting all the association for a follow-up and discussion on the environmental document (Mitigation Negative Declarati Good morning Michael, Mark and Deborah, I contacted Ryan Darby late yesterday afternoon to arrange for another community meeting with only Villa Balboa residents. Ryan has the tentative meeting information and will confirm with the HOA and get back to me this week. To avoid confusion, please check with Ryan as he is my single point of contact for Villa Balboa in regards to community meetings. With that said, I am always available to answer questions regarding the City's proposed improvements. You are welcome to email me your written comments on the environmental document with is a Mitigated Negative Declaration. We will provide a formal written response at the end of the 30 -day public review period. This is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process that the City is required to follow for this type of project. Thank you, Andy Tran, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-644-3315 From: Michael Call <onecall4all1@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 2:54 PM To: Tran, Andy <ATran@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: 'Mark Wilser' <mw@globalcapitalmarkets.com>; 'Deborah Gero' <debigero@gmail.com> Subject: Could you keep us informed as to any meetings or general communications with Ryan Darby? It is my understanding that you will be contacting all the association for a follow-up and discussion on the environmental document (Mitigation Negative Declaration) Hello Andy Tran, Could you keep us informed as to any meetings or general communications with Ryan Darby? ItComment is my understanding that you will be contacting all the association for a follow-up and discussion 11-1 on the environmental document (Mitigation Negative Declaration) for the Superior Ave Ped Bridge, Parking Lot and Dog Park. Us means: Mark Wilser mw(a), log_ balcapitalmarkets.com Comment 11-1 Deborah Gero debigero@gmail.com continued Michael Call onecall4a111 @a,verizon.net Thank you, Michael Call 210 Lille Lane 208 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cell (714) 791-1102 From: Michael Call [mailto:onecall4alll anverizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 11:24 AM To: Tran, Andy' Cc: 'Mark Wilser'; 'Deborah Gero' Subject: Where is the link to the report? What is the MND public review period? How do we make our comments know to the decision makes? Comment Where is the link to the report? 11-2 What is the MND public review period? 11-3 1 How do we make our comments know to the decision makes? 11-4 When will you be at Villa Balboa for comments on the report? 11-5 From: Tran, Andy [ma iIto: ATranCoDnewportbeachca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 7:42 AM To: 'Michael Call' Cc: 'Mark Wilser'; 'Deborah Gero' Subject: RE: What is the MND public review period? How do we make our comments know to the decision makes? Good morning everyone, The MND public review period is an opportunity for the public to comment on the environmental document that was prepared for this project. MND's include many technical studies and mitigation measures to address potential impacts. These technical studies include noise and visual impacts to name a few. Feel free to send me your written comments via email or letter. We will provide a formal response at the end of the 30 -day review period. Thanks, Andy Tran, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-644 -3315 From: Michael Call <onecall4alll@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:13 PM To: Tran, Andy <ATran@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: 'Mark Wilser' <mw@globalcapitalmarkets.com>; 'Deborah Gero' <debigero@gmail.com> Subject: What is the MND public review period? How do we make our comments know to the decision makes? Andy, What is the MND public review period? How do we make our comments know to the decision makes?Comment Thank you, 11-6 Michael Call From: Tran, Andy [mai Ito: ATranCla newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:16 AM Subject: FW: City of Newport Beach: UPDATED - Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Good morning everyone, I wanted to inform everyone that our environmental document (Mitigation Negative Declaration) is currently available for public review (see below). Some of you will be receiving a notice in the mail regarding this matter. During our community meetings back in May and June of this year, I may have mentioned that City Council will consider the adoption of this document and the conceptual design on October 22, 2019. This date has been tentatively postponed to November 19, 2019. The exact date of this meeting is largely dependent on the comments that the City may during the MND public review period. Please check the project webpage (www.newportbeachca.gov/superiorbridge) regularly for up to -date project information. Also, please share this email with your community members. Thank you, Andy Tran, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-644-3315 From: NoReply@newportbeachca.gov Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:04 AM To: Tran, Andy <ATran@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: City of Newport Beach: UPDATED - Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Content Updated: This News has been previously sent out UPDATED - Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (PA2019-014) Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project. The Initial Study is available for a 30 -day public review period beginning September 23, 2019, and ending October 23, 2019. Post Date: 09/24/2019 9:00 am Planning Division News Splash: UPDATED REVIEW PERIOD NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT PROJECT (PA2019-014) Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) has completed an Initial Study and intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines. Project Title: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach Project Location: The proposed Project is located within the City of Newport Beach and is located approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline in Orange County, California. The entire Project site is within the boundary of the coastal zone as established by the California Coastal Act. Currently, an existing City -owned parking lot with 64 metered parking stalls is located at the northeast corner of this intersection. Directly east of the existing parking lot is an undeveloped piece of land with steep slopes. The Project site is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, Sunset View Park, Sunset Ridge Park, vegetated hillsides, major roads, and residential homes. Superior Avenue runs along the western boundary and the West Coast Highway runs along the southern boundaries of the Project site, respectively. Project Description: The City proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot and a fenced dog park totaling approximately 3.4 acres in size. Due to the proximity to the coast, the area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sunset Ridge Park, constructed in December 2014, is a 13.7 -acre active park with a baseball field and two soccer fields. Currently, visitors to Sunset Ridge Park use the existing parking lot across Superior Avenue and cross at the at -grade Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection because no on-site parking is provided at Sunset Ridge Park. The new pedestrian and bicycle ramp will provide access to the parking lot and bridge from the north side of West Coast Highway. Additionally, the proposed Project would include the construction of a new sidewalk/bike path from the modified parking lot entrance to the proposed bridge. The proposed bridge would help facilitate movement of pedestrians and bicyclists across Superior Avenue. The proposed bridge would connect Sunset Ridge Park to a new, larger asphalt parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 parking spaces. Construction of the proposed Project would also include the installation of a fenced dog park, separating large and small dogs, which may include benches and trash cans. The dog park will be 0.2 to 0.3 acres in size. The dog park would require a new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation. Security lighting at the dog park would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. Hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. In addition, a shade structure may be installed at the dog park, approximately 10 to 15 feet in height. The top of the shade structure would be below the Sunset View Park ground elevation and would be designed to protect public coastal views. Development of the proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • Coastal Development Permit (CDP) — To allow development of the project including the parking lot, dog park, and pedestrian/bicycle bridge in the Coastal Zone. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals pursuant to CEQA. Development of the proposed project would require the following approval from the California Coastal Commission: • Coastal Development Permit Amendment— To amend the Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit No. 5-11-302 to allow the bridge development at the existing park. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore recommended preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, by implementing the identified mitigation measures, the project's potential significant adverse impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. The Initial Study is available for a 30 -day public review period beginning September 23, 2019, and ending October 23, 2019. Copies of the document are available for review in the Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay B, Newport Beach, CA 92660 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The document is available online: www.newportbeachca.gov/cega. Additionally, copies of the document are also available for review at the following City public libraries during regular business hours: *Newport Beach Public Library, Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Mariners Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA92660 *Newport Beach Public Library, Corona Del Mar Branch, 410 Marigold Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Written comments on the proposed project must be received no later than October 23, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. to the attention of Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer, at the address listed below or via email. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee to submit comments. You are also invited to attend and testify at the public hearings as to the appropriateness of this document. The Newport Beach City Council will hold a hearing on the project at a future date in the City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. An additional public hearing notice will be sent out prior to the City Council's consideration of the project. For further information as to the future schedule of hearings, please check: https://www. newportbea chca.gov/government/departments/pu blic-works/su perior-avenue- pedestrian-and-bicycle-bridge-and-parking-lot-project. For additional information, please contact Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer, at (949) 644-3315 or at atran@newportbeachca.gov. Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay D-2 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Please note: This is an automated message from the City of Newport Beach. Subscription preferences may be changed by accessing your News & Alerts account from the City website. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all City of Newport Beach eNotification. u Response To Comment Letter #11— Michael Call, Mark Wilser, Deborah Gero Response to Comment 11-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 11-2: The link to the report was posted at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/`commun ity-development/planning- division/projects-environmental-document-download-page/environmenta I -document -download -page Response to Comment 11-3: On September 23, 2019, the City of Newport Beach circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups, and the general public. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30 -day public review period for the Final IS/MND was provided from September 23, 2019 to October 23, 2019. Response to Comment 11-4: Written comments were accepted via mail, or email between September 23, 2019 to October 23, 2019 as posted in the Notice of Availability. In addition, comments on the proposed Project as a whole may be made to City Council as a part of the public hearing process Response to Comment 11-5: The Draft MND was made available at public locations including City Hall and local library branches. Comments were received via mail and email. Response to Comment 11-6: Please refer to Response to Comment 11-3. The purpose of the public review period is to allow both agencies and the public to comment on the Draft MND focusing on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects may be avoided or mitigated (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204). Comment Letter #12 — Mali Saatchi COMMENT LETTER #12 From the Desk of Mali Saatchi October 3, 2019 Newport Beach City Council 100 Civic Center Dr Newport Beach CA 926660 Re: Proposed Dog Park at Sunset View Park To Whom It May Concern: My name is Mali Saatchi and I have been a resident of Newport Beach since 2005. Since that time I have resided at the Villa Balboa condominium complex directly across to the Sunset View Park. I am a dog owner and animal lover. For decades, Sunset View Park was nothing but a strip of dirt. It was only after fruitful cooperation of the community that we were able to successfully encourage the City of Newport Beach to convert the space into a peaceful and tranquil public space for all to enjoy. Despite the larger Sunset Ridge Park being across Superior Ave, Sunset View Park is daily visited by families, Doctors, nurses and patients of HOAG Hospital, and others seeking to enjoy the tranquility of the park, fresh air and breathtaking views. Every Fourth of July hundreds of people line the park to enjoy the fireworks from near and far and spending time in this amazing space with best unobstructed views. During the Huntington Beach airshows, again hundreds use this park to enjoy the spectacular aerial shows our brave armed forces put on. Comment My home is directly above the park, and from every room in my home I am able to seethe 12-1 diverse people that enjoy what the park has to offer. Every Saturday group of ex- patients from the HOAG who otherwise have no access to expansive green spaces are able to walk, by wheelchairs or getting support from a friend come to the park and safely take in the scenery and fresh air. Families frequently come with their young children because this park is safe and away from the street,. Community members use the park as part of their exercise or relaxation routines. I am writing this letter to the respected City Council and Mayor of Newport Beach in Opposition to the proposed dog park at Sunset View. The neighboring communities along Superior Avenue already must contend with heavy traffic and the air pollution and noise caused by this traffic. By extending the parking lot and converting portion of the Sunset View Park to a dog park, the City will be creating a public burden. The homes immediately surrounding the park are mainly condominiums, and at this very few large dogs frequent the park. There is a large Sunset Ridge park across the Superior Avenue and Comment every day the dog owners take advantage of the long walk with their dogs. considering a dog 12-2 Page 1 of From the Desk of Mali Saatchi Further, there is a health hazard created by a dog park in such close proximity to homes. Even at the construction of Sunset View Park, myself and my neighbors had to make repeated Comment calls to the City of Newport Beach to have the lid of the one and only trash can installed on SSV 12-9 reoriented so that the smell of the trash did not blow directly into our homes. Despite this, in the heat of the summer, the overwhelming smell of garbage is still pervasive. Even the most well-maintained dog parks have significant odor and bacterial issues. Maintaining dog parks are expensive and a cost burden to the community over the long term. The smell and presence of Comment urine and feces will create an environmental hazard as well as a health hazard in the hot summer 12-10 months for the local community. Dog parks have limited life spans, and must be constantly maintained and renovated. By converting this already limited open space to a single use dog park, only suitable for a very Comment specific population of residents who are not underserved, the City will be removing the public 12-11 access to open spaces with clean air and removing public enjoyment. Creation of this dog park will place an undue burden on the local community via increasedComment vehicle and foot traffic, hazardous conditions, and a decline in property values in the immediate 12-12 vicinity. Dog parks do not create local jobs nor do they serve a larger community purpose by functioning as an open and welcoming community space, considering there is ample space at the Comment sunset ridge for the owners to chit chat and dogs socialise in small groups. The current Sunset 12-13 View Park does function as an open and welcoming space for all in thecommunity. I propose the space should be converted to a green and beautiful space, not only to help the Comment incredible amount of environment and air pollution, but to beautify the Superior Avenue. 12-14 Page 2 of3 Comment park on the beach and another park 10 minutes away near the Orange County Fairgrounds. A 12-2 dog park at Sunset View would not benefit the local community as the park itself is situated in continued such away as to be inconvenient to reach, with no immediately accessible parking. Expansion of the parking lot would serve beach goers more than the proposed dog park itself. This will create Comment increased traffic congestion on an already congested road, and also create a situation where 12-3 non-residents will use the residential streets to park theirvehicles. Comment This proposed dog park also creates a health and safety hazard for the community. Superior 12-4 Avenue, as it meets Pacific Coast Highway, is already traffic jammed and accident prone. Nearly Comment weekly there are significant accidents on this two block stretch of road due to the curvature. 12-5 Placement of adog park at this juncture is apublic safety hazard as dogs may dart into Comment oncoming traffic. Animals that may not otherwise be aggressive may be startled by the constant 12-6 vehicle traffic, horns, and other loud noises, creating a liability for the City and residents. It is unlikely that the City can enforce or otherwise secure the park 24/7 without creating a further Comment burden on the City's police department. Dog parks that are so enclosed, and "off the beaten 12-7 pat W may become a target for crime and vandalism. Comment 12-8 Further, there is a health hazard created by a dog park in such close proximity to homes. Even at the construction of Sunset View Park, myself and my neighbors had to make repeated Comment calls to the City of Newport Beach to have the lid of the one and only trash can installed on SSV 12-9 reoriented so that the smell of the trash did not blow directly into our homes. Despite this, in the heat of the summer, the overwhelming smell of garbage is still pervasive. Even the most well-maintained dog parks have significant odor and bacterial issues. Maintaining dog parks are expensive and a cost burden to the community over the long term. The smell and presence of Comment urine and feces will create an environmental hazard as well as a health hazard in the hot summer 12-10 months for the local community. Dog parks have limited life spans, and must be constantly maintained and renovated. By converting this already limited open space to a single use dog park, only suitable for a very Comment specific population of residents who are not underserved, the City will be removing the public 12-11 access to open spaces with clean air and removing public enjoyment. Creation of this dog park will place an undue burden on the local community via increasedComment vehicle and foot traffic, hazardous conditions, and a decline in property values in the immediate 12-12 vicinity. Dog parks do not create local jobs nor do they serve a larger community purpose by functioning as an open and welcoming community space, considering there is ample space at the Comment sunset ridge for the owners to chit chat and dogs socialise in small groups. The current Sunset 12-13 View Park does function as an open and welcoming space for all in thecommunity. I propose the space should be converted to a green and beautiful space, not only to help the Comment incredible amount of environment and air pollution, but to beautify the Superior Avenue. 12-14 Page 2 of3 From the Desk of Mali Saatchi I thank the respected City Council for consideration of my statements as a community member who will be directly affected by the creation of a dog park. With most sincere regards, Malakeh Saatchi 200 Pads Lane, Number 314 Newport each, 92663 Page 3 of'3 Response To Comment Letter #12 — Mali Saatchi Response to Comment 12-1: Thank you for your comment. There are no traffic trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual for dog parks. To determine the potential trips associated with a dog park, a comparison to a similar dog park in Laguna Beach was reviewed. The dog park in Laguna Beach is 2.5 acres in size and generates 480 trips per day. By comparison, the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park would generate approximately 38 trips per day. Per the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic impact study is required when there are more than 300 trips per day generated by a project. Given the estimated trips, it was determined that there is less than significant impact with the dog park portion of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.14.1 Impact a) the proposed Project, including the dog park, would not indirectly induce population growth and is intended to serve the existing population in the area. No roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes would be significantly modified as a result of the proposed Project and therefore, would not conflict with applicable circulation plans. As discussed in Section 4.17.1 Impact a) of the MND, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase of users that would generate a significant increase in traffic because no construction of businesses or residences would occur and no expansion of park facilities other than the small dog park are proposed. All traffic trips associated with Sunset Ridge Park (land use) are generated by the park visitors. The proposed parking lot expansion and bridge are not land uses and do not generate new trips. The parking lot and bridge are ancillary to the land use. Because there is no change to the Sunset Ridge Park site, there are no additional traffic trips that could be associated with the bridge and parking lot Project. The traffic trips associated with the park visitors, that will use the proposed bridge and expanded parking lot, already exist in the roadway system. Currently, the Sunset Ridge Park visitors park their vehicles where there are available parking spaces in the area. If the existing parking lot is full, park visitors find alternate parking places in the area, or drop off visitors and users. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.17.1 Impact a), the expanded parking lot associated with the proposed Project would serve existing park users and would not generate a significant increase in traffic because no businesses or residences are being constructed and no additional park facilities besides the dog park will be introduced. In fact, the parking lot would provide a designated parking area to diverge parking -related traffic from surrounding residential and commercial areas. Furthermore, there would be no conflict with applicable circulation plans due to no significant proposed modifications to roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes. These factors would prevent increased traffic generation due to the construction of the large parking lot. Response to Comment 12-2: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 12-3: Please see Response to Comment 12-1. Response to Comment 12-4: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. For pedestrians traveling along the eastern sidewalk along Superior Avenue, the access point to the parking lot would remain in the same location, therefore the Project would not result in a change in traffic patterns over what is already expected along the roadway. Thus, no negative impacts related to access and safety along Superior Avenue are anticipated due to the Project. Response to Comment 12-5: Please see Response to Comment 12-4 Response to Comment 12-6: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, the design of the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park includes the installation of 6 -foot tall fences, enclosing the dog park and also separating large and small dogs, thus clearly designating a space, specifically catered towards dogs and the pet owners. Installation of the fences would prevent dogs from exiting the designated park area and prevent dogs from entering any private properties or public roadways. Response to Comment 12-7: Please see Response to Comment 12-6. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. As noted in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.15, the Newport Beach Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, and is approximately 5 miles northeast from the proposed Project (Google Maps 2019). The proposed Project would not result in increased populations that would require additional public services, nor would it impact the nearest police station. Response to Comment 12-8: Please see Response to Comment 12-7. Assessment of crime and vandalism is outside the scope of CEQA; however, this comment will be considered by the City Council in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 12-9: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Response to Comment 12-10: Please refer to Response to Comment 12-9. Response to Comment 12-11: Comment noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 12-4. The objective of the proposed Project is to provide connectivity between the parking lot and park uses. Response to Comment 12-12: Comment noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 12-1. Response to Comment 12-13: Comment noted. Response to Comment 12-14: Comment noted. Comment Letter #13 — REO Nationwide COMMENT LETTER #13 From: CJ Gehlke <cl@reonationwide.com> Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2019 3:56 PM To: Tran, Andy Subject: FW: Air Show and PCH/Superior Andy Tran... Please consider utilizing this view and the safety of the corner and neighborhood..see below.... thank you! CJ From: Dixon, Diane[ma iIto: ddixon@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2019 3:49 PM To: C1 Gehlke Subject: Re: Air Show and PCH/Superior Great ideas! Thank you! Diane Diane B Dixon, Mayor Council Member District 1 949.287.9211 On Oct 5, 2019, at 3:35 PM, CI Gehlke <ci@reonationwide.com> wrote: PS.. Just an additional thought.. the Air Show was this weekend.. that corner is used by residents to maximize the incredible view opportunity with the elevation being so high there.. this weekend, the fourth of July.. and most every weekend.. along with every time there is a beautiful sunset. People can easily park in the lot of Superior, and they bring chairs, towels.. soft drinks and food.. The residents are telling us what they want there.. Consider: a police substation as that corner and surrounding area is in need of a police presence both for traffic and thefts.. an extended grassy area with picnic tables and Comment places to sit and enjoy the view with friends and a gathering that is too big for a small 13-1 park bench further down the walkway. That area has the most magnificent view due to its elevation ... far better than any place in the park across the street. Dogs in a dog park do not appreciate the view... Please consider making this area view and safety based... a police substation and a place for people to gather to enjoy the view and sunsets year round. View is far superior to the parks all lower elevation. Thank you! Hello Diane Dixon... thank you for your work on behalf of our City. By way of introduction, I consult by profession on highest and best use issues for developers and lenders nationwide, and have done so for over 30 years. So I bring some experience to my suggestion. A request for consideration for the highest and best use for the corner of PCH and Superior with both present fatalities and accidents on that corner and the future Banning Ranch project is: Police Sub -station. There is no police presence on this side of Newport. The quick response to the accidents and thefts here would be such a great thing for the community. A sub station was previously proposed as part of the community center idea. At that time, the voices from the neighborhood were loudly hoping that if anything proposed were resisted, the corner might be left alone. That corner is too expensive and high value dirt to leave alone. It will be developed. So to suggest what might service the community best with the dangerous corner in mind would be a far better response than simple and repeated opposition. It is my understanding that the Police Dept could be approached again, as they were involved previously on the prior plan to incorporate a substation there, asking for support for a substation. Less traffic, less pedestrians, presence both at the ready when needed and a visual deterrent to the problems currently occurring on that corner. Not one day goes by that on my twice daily walk I am nearly run down by a car blowing through a red and cars speedingthrough nearly hitting pedestrians. A cash infusion could be the result of the ticket potential from both unleashed dogs in both adjacent parks and the constant traffic infractions on that corner. Please redirect attention to a police substation as an alternate concept which would be highly useful, life saving and provide much needed support for the upcoming development next to the Ridge Park as well. Thanks for letting me help you today! CJ Gehlke, CE0/Founder licensed since 1979 DRE No. 00803243 REO Nationwide, Inc. Beneficial RE Inc. DRE No. 01334672 www.reonationwide.com Office: Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mail: 1927 Harbor Blvd. Suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ci@reonationwide.com phone: 888.700.0868 x 326 fax: 888.700.0868 Linkedln: www.linkedin.com/pub/carol-jean-%22ci%22-¢ehlke/a/9l5/714 ------------------------------------------ REO Disposition Outsource Services BPO and APPRAISAL Services - Individual or Volume Bulk BULK Sale Facilitation Response To Comment Letter #13 — REO Nationwide Response to Comment 13-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. As noted in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.15, the Newport Beach Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, and is approximately 5 miles northeast from the proposed Project (Google Maps 2019). The proposed Project would not result in increased populations that would require additional public services, nor would it impact the nearest police station. The provision of a police station is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Comment Letter#14—Sandy Frizzell Comment Letter 14 October, 2019 To our city planners, I was unable to attend the Aug. 6 meeting regarding the plans for Lower Sunset View Park. On Sept. 11 1 attended the Speak Up meeting and found out where the planned Dog Park is to be build. The mailer is deceiving. I was in disbelief! I live in Villa Balboa at 200 Paris Lane #214 on the second floor of the most NW corner of the Paris building, Superior and PCH. From my unit I can see the Sunset View Park from Comment most rooms in my unit. Sunset View Park is my "front yard." And you want to build a dog park on one of 14-1 the most prized viewing locations of West Newport eeachl I! There are many better locations for a dog park. Regarding use of Lower Sunset View Park, adding parking is good use of this property for people to better use Sunset Ridge Park. The most valuable part of Sunset View Park is the dirt mound. It is enjoyed by residence every day, all day; morning, noon and especially at Sunset. People walk, ride their bikes, put up tripods, stand and sit there to take in the beautiful views. I call it Comment Inspiration Point. I have many photos to show you. It would be a crime to do anything other than 14-2 to enhance this small space for its best use, THE VIEW. Let the people continue to enjoy the spectacular views from this prime property. Please do not obstruct the view in any way. I love dogs, but this is not the place for a dog park. We do not want the added noise, traffic and smells of a dog park. It seems to me an easy solution is to move the Dog Park to a lower area in the lower part Comment of Sunset View Park toward PCH. I understand the city envisions a road to the Hoag parking lot. It is 14-3 highly unlikely Hoag will ever allow this. It is a win-win without ruining the view for visitors and residence to put the dog park in the lower part of SVP. There should be nothing built or added to obstruct the view. I suggest enhancing the dirt mound by adding a little walk way and some sturdy Comment grass, maybe even expanding it toward the CoGent Plant. 14-4 Please do not take away Inspiration Point from the residence of Newport Beach, visitors and residents of Comment Villa Balboa. Let us continue to enjoying our treasured views. 14-5 Sandy Frizzell 200 Paris Ln #214 Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-646-3248 sandyfrizzell@roadrunner.com V:'. ,, �- Response To Comment Letter #14 — Sandy Frizzell Response to Comment 14-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 14-2: The City of Newport Beach General Plan designates public viewpoints for coastal views within the city. Areas near the Project site that have such designation include Sunset Ridge Park, Sunset View Park, and along the trail above the current parking lot, including the designated point where a bench was installed. The City's Local Coastal Plan also designates the same public view points in the designated parks and along the paved trail that fronts the Villa Balboa Community. Further, the bridge associated with the Project will provide safer unobstructed views of the coast. Response to Comment 14-3: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, according to the CaIEEMod model run, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Thus, the dog park is not expected to result in any significant impacts in relation to odor from pet waste. The Project site is not anticipated to introduce any other objectionable odors. There are no traffic trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual for dog parks. To determine the potential trips associated with a dog park, a comparison to a similar dog park in Laguna Beach was reviewed. The dog park in Laguna Beach is 2.5 acres in size and generates 480 trips per day. By comparison, the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park would generate approximately 38 trips per day. Per the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic impact study is required when there are more than 300 trips per day generated by a project. Given the estimated trips, it was determined that there is less than significant impact with the dog park portion of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.14.1 Impact a) the proposed Project, including the dog park, would not indirectly induce population growth and is intended to serve the existing population in the area. No roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes would be significantly modified as a result of the proposed Project and therefore, would not conflict with applicable circulation plans. As discussed in Section 4.17.1 Impact a) of the MND, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase of users that would generate a significant increase in traffic because no construction of businesses or residences would occur and no expansion of park facilities other than the small dog park are proposed. Response to Comment 14-4: As noted in the Draft IS/MND, the proposed Project will not include any elements that obstruct views. Response to Comment 14-5: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Comment Letter #15 —Wendy Kaiser COMMENT LETTERtt15 From: Wendy Kaiser <wendvhkaiser@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 4:15 AM To: Tran, Andy Cc: Wemail Subject: Dog Park and Development at Superior and PCH Hi - I am opposed to a dog park in this location. It is too small of a space, too close to residences, and Comment Villa Balboa complex has decades of history of no dogs. Many of us moved here because we are 15-1 allergic or have asthma or other reasons for not wishing to be around dogs. There are a few Comment service/companion dogs only at Villa Balboa. 15-2 It would make more sense to locate the dog park near the planned playing fields on the far side (other side of Superior) toward Huntington Beach (spaced also away from Newport Crest). It Comment would also be better to locate parking by the existing community center on 15th Street and 15-3 connect it up to the playing field area. I do not see a need to have a bridge over Superior or further development or grading of Superior Comment at PCH at this time. IS -4 Please forward my email to the pertinent committee and the city council. Thank you Wendy Kaiser wen dyhkaise�ahoo. com 270 Cagneey Ln #115 Newport Beach Ca 92663 949-202-7273 Sent from my iPad Sent from my Whone Response To Comment Letter #15 — Wendy Kaiser Response to Comment 15-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 15-2: This comment has been noted. The proposed dog park is located downslope of the adjacent residential communities, As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, the design of the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park includes the installation of 6 -foot tall fences, enclosing the dog park and separating large and small dogs, thus clearly designating a space, specifically catered towards dogs and the pet owners. Installation of the fences would prevent dogs from exiting the designated park area and prevent dogs from entering any private properties or public roadways. Response to Comment 15-3: The purpose of the proposed Project is a construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. The objectives of the project are: • To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. • To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. Response to Comment 15-4: Comment noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 15-3 Comment Letter #16 — Sudhir Banker COMMENT LETTER#16 From: Rajeshbanker <bankerfmly@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 12:34 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Dept - City Council; Tran, Andy; Detweiler, Laura; Levin, Sean Cc: Darby Ryan #313 Hoa Subject: DOG PARK/PARKING EXPANSION next to Sunset Ridge park Attachments: DOG PARKPARKING EXPANSION.pdf Honorable. Mayor Diane,respected city council members, city engineer and staff at large: As a resident of Villa Balboa community of 449 mostly senior householders, please review our attached letter and following and consider and approve Our request: Comment -We are totally against the proposed Dog Park.This is immediately adjacent to our building (200 Paris Lane) with 54 16-1 homes and our Villa Balboa complex of 449 homes , as well as, next to Hoag Hospital Property. - This was thrusted and forced upon us by a stroke of a pencil on map ,immediately adjacent to our community of 449 units residents Villa Balboa (with no Dogs policy for 40 years)and practically placed into our front yard .There is no buffer zone,period. This will have perhaps unintentional but severe adverse consequences to health , quiet and peaceful enjoyment by our community, as well as, annually more than 25,000 visiting peoGmail.comple , including Comment Hoag staff and patients in wheel chairs, enjoying daily walks, meditation, playing with children and most 16-2 importantly enjoying fresh ocean breezes and fantastic sunrise and sunsets in a quiet and peaceful environment, etc... -Sunset View park ,a tiny park, only a block away from ocean, was named and created for enjoyment by public to enjoy fresh ocean breezes ,Fantastic sunsets , fireWOrks,alr show,boat race in a very Quiet,peaceful environment with loved ones. Instead, adjacent proposed dog park will bring lot of unhealthy air with foul smell and lots of barking noise pollution Comment and create a very unsafe location for dogs, people and traffic in and out and slow down or block emergency vehicle 16-3 traffic on Superior to and from Hoag. -Noise pollution of loud barking,smel 1, unhealthy air conditions (replacing refreshing clean ocean breezes)from my and surrounding units will be unacceptable and any "study" city puts it in question. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST: - We consider you all , city fathers, as parents, using your wisdom and long range thinking To protect and Comment enhance the interests and rights of us public for quiet, peaceful Enjoyment for generations to come. 16-4 - The land for proposed dog park is very precious and unique real estate and should be used for the benefit Of people FIRST. - Suggest, let us create something very valuable for our many generations to come By increasing the size of tiny Sunset View Park and provide more green space for Meditation, excercise circuit, playing with children, mini picnics, enjoying Comment Refreshing clean ocean air breezes ,Fabulous sunsets ,fireworks.boat and air shows in a quiet peaceful 16-5 way. -relocate proposed dog park to a huge SUNSET RIDGE Park right across With lot of idle land with buffer zone and near the community where HOA has dogs Comment Accepted policy. 16-6 -Concurrently, in addition to reallocating the land for dog park to Sunset View Comment 16-7 Comment 16-7 Contd. Park,Reallocate land for additional parking,to expand the tiny Sunset View Park With more green area for ever increasing and growing need for public use above. (ARE YOU AWARE OF HOMELESS TENT WITH LOTS OF TRASH IN THE EXISTING Comment PARKING LOT WITH ABUSIVE USE OF BUSHES AND TREES IN ADJOINING 16-8 HOAG HOSPITAL FOR DAILY SANITARY NEEDS?) I must mention that WE LOVE DOGS, especially we spend fun time with two dogs Buboo nearby And Lolla our sons have . THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR DOG PARK, PLEASE. WISH YOU WOULD HAVE PLANNED THE MEETING ON 15th October at SUNSET VIEW PARK, IN Comment ORDER TO GET FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES ON HAND. 16-9 RESPECTFULLY, Sudhir Banker OWNER: 200 Paris Lane #313 Newport Beach CA 92663 Phone:818-694-1777 Email: bankerfmlygaol.com Sent from my iPad "".,...URGENT AND IMPORTAt'VT.""'" ......_— Laura Detweiler Recreation & Senior Services Director CC: Villa Balboa Homo Owr-er's Association C'O Ryan Darby RDarbyAlaction life. corn SUBJECT: URGENT - Please STOP and defer ALL decisions on your PUBIC NO' ICE and consider and approve our request. Dear Los. Detweiler: I received notice of an August 6 meeting regarding the proposed dcg park not be able to attend that meeting. As a resident of Vilia Balboa community of 449 househoiders. please request as follows: o Move dog park to Newport Crest side in huge park and redesignate the more, by not expanding parking and use that same allocated land for stake that bigger green lawn,as green lawn area for the ber.ef t of our immediately adjoining communities of our 449 householders of householders of Scultz , currently with disproportionately ver, little and LOPSIDED VERY LOW altocaton of land for us compare where there is a HUGE PARK, baseball playground,c"r,ildre"'s playgrou rest rooms. walking and bicycle path, huge general purpose playground and with green belt, vory iarge undE idle land, etc. etc_.. )rn Superior. I wil , and address c.,r arae lard and , irking expansion to Ila Balboa and 230 Comment to Newport Crest, 16-10 alopec o I want to go on record with you and the HOA in opposinc the dog pari. Sounds, smeils. anri germs do travel and as we in adjoining 200 Pans building are directly upwind from the park. it viill most cartainly impact our day to day en0ronmert. Any environmental study that doesn't recreate the dog barking (which you can clearly hear as you drit . by Newport Beach's existing dog park] and noise, smell, and air quality conditions from my unit will be unacceptable and call any "study" city put it into c uestion. o. For its entire 40 Year existence Villa Balboa has prohibited dogs. his has been tre basis for many residents to purchase homes there. The HOA Boal d has cone to considerable length to NOT modif f any regulations as this would j aopardize this grandfathered "no dogs- regulation. IN contrast- Across Superior, where there is considerably more space, Newpor.. Crest does allow dcgs. In fact. after considerable research I was unable to find any other dog park in our area {1 loo ed at ?.) on google earth.) that did not have a material buffer zone beMreen the dog pa k and any residence. In this case the proposed dog park is immediately adja ent to our building Comment 16-11 Comment 16-12 (200 Paris Lane) with 54 homes and our Villa Balboa complex with 449 homes.as well as,next to a hospital property. o. It is rt-ry understanding, that Villa Balboa homeotivness who have emotion i support or ott er medically prescribed dogs attended a Villa Balboa HOA meat:no rt�gardi g the agenda item Comment of adding a bridge did so as they look forward to walking their dog in tht HUGE park that 16-13 already exists across the street in front of NEWPORT CREST Sincerely; Sllf)HIRtXNKtER Owner: 200 Paris Lane #313 Nowpert Beach, CA. 926631 Contact Information: Mailing address: 10132 Wvstone ave Northridge.ca 91324 Phone: 818 694 11-77 �rrtai f: ban kc-rfrrly5hlaol.Coni I I i 4ew CI7 t)F NH,SiPORT i., B 'RC1, CA--26(*k7- PUBJ AC' NOTICE SU4SETWljGEOAPF( i _&uPFRIDaAW, , #ADDM0NAL NBL1C PAR -ft" Lower Suns© 4^ Design The _ower Sunset'. cludes a ne-w pedes > d mor fi•,'Qru'aaddii Thr pr p:5-, iS Ir -..ate -ig -e av a::he up 'saav* enr rt t' p, C; t I PApR ar...w_t,eSUn t put ; of{5 staff 4 ear, 31 design to hr ��_i� pS;Pi r omn-lasbi j W1G HOS TAL r. t "7 e � ° •^: _ , '• -9358 ICL US iC Sic Con iely Park conceptuai. design in- dan ard bicycle Su- ;!na par<irc nd a amall do, ra,,+;. c' he n d) s ), -oast dC,r A1C C? The:n- In?pfL':2 p�d�.r :" S3`e:'j arc idce Park rrr,;n .,u...e: iew Par inding car- Pan- .=earhes : ?ecreat_� ' i').7ug-ts, 'or more :nfortr!ation, please call the Recreation Office at 949-644-3168. if you are .rn ble to attend <he meeOng aL:= rould ItkE t- provide comments to the Commission. ple:1s. cit?ail Response To Comment Letter #16 — Sudhir Banker Response to Comment 16-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 16-2: The southwest edge of Sunset View Park will block the line -of -sight between the proposed Dog Park and the Villa Balboa Condos. In fact the proposed dog park will be located more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at Sunset View Park. Since sound travels in straight lines, the southwest edge of Sunset View Park will effectively act like a 20 foot high sound wall between the proposed dog park and the condos. As such, only nominal construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur from the proposed project at the Villa Balboa Condos and no operational noise impacts from the proposed dog park or any other noise sources are anticipated to occur at the Villa Balboa Condos. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, according to the CaIEEMod model run, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. Response to Comment 16-3: Please refer to Response to Comment 16-2. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. The development of the proposed bridge would also result in a beneficial impact related to emergency response because the bridge would provide increased safety and direct access from the parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park. For pedestrians traveling along the eastern sidewalk along Superior Avenue, the access point to the parking lot would remain in the same location, therefore the Project would not result in a change in traffic patterns over what is already expected along the roadway. Response to Comment 16-4: Comment noted. Response to Comment 16-5: Comment noted. Response to Comment 16-6: Comment noted. Response to Comment 16-7: Comment noted. Dog park relocation is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 16-8: Park hours will be enforced per the Municipal Code. Response to Comment 16-9: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 16-10: Dog park relocation is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 16-11: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, according to the CalEEMod model run, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Thus, the dog park is not expected to result in any significant impacts in relation to odor from pet waste. The Project site is not anticipated to introduce any other objectionable odors. Response to Comment 16-12: The proposed dog park is located 50 feet downslope and approximately 220 feet away from the Villa Balboa community. Dog park design and proximity to specific communities is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 16-13: Please refer to Response to Comment 16-12. Comment Letter #17 — Ryan Darby COMMENT LETTER #17 From: Tran, Andy Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 11:19 AM To: 'Ryan Darby' Cc: Carleen Subject: RE: Ambient Noise Hi Ryan, Since this is a question on our environmental document (MND) and we are currently in our 30 -day public review period, I will have our environmental consultant prepare a formal written response to your question at the end of the review period. This is standard California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedure. With that said, Table 4-21 of the MND does list existing noise levels at the 3 locations. I would also suggest reviewing Appendix H. Hope this helps. Andy Tran, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-644-3315 From: Ryan Darby<rdarby@actionlife.com> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 7:58 AM To: Tran, Andy <ATran_@newport beach ca.gov> Cc: Carleen <challstead@aol.com> Subject: Ambient Noise Hello Andy, I went through the Noise Report and I see where it says it is only an additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels, however I don't see where it lists what the ambient noise levels are at Comment Villa Balboa and that there weren't any tests done on the property like we do for Hoag Hospital to 17-1 obtain those noise levels. Can you let me know what they found the ambient noise level to be? The point that I was trying to bring up at the meeting is that the noise levels at Villa Balboa is already significantly higher than most of the rest of Newport Beach with the Co -Gen Plant, PCH and Superior. Comment The dog park, would be raising an already elevated ambient noise level for the residents. 17-2 RYAN DARBY I COMMUNITY MANAGER ACTIMANAGEMET ,*,ACTION 26030MA N OSTREET SUITE 500, RVINE, CA 92614 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICE 1 (949) 450-0202 WEBSITE ( VCARD I RDARBY(cDAMONLIFE.COM W **CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message is intended to be viewed only by the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message and any copies of it from your computer system.** **For further information about Action Property Management, please see our website at www.actionlife.com or refer to any of our offices. Thank you.** Response To Comment Letter #17 — Ryan Darby Response to Comment 17-1: Thank you for your comment. Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND provides the noise measurement printouts and a photo index of the noise measurement locations. The noise measurement locations were selected in order to obtain the ambient noise measurements at the locations that would experience the greatest noise increase from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project. No noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the Villa Balboa Condos, since the grade is relatively flat in the Sunset View Park area that covers the nearest 200 feet to the Villa Balboa Condos and then there is a steep slope to the Project site. The southwest edge of Sunset View Park will block the line -of -sight between the proposed Dog Park and the Villa Balboa Condos. In fact the proposed dog park will be located more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at Sunset View Park. Since sound travels in straight lines, the southwest edge of Sunset View Park will effectively act like a 20 foot high sound wall between the proposed dog park and the condos. As such, only nominal construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur from the proposed project at the Villa Balboa Condos and no operational noise impacts from the proposed dog park or any other noise sources are anticipated to occur at the Villa Balboa Condos. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, according to the CaIEEMod model run, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. Response to Comment 17-2: Please refer to Response to Comment 17-1. Comment Letter #18 — Ryan Darby COMMENT LETTER #18 From: Tran, Andy Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 12:47 PM To: 'Ryan Darby' Cc: Carleen Subject: RE: Ambient Noise I will forward your following question to the environmental consultant. Thanks, Andy From: Ryan Darby<rdarby@actionlife.com> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 12:34 PM To: Tran, Andy <ATran@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Carleen <challstead@aol.com> Subject: RE: Ambient Noise Hello Andy, The three locations are not by Villa Balboa though. 1St location is on PCH 2nd location is on PCH and Superior. Comment 3rd location is the park on the other side of Superior. 18-1 If I could get a response stating how the ambient noise level stated in the report was within 10 dB of the current ambient noise dB. Thanks! RYAN DARBY I COMMUNITY MANAGER ACTIPERTY MANAGEMENT TION 26030 MAINOSTREET, UITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92614 a H a R s a 7 Y MANAGF r'li_ N r OFFICE 1 (949) 450-0202 WEBSITE WARDRDARBYCaACTIONLIFE.COM 00 From: Tran, Andy <ATran@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 11:19 AM To: Ryan Darby <rdarby actionlife.com> Cc: Carleen <challstead@aol.com> Subject: RE: Ambient Noise Hi Ryan, Since this is a question on our environmental document (MND) and we are currently in our 30 -day public review period, I will have our environmental consultant prepare a formal written response to your question at the end of the review period. This is standard California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedure. With that said, Table 4-21 of the MND does list existing noise levels at the 3 locations. I would also suggest reviewing Appendix H. Hope this helps. Andy Tran, F.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive NewTport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-644-3315 From: Ryan Darby<rdarby@action Iife.com> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 7:58 AM To: Tran, Andy <ATran@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Carleen <challstead@aol.com> Subject: Ambient Noise Hello Andy, I went through the Noise Report and I see where it says it is only an additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels, however I don't see where it lists what the ambient noise levels are at Villa Balboa and that there weren't any tests done on the property like we do for Hoag Hospital to obtain those noise levels. Can you let me know what they found the ambient noise level to be? The point that I was trying to bring up at the meeting is that the noise levels at Villa Balboa is already significantly higher than most of the rest of Newport Beach with the Co -Gen Plant, PCH and Superior. The dog park, would be raising an already elevated ambient noise level for the residents. RYAN DARBY I COMMUNITY MANAGER ACTION ACTION PROPERTY MA N STREET STREET, 500 MANAGEMENT RVINE, CA 92614 P h o H i{ R I Y M A N a C, r M r N r OFFICE 1 (949) 450-0202 WEBSITE I VCARD I RDARBY@ACTIONLIFE.COM Response To Comment Letter #18 — Ryan Darby Response to Comment 18-1: Thank you for your comment. As described in Section 4.13.1 of the Draft IS/MND, long-term (24-hour) noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 4- 21 and the noise measurement printouts and photos of the noise measurements sites are provided in Appendix H. The noise measurement locations were selected in order to obtain the ambient noise measurements at the locations that would experience the greatest noise increase from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project. No noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the Villa Balboa Condos, since the grade is relatively flat in the Sunset View Park area that covers the nearest 200 feet to the Villa Balboa Condos and then there is a steep slope to the Project site. The Southwest edge of Sunset View Park will block the line -of -sight between the proposed dog park and the Villa Balboa Condos. In fact the proposed dog park will be located more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at Sunset View Park. Since sound travels in straight lines, the southwest edge of Sunset View Park will effectively acts like a 20 foot high sound wall between the proposed dog park and the condos. As such, only nominal construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur from the proposed Project at the Villa Balboa Condos and no operational noise impacts from the proposed dog park or any other noise sources are anticipated to occur at the Villa Balboa Condos. Comment Letter #19 — Sudhir Banker COMMENT LETTER #19 From: Sudhir Banker <bankerfmly@aol.com> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 12:34 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Dept - City Council; Tran, Andy; Detweiler, Laura; Levin, Sean Cc: Darby Ryan #313 Hoa Subject: Re: DOG PARK/PARKING EXPANSION next to Sunset Ridge park Honarable Mayor Diane, respected city council, Mr.Tran, Ms.Detweiler and all staff Thank u very much for giving myself and all of us at Villa Balboa to giving us opportunity to meet with u all at dog park and listen and hear us about: Comment -Our very strong objection to placement of Dog Park right in our front yard for specific reasons our 19-1 request to place it totally somewhere else . -SUNSET VIEW PARK IS SUCH A UNIQUE PARK, A MOST EXPENSIVE PIECE OF REAL ESTATE ,WHERE ANNUALLY MORE THAN 25000 People from our property of 459 units, HOAG staff and patients, Comment neighboring residents and local and out of city/state 'Visitors'to enjoy incredible Ocean views, fresh 19-2 ocean breezes and unmatched Sunsets !!!! -PLEASE DONOT PLACE Comment DOG PARK AND INSTEAD USE SAME LAND TO EXPAND SUNSET VIEW PARK. 19-3 -LEAVE A LEGACY FOR GENERATIONSTO COME AND GET COMPLIMENTS TO CITY OFFICIALS AND BLESSINGS FROM ALL FOR GIVING MORE GREEN SPACE FOR PUBLIC USE. Comment 19-4 Hoping to hear from you and staff a very favorable decision . Respectfully, Sudhir Banker 8186941777 cel I 200 Paris lane #313 Newport Beach Ca 92663 Sent from my iPhone >On Oct 15, 2019, at 12:33 PM, Rajeshbanker <bankerfmly@aol.com> wrote: >Honorable. Mayor Diane,respected city council members, city engineer and staff at large: >As a resident of Villa Balboa community of 449 mostly senior householders, please review our attached letter and following and consider and approve Our request: >-We are totally against the proposed Dog Park.This is immediately >adjacent to our building (200 Paris Lane) with 54 homes and our Villa Balboa complex of 449 homes, as well as, next to Hoag Hospital Property. >- This was thrusted and forced upon us by a stroke of a pencil on map ,immediately adjacent to our community of 449 units residents Villa Balboa (with no Dogs policy for 40 years)and practically placed into our front yard .There is no buffer zone,period. This will have perhaps unintentional but severe adverse consequences to health , quiet and peaceful enjoyment by our community, as well as, annually more than 25,000 visiting peoGmail.comple , including Hoag staff and patients in wheel chairs, enjoying daily walks, meditation, playing with children and most importantly enjoying fresh ocean breezes and fantastic sunrise and sunsets in a quiet and peaceful environment, etc... >-Sunset View park ,a tiny park, only a block away from ocean, was named and created for enjoyment by public to enjoy fresh ocean breezes, Fantastic sunsets , fireworks,air show,boat race in a very Quiet,peaceful environment with loved ones. >Instead, adjacent proposed dog park will bring lot of unhealthy air with foul smell and lots of barking noise pollution and create a very unsafe location for dogs, people and traffic in and out and slow down or block emergency vehicle traffic on Superior to and from Hoag. >-Noise pollution of loud barking,smell,unhealthy air conditions (replacing refreshing clean ocean breezes)from my and surrounding units will be unacceptable and any "study' city puts it in question. > WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST: > - We consider you all , city fathers, as parents, using your wisdom and long range thinking To protect and enhance the interests and rights of us public for quiet, peaceful Enjoyment for generations to come. >- The land for proposed dog park is very precious and unique real estate and should be used for the benefit Of people FIRST. > - Suggest, let us create something very valuable for our many generations to come > By increasing the size of tiny Sunset View Park and provide more green space for > Meditation, excercise circuit, playing with children, mini picnics, enjoying > Refreshing clean ocean air breezes,Fabulous sunsets ,fireworks, boat and air shows in a quiet peaceful way. > -relocate proposed dog park to a huge SUNSET RIDGE Park right across > With lot of idle land with buffer zone and near the community where HOA has dogs > Accepted policy. > -Concurrently, in addition to reallocating the land for dog park to Sunset View > Park,Reallocate land for additional parking,to expand the tiny Sunset View Park > With more green area for ever increasing and growing need for public use above. > (ARE YOU AWARE OF HOMELESS TENT WITH LOTS OF TRASH IN THE EXISTING > PARKING LOT WITH ABUSIVE USE OF BUSHES AND TREES IN ADJOINING HOAG HOSPITAL FOR DAILY SANITARY NEEDS?) >1 must mention that WE LOVE DOGS, especially we spend fun time with two dogs Buboo nearby And Lolla our sons have . > THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR DOG PARK, PLEASE. >WISH YOU WOULD HAVE PLANNED THE MEETING ON 15th October at SUNSET VIEW PARK, IN ORDER TO GET FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES ON HAND. > RESPECTFULLY, > Sudhir Banker > OWNER: > 200 Paris Lane #313 > Newport Beach CA 92663 > Phone: 818-694-1777 > Email: bankerfmly@aol.com > <DOG PARK > Sent from my iPad Response To Comment Letter #19 — Sudhir Banker Response to Comment 19-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 19-2: Comment noted. Response to Comment 19-3: The purpose of the proposed Project is a construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. The objectives of the project are: • To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. • To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. Response to Comment 19-4: Comment noted. Comment Letter #20 — City of Irvine COMMENT LETTER #20 Community Development 1 CVv,c Canter Plaza Inane CA 90303-n2a October 21, 2019 Mr. Andy Tran City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 cltyofirvine org 949--"=-3000 Subject: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project in the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Tran: City of Irvine staff is in receipt of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project in the City of Newport Beach. The project is adjacent to Sunset Ride Park and Sunset View Park, and approximately 1,000 feet away from the coastline. The project proposes a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a 3.4 acre dog park, and a parking lot expansion. The Comment project is intended to facilitate movement for pedestrians and bicyclists across Superior 20-1 Avenue and provide more parking opportunities for Sunset Ridge Park. Staff reviewed the project and has no comments. If you have any questions, you may contact me at 949-724-6364 or by email at jequinaCcDcityofirvine.org_ S'ncerely, Jus i uina ociate Planner cc: Kerwin Lau, Manager of Planning Services Marika Poynter, Principal Planner Response To Comment Letter #20 — City of Irvine Response to Comment 20-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Comment Letter #21— Barry Macpherson COMMENT LETTER #21 To: Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Newport Beach, Public Works 10/21/19 Dear Mr. Tran, I am a long time resident of Newport Beach, California. I have lived at Newport Crest for the past thirty years. I use Sunset Ridge Park on a daily basis. As you are aware the Sunset Ridge Park was originally conceived as a "passive" park for visitors to enjoy walking trails and views from the park. The baseball diamond and soccer field was added as an adjunct at the behest of the Newport Beach Parks and Recreation Department. Currently, Sunset Ridge Park is being used exactly as intended. Visitors come from surrounding communities to enjoy the views, walk the trails, walk their dogs and use the recreational facilities. Adults and youths involved in competitive sports use the park. Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park are perfect just the way are now. There is absolutely no need to expand the parking lot, construct a new dog park or build a pedestrian bridge. This project will be a huge cost to the taxpayer. The Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project is a solution looking for a problem. There is no problem. The Project should be opposed for a number of reasons, some of which include the following: 1. A major reason to oppose this proposed Project is the cost. There is no need to spend five million or more dollars of taxpayer funds on this Project. It does not Comment matter if the money is local, state or federal. It is still taxpayer funds. 21-1 2. The parking lot below Sunset View Park has 64 parking spaces and does NOT need to be enlarged or modified. The current parking lot is never full and infrequently used. The only time the lot is full is on the Fourth of July and Labor Comment Day. When there are sporting events at Sunset Ridge Park the lot is not full. Many 21-2 of the parents who have youth playing at sporting events drop their youths off and do not park in the lot. There is no need to build a .3 acre dog park. Currently, there is ample opportunity for visitors at both Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park to walk their dogs. Any visitor to Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park will see a number of visitors Comment walking their dog(s) and enjoying the park. Visitors do not typically drive to a park 21-3 to walk their dog. They walk from surrounding neighborhoods with their dog to the park. The proposed Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge is not needed. The proposed bridge is not needed because it will not significantly decrease the time to get to the park or decrease the distance to access the park from the parking lot. Comment Visitors typically walk to Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park from surrounding 21-4 communities. The majority of visitors do not access Sunset Ridge Park from the parking lot. Visitors can park in the current parking lot and easily access Sunset Ridge Park via Pacific Coast Highway. 5. To address the safety concerns for visitors accessing the Sunset Ridge Park from the parking lot, it is suggested that the duration of time for the signal for crossing the intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue be increased. Additionally, warning lights should be embedded in the asphalt at the intersection. The lights then could be activated by a pedestrian. For a very modest cost, this would greatly improve pedestrian safety and visibility. 6.According to the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot plan, there will need to be extensive grading and earthwork which will contribute to air pollution. The elevated area at the base of Sunset View Park will be leveled. In the process of the building and completion of the dog park, native flora and vegetation will be destroyed. The existing slope that is used by many visitors to relax, view sunsets and take pictures will be destroyed. The local wildlife including squirrels, jack rabbits, cotton tail rabbits, coyotes, etc will be displaced. Protected species including the coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl may be affected by the Project. The negative environmental impact resulting from this project would be irreparable. The result could include possible loss of animal life and disruption of the adjacent ecosystem. The project will significantly alter the local habitat. The addition of a dog park near Sunset View Park will increase noise pollution, light pollution, and possibly increase the spread of disease from dog feces. Comment 21-5 Comment 21-6 In summary, the City of Newport Beach should not approve a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) or approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot. The project is costly and Comment unnecessary. The California Costal Commission should not approve a Coastal 21-7 Development Permit Amendment for this project. Please notify me by US mail of any future public meeting regarding the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project. Sincerely yours, Barry Macpherson 15 Mojo Court Newport Beach Ca 92663 Comment Letter #21— Barry Macpherson Response to Comment 21-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. The cost of the Project is outside the scope of CEQA, however your comment will be included for City Council's consideration of the project. Response to Comment 21-2: The purpose of the proposed Project is a construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. The objectives of the project are: • To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. • To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. Response to Comment 21-3: Comment noted. Please refer to Response to Comment 21-2. Response to Comment 21-4: Please refer to Response to Comment 21-2. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. Response to Comment 21-5: Please refer to Response to Comment 21-4 Response to Comment 21-6: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3, the data shows that construction -related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's local air concentration thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term, limited only to the period when construction activity is taking place. As such, construction related local air concentrations would be less than significant for the proposed Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, according to the CaIEEMod model run, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Thus, the dog park is not expected to result in any significant impacts in relation to odor from pet waste. The Project site is not anticipated to introduce any other objectionable odors. As described in Section 4.4.1 (f) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed Project is not located within an environmental study area and there are no potentially significant impacts anticipated to the habitats or species that have the potential to occur. In addition, avoidance and mitigation efforts would result in direct and indirect impacts to be less than significant to habitats, natural communities, and wildlife. A Biological Technical Report was prepared for the proposed Project which evaluated impacts to wildlife species including burrowing owl. In addition, a coastal California gnatcatcher protocol level survey was performed to evaluate potential impacts to this sensitive species. Based on these reports, mitigation measures were provided to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds, wetlands, and sensitive plant species, as outlined in mitigation measures MM BIO -1 through MM BIO -5. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Response to Comment 21-7: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Comment Letter #22 — Deborah Gero COMMENT LETTER #22 Andy Tran, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA. 92660 October 22, 2019 Deborah A. Gero 1341 Berea Place Pacific Palisades, CA. 90272 Owner of: 200 Paris Lane 112 Newport Beach, CA 93663 debioeroZamail.com RE: Draft/Initial Study/Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Andy I would like to take you up on your offer to submit questions that I have regarding the above report. My questions are from the perspective of the closest building at Villa Balboa (200 Paris Lane) to the dog park and from the perspective of Sunset View Park, which will be immediately adjacent to the dog park, as I have had the occasion to make personal observations and see preferences from many others in the community who currently use and appreciate Sunset View Park. When I use the word "City", I am referring broadly to the City of Newport Beach, which would include all departments, such as Recreation and Senior Services. Generally: Distance from the proposed dog park to nearest homes: What is an official and accurate measure of the closest distance of the nearest Villa Balboa unit to the dog park? It looks like three different measures used for how close residents are to the Comment dog park. On page 52, it states that residents in the northeast are 220 feet away, page 105 states that they are 260 feet away, and the presentation dated August 6, 2019 titled "Lover 22-1 Sunset View Park Conceptual Design" indicates that the distance is 250 feet. Measurement points for the study: Why were there no measurement points at Sunset View Park and Villa Balboa in the proximity Comment of the project? 22-2 For a multi story residence, should there be measurement points at various heights? Even with the existing measurement points, why doesn't the City feel that the area is over the noise limit for residential already, when the closest measuring point to the residential VillaComment Balboa complex measuring 67.0 (dBA Leq) (Table 4-21)? 22-3 Page 1 of 5 Visitors to the parking lot and dog park: What has the City (not Chambers but the City) assumed (increased daily visits) for: Usage of the parking lot in order to justify the spend? The dog park? Does the City plan to increase scheduled activities at Sunset Ridge Park? How do Chamber's assumptions on usage compare to the City's? What's not in the report: Why is there is no reference to the traffic record on the stretch of Superior Blvd., particularly the side of the road where traffic heads inland from PCH to Ticonderoga? How would the development impact the safety record? Why is there no assessment of the City's current enforcement of leash laws or rules at the existing dog park? Was there a survey taken of the sentiment toward a dog park of the immediately adjacent 450 home Villa Balboa Community? Was the fact the Villa Balboa community has been a "no dog" community for forty (40) years considered in location selection? Was there any survey taken of the sentiment toward a dog park of the large number of current users of Sunset View Park (ex. Those who aggregate in the evening?) Specifically: 4.1 Aesthetics —Why weren't any photos taken from Sunset View Park? This park will now look directly down on the dog park. — Why hadn't the City previously maintained "large mound of dirt"? —Why wasn't it acknowledged that the "large mound of dirt" offers the best views in the area and has functioned as a de facto extension of Sunset View Park? — Lighting — How will this impact Sunset View Park? — What hours will each of the bridge, the parking lot, and the dog park be lit? Page 2 of 6 Comment 22-4 Comment 22-5 Comment 22-6 Comment 22-7 Comment 22-8 Comment 22-9 Comment 22-10 Comment 22-11 Comment 22-12 Comment 22-13 Comment 22-14 Comment 22-15 Section 4.3.3 question on page 53 regarding impact of emissions and odors of the dog park: I Comment — Can the City or Chamber site scientific analysis? 22-21 4.3 Air Quality On page 51, the document notes that "The proposed pedestrian bridge and parking lot are not Comment anticipated to create any additional vehicle trips...". 22.16 —Is this the City's assumption? infrastructure and providing daily maintenance). consider conditions where visitors to the dog —If beachgoers are now aware of additional parking in Superior, why would that not generate Comment additional trips on Superior? 22-17 —How does this reconcile with what is posted at newportbeachca.pov which states: "The be an assumption of perfect behavior by dog owners and the City in the Section 4.3.3. existing parking lot only has 64 parking stalls and does not provide adequate parking for large Comment organized sporting events. The primary goals of this project are to increase parking and 22-18 improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park"? nearest housing doesn't allow dogs)? —In Section 4.16.1 on "Recreation", the document notes that the plan "The proposed Project —What methodology did the City use in determining use of the dog park? Does this differ includes additional parking facilities for the uses of the dog park and accommodates users of from Chambers Group assumptions, methodologies, and conclusion that there will be nine or Sunset Park". 36 - 64 new spaces noted on page 6 (in reference to total spaces of 100 to 128 Comment spaces): how can this not be generating more pollution and noise in the immediate area 22-19 (addressed in a subsequent section)? — Will the entire park be made out of natural turf as stated? —When determining additional trips for the dog. park, what hours of operation were —The current Newport Beach dog park is closed for cleaning Wednesdays from 7 am to 9 assumed? 6 am to dusk (as posted on the City's website), as are the hours at the existing Comment Newport Beach dog park or 6 am to 11 pm, noted on page 7 as hours that the dog park 22.20 operation would fall within, or other? Section 4.3.3 question on page 53 regarding impact of emissions and odors of the dog park: I Comment — Can the City or Chamber site scientific analysis? 22-21 —What are the odors and biological contaminants that build up in dog parks over a day, particularly one with anticipated usage such as this one? (I assume usage is assumed to be extensive or why would the city consider spending tax dollars on building out the requisite Comment infrastructure and providing daily maintenance). consider conditions where visitors to the dog park fail to respect all the rules and appropriately considers the "Atmospheric Setting" set out 22-22 in section 4.3.2. These conditions don't seem to be considered in any way as there seems to be an assumption of perfect behavior by dog owners and the City in the Section 4.3.3. —Can the Chambers group site studies of what actually happens at dog parks regarding Comment human behavior, particularly when the dog park is not near the dog owners home (since the nearest housing doesn't allow dogs)? 22-23 —What methodology did the City use in determining use of the dog park? Does this differ Comment from Chambers Group assumptions, methodologies, and conclusion that there will be nine or fewer vehicular trips in a day to the dog park? 22-24 — Will the turf will be watered daily as noted in the report? 22-25 — Will the entire park be made out of natural turf as stated? 22.26 —The current Newport Beach dog park is closed for cleaning Wednesdays from 7 am to 9 Comment am. What is the nature of this cleaning and how does it differ from the daily cleaning? 22-27 4.11. Land Uses and Planning Comment 22-28 —Why isn't the impact on Sunset View Park considered? —Why didn't the report note that the "mound of dirt" has de facto become an extension of the park, offering some of the best coastal views around? Comment —Why does the report conclude that "The uses will be consistent with what is currently 22-29 onsite" when Sunset View Park is not considered? Is this conclusion realistic if users of Comment Sunset View Park value a quiet, serene environment with fresh air and unobstructed ocean 22.30 views (currently free of fences, caged animals, and shade structures)? Page 3 oi' Superior Avenue Pedestrion and Bicycle Bridge ord Porking Lot Proi­ct Newport Beoch, Cohforma 4.13. Noise Comment —Why wasn't at least one noise measurement taken at Villa Balboa or Sunset View Park? 22-31 —Why do you feel confident that a reading taken on the opposite side of the street and near the street (based on the mislabeled photos in Appendix H) is appropriate to the places where Comment people either live or sit (when visiting the park)? 22-32 —Why was one twenty four hour period in summer used for measurement in a highly Comment seasonal community? 22-33 —Why was the approach that uses summary data and averages deemed appropriate? Are Comment there other methods that use more detailed data? 22-34 —Did the study consider impact on sound that the change in shape, slope, and surface of the area where the dog park will be, even absent the noise generated by the dog park? Comment —The study seems to assume that ambient noise and noise from the new development is 22-35 constant when it compares the each of the new project's noise level to that of the existing Comment ambient noise. Are there other common approaches that would make different assumptions? 22-36 — How is the study for the Beverly Hills Dog Park relevant, given that it is a park that: — is located largely in a commercial area — requires registration of dogs by Beverly Hills residents and is for the use of Beverly Hills residents — requires key fob access — limits the number of dogs that can be at the park at any onetime — is a park 2 to 3 times the size of the proposed Newport Dog Park — is not in proximity to a multi family housing complex that does not allow dogs Comment — potentially has different hours than the proposed Newport Dog Park (6 am to 11 pm in 22-37 Newport Beach (unless some other hours not noted in the study are being used) vs. 6 am to 9 pm in Beverly Hills)? — has different topological considerations — Beverly Hills is flat while the proposed Newport Dog Park is up a hill? — Rincon thought another dog park study was relevant to it, which doesn't seem to be the case here? —Is there any study that shows the noise impact of a given number of barking dogs spread in various area sizes? At .2 - .3 acres, this park is substantially less than the 1 acre minimum recommendation of the National Kennel Association and the Humane Society of the United Comment States since "smaller parks may experience overcrowding problems" (found at 22-38 humanesociety.org). Comment — Does dog barking behavior change depending on the space for a given number of dogs? —According to an August 1, 2019, article in the "Whole Dog Journal: "Parks that are small, 22-39 overcrowded and boring greatly increase the likelihood of inappropriate canine behavior Comment (fights)." How was this considered for this park of this size? 22-40 —What are the range of assumptions reasonable to test for the standard attenuation rate, Comment given the topography and atmospheric conditions at the site? 22-41 —Am I reading the document correctly and we assume that the Superior Avenue measurement (Table 4-21) is a good one for the adjacent areas, at a level of 67, isn't this Comment already in excess of residential noise limits? 22-42 — What is the formula and result for adding the dog park noise to the existing noise at Comment Sunset View Park? 22-43 On page 104, there is reference to a CaIEEMod estimating the trips to the dog park. Comment —On page 51, it states that they used the assumption of trips to parks of similar small size. Why is that a reasonable assumption since a park is not a dog park? 22-44 Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 Comment —What did the City of Newport Beach assume when making the decision to pursue a dog 22-45 park? — Appendix H: Comment Are the photos mislabeled? 22-46 Where is the CaIEEMod work done and referenced on page 104 that indicates nine of Comment fewer new visitors for the dog park? 22-47 — What will be the process to measure the real impact of noise after the park is complete? 22-48 —Will the City replace the dog park or eliminate parking if actual impact (assuming appropriate and consistent measurement) on Sunset View Park or Villa Balboa is worse than Comment assumed in this report? 22-49 4.16. Recreation Comment 22-50 —Why was Sunset View Park not considered in the assessment in this section? —Were local residents in Villa Balboa surveyed regarding the desired use? 22-51 —How will the homeless be patrolled in a dog park that has attributes desirable to the homeless — shaded benches, protected areas? Comment 22-52 Safety — NOT INCLUDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL Comment 22-53 How has traffic safely been considered by the additional visitors to the parking area? Comment t —Could I be provided analysis the City has done on this? If it has not done this work, why 22-54 not? —How are actual traffic incidents on Superior considered when additional trips are considered? Comment —How will the bridge help to mitigate the acceleration and speeding that already occurs on 22-55 Superior as vehicles head away from the beach (driving behaviors that have lead to cars Comment jumping the curb)? 22-56 Oversight and Supervision — NOT INCLUDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL t —What is the the record of the City in providing citations (other than at the high profile area at 22 Comment the end of Newport Beach near Huntington Beach) broadly and specifically at Sunset View -57 Park for violations separately regarding dogs off leash and failure to pick up dog waste? —What is the history and patrol and removals for violations at the existing Newport Beach Comment dog park? 22-58 I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, Deborah A. Gero Page 5 of Response to Comment Letter #22 — Deborah Gero Response to Comment 22-1: Thank you for your comment. The Draft MND analyzed in the context of the nearest sensitive receptors, and provided approximate measurements from the edge of the proposed Project site (and not necessarily from the dog park itself) to the nearest sensitive receptor. The air quality analysis on page 52 found that the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Project site are multi -family homes located as near as 165 feet to the south and 220 feet to the northeast and single-family homes located as near as 300 feet to the southwest of the proposed area to be disturbed as part of the proposed Project. The noise analysis discussion on page 105 noted the nearest sensitive receptors, which would be the multi -family homes to the south of the proposed Project site, which are as near as 165 feet away. Response to Comment 22-2: Thank you for your comment. The noise measurement locations were selected in order to obtain the ambient noise measurements at the locations that would experience the greatest noise increase from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project. No noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the Villa Balboa Condos, since the grade is relatively flat in the Sunset View Park area that covers the nearest 200 feet to the Villa Balboa Condos and then there is a steep slope to the Project site. The southwest edge of Sunset View Park will block the line -of -sight between the proposed Dog Park and the Villa Balboa Condos. In fact the proposed dog park will be located more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at Sunset View Park. Since sound travels in straight lines, the southwest edge of Sunset View Park will effectively act like a 20 foot high sound wall between the proposed dog park and the condos. As such, only nominal construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur from the proposed project at the Villa Balboa Condos and no operational noise impacts from the proposed dog park or any other noise sources are anticipated to occur at the Villa Balboa Condos. As described in Section 4.13.1 of the Draft IS/MND, long-term (24-hour) noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 4- 21 and the noise measurement printouts and photos of the noise measurements sites are provided in Appendix H. Response to Comment 22-3: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-2. The CEQA analysis analyzed impacts of increased noise from the Project in addition to the ambient noise levels. Response to Comment 22-4: There are no traffic trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual for dog parks. To determine the potential trips associated with a dog park, a comparison to a similar dog park in Laguna Beach was reviewed. The dog park in Laguna Beach is 2.5 acres in size and generates 480 trips per day. By comparison, the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park would generate approximately 38 trips per day. Per the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic impact study is required when there are more than 300 trips per day generated by a project. Given the estimated trips, it was determined that there is less than significant impact with the dog park portion of the Project. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.14.1 Impact a) the proposed Project, including the dog park, would not indirectly induce population growth and is intended to serve the existing population in the area. No roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes would be significantly modified as a result of the proposed Project and therefore, would not conflict with applicable circulation plans. As discussed in Section 4.17.1 Impact a) of the MND, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase of users that would generate a significant increase in traffic because no construction of businesses or residences would occur and no expansion of park facilities other than the small dog park are proposed. The cost of a project is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. In addition, the proposed Project is limited to the bridge, parking lot, and dog park, and would not increase any scheduled activities at Sunset Ridge Park. Response to Comment 22-5: The purpose of the proposed Project is a construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4. All traffic trips associated with Sunset Ridge Park (land use) are generated by the park visitors. The proposed parking lot expansion and bridge are not land uses and do not generate new trips. The parking lot and bridge are ancillary to the land use. Because there is no change to the park site with the Project area, there are no additional traffic trips that could be associated with the bridge and parking lot Project. The traffic trips associated with the park visitors, that will use the proposed bridge and expanded parking lot, already exist in the roadway system. Currently, the Sunset Ridge visitors park their vehicles where there are available parking spaces in the area. If the existing parking lot is full, park visitors find alternate parking places in the area, or drop off visitors and users. Response to Comment 22-6: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. The development of the proposed bridge would also result in a beneficial impact related to emergency response because the bridge would provide increased safety and direct access from the parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park. For pedestrians traveling along the eastern sidewalk along Superior Avenue, the access point to the parking lot would remain in the same location, therefore the Project would not result in a change in traffic patterns over what is already expected along the roadway. Response to Comment 22-7: Signage will be included that off -leash dogs must remain within the dog park area. As outlined in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 7.04.020: "No person having the care, charge or control of any dog shall cause or allow, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, such dog to be present upon any beach, street, alley, or public place, or upon any private property or premises other than his or her own without written consent of the owner or lessee of such land unless such dog is securely restrained by a substantial leash or chain not exceeding six feet in length and controlled by a person competent to restrain such dog. This section shall not be construed as allowing dogs on leashes in the areas from which dogs are prohibited as designated by Sections 7.04.025, 7.04.030, and 7.04.050. (Ord. 89-8 § 1, 1989: Ord. 1230 § 1, 1967: Ord. 796 (part), 1956: 1949 Code § 4107)." Park users shall comply with the City's code for use of dog restraints in public places. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, the design of the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park includes the installation of 6 -foot tall fences, separating large and small dogs, thus clearly designating a space, specifically catered towards dogs and the pet owners. The dog park would also have ancillary facilities like a water fountain, benches, shade structure, security lighting, trash cans and waste bag dispensers for the pet owners' convenience and use. Some of these features would be absent in Sunset Ridge Park, namely the ability to allow dogs off -leash, thus acting as an incentive for pet owners to remain within the dog park. Installation of the fences would prevent dogs from exiting the designated park area and prevent dogs from entering any private properties, or public roadways. Response to Comment 22-8: The City has held meetings with surrounding neighborhoods to discuss the proposed Project. This issue is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 22-9: Dog park design and proximity to specific communities is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 22-10: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-7. Response to Comment 22-11: As described in Section 4.1.1 of the Draft IS/MND, photographs are provided from various viewpoints from the proposed Project area. Response to Comment 22-12: This is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 22-13: The City of Newport Beach General Plan designates public viewpoints for coastal views within the city. Areas near the Project site that have such designation include Sunset Ridge Park, Sunset View Park, and along the trail above the current parking lot, including the designated point where a bench was installed. The City's Local Coastal Plan also designates the same public view points in the designated parks and along the paved trail that fronts the Villa Balboa Community. Further, the bridge associated with the Project will provide safer unobstructed views of the coast. Response to Comment 22-14: As described in Section 4.1.1 Impact d), security lighting at the park and parking lot, as well as bridge lighting, would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. The proposed Project would comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 21.30.070 and 20.30.070 Outdoor Lighting standards for parking lots and other manmade objects to reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass, over lighting, sky glow, and poorly shielded or inappropriately direct lighting fixtures. Response to Comment 22-15: Thank you for your comment. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.3.3, hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. The parking lot will be operated in the same manner as the existing parking lot with paid metered parking spaces from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and the parking lot would remain open for 24 hours per day. Low (42" tall) down -shielded safety lights to light up walkways will remain on throughout the night (sundown to sunup), similar to Sunset Ridge Park. Response to Comment 22-16: See Response to Comment 22-4. All traffic trips associated with Sunset Ridge Park (land use) are generated by the park visitors. The proposed parking lot expansion and bridge are not land uses and do not generate new trips. The parking lot and bridge are ancillary to the land use. Because there is no change to the park site with the Project area, there are no additional traffic trips that could be associated with the bridge and parking lot Project. The traffic trips associated with the park visitors, that will use the proposed bridge and expanded parking lot, already exist in the roadway system. Currently, the Sunset Ridge visitors park their vehicles where there are available parking spaces in the area. If the existing parking lot is full, park visitors find alternate parking places in the area, or drop off visitors and users. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.17.1 Impact a), the expanded parking lot associated with the proposed Project would serve existing park users and would not generate a significant increase in traffic because no businesses or residences are being constructed and no additional park facilities besides the dog park will be introduced. In fact, the parking lot would provide a designated parking area to diverge parking -related traffic from surrounding residential and commercial areas. Furthermore, there would be no conflict with applicable circulation plans due to no significant proposed modifications to roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes. These factors would prevent increased traffic generation due to the construction of the large parking lot. Response to Comment 22-17: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-16. Response to Comment 22-18: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-16. Response to Comment 22-19: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-16. Response to Comment 22-20: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4. Hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Response to Comment 22-21: As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Thus, the dog park is not expected to result in any significant impacts in relation to odor from pet waste. The Project site is not anticipated to introduce any other objectionable odors. Response to Comment 22-22: Please refer to response to Comment 22-21. Response to Comment 22-23: Please refer to response to Comment 22-7. Human behavior at dog parks is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 22-24: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4 and Response to Comment 22-16. Response to Comment 22-25: Artificial turf will be used for the dog park, and will be irrigated to break down dog waste, similar to what currently exists at the Civic Center dog park. Response to Comment 22-26: W Please refer to Response to Comment 22-25. Response to Comment 22-27: The proposed Project will include an established cleaning schedule once construction is complete. The current Newport Beach dog park is outside the scope of this Project; however, this comment will be considered by the City Council in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 22-28: The City of Newport Beach General Plan designates public viewpoints for coastal views within the city. Areas near the Project site that have such designation include Sunset Ridge Park, Sunset View Park, and along the trail above the current parking lot, including the designated point where a bench was installed. The City's Local Coastal Plan also designates the same public view points in the designated parks and along the paved trail that fronts the Villa Balboa Community. The proposed Project will not impact views from Sunset View Park. Response to Comment 22-29: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-28. Response to Comment 22-30: As described in the Draft IS/MND Section 4.3.3 Impact a), the proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designations and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. As described in Section 4.11.1 Impact b), the proposed Project will maintain the current land uses. Response to Comment 22-31: The noise measurement locations were selected in order to obtain the ambient noise measurements at the locations that would experience the greatest noise increase from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project. No noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the Villa Balboa Condos, since the grade is relatively flat in the Sunset View Park area that covers the nearest 200 feet to the Villa Balboa Condos and then there is a steep slope to the Project site. The southwest edge of Sunset View Park will block the line -of -sight between the proposed Dog Park and the Villa Balboa Condos. In fact the proposed dog park will be located more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at Sunset View Park. Since sound travels in straight lines, the southwest edge of Sunset View Park will effectively act like a 20 foot high sound wall between the proposed dog park and the condos. As such, only nominal construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur from the proposed project at the Villa Balboa Condos and no operational noise impacts from the proposed dog park or any other noise sources are anticipated to occur at the Villa Balboa Condos. As described in the Draft IS/MND Section 4.13, noise measurement locations are provided in Appendix H. See Response to Comment 22-2. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, according to the CaIEEMod model run, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. Response to Comment 22-32: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-2 and Response to Comment 22-31. Response to Comment 22-33: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-31. Response to Comment 22-34: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-31. Response to Comment 22-35: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-31. Response to Comment 22-36: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-31. Response to Comment 22-37: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-31. It is standard practice for CEQA documents to reference other CEQA documents that analyzed similar projects, such as the proposed dog park. Since the CEQA analysis for the Beverly Hill's Dog Park, utilized scientific methods and accepted noise analysis methodologies, the noise assumptions provided in the Beverly Hills Dog Park analysis provides a reasonable estimate of the noise impacts from the proposed dog park. It should be noted that the dog park noise at the nearest home was calculated based on the distance to the nearest Villa Balboa condo, however as detailed above, the line -of -sight between the Villa Balboa condos and the proposed dog park is blocked by the topography, as such the calculated dog park noise would actually be much lower at the nearest homes than what was presented in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Response to Comment 22-38: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4 and Response to Comment 22-31. Dog park size and design is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 22-39: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4. Dog park size and design is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 22-40: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4. Dog park size and design is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 22-41: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-31. The noise analysis utilized the most conservative attenuation rate assumptions, which are based on flat ground. As detailed above, if topography is taken into account, the dog park noise impacts at the nearest homes would be much lower than the 37 dB reported, since the line -of -sight between the nearest homes at Villa Balboa is blocked by an approximately 20 foot elevation grade difference, which would provide similar noise reduction as if there was a 20 foot high wall located between the nearest homes and the proposed Dog Park. Response to Comment 22-42: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-31. The CEQA analysis analyzed impacts of increased noise from the Project in addition to the ambient noise levels. Response to Comment 22-43: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-31. Response to Comment 22-44: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-5 Response to Comment 22-45: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4. Dog park location selection is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document Response to Comment 22-46: Comment noted. Response to Comment 22-47: The CaIEEMod model results are provided in Appendix A for air quality emissions. In terms of traffic impacts, there are no traffic trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual for dog parks. To determine the potential trips associated with a dog park, a comparison to a similar dog park in Laguna Beach was reviewed. The dog park in Laguna Beach is 2.5 acres in size and generates 480 trips per day. By comparison, the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park would generate approximately 38 trips per day. Per the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic impact study is required when there are more than 300 trips per day generated by a project. Given the estimated trips, it was determined that there is less than significant impact with the dog park portion of the Project. Response to Comment 22-48: The CEQA document addresses potential noise impacts and found that no significant impacts would occur. Therefore, no noise monitoring is required for the proposed Project. Ongoing noise monitoring is outside the scope of CEQA; however, City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 22-49: Thank you for your comment; City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 22-50: As noted in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.16, the analysis does consider construction impacts at the edge of Sunset View Park due to the bridge discussion. After construction of the proposed Project, the expanded parking lot and pedestrian and bike bridge would provide increased connectivity by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. Response to Comment 22-51: The City held community meetings with Villa Balboa and other local community groups to discuss the proposed Project. Response to Comment 22-52: Park hours will be enforced per the Municipal Code. Response to Comment 22-53: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-6. Response to Comment 22-54: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-6. Response to Comment 22-55: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-6. There are no traffic trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual for dog parks. To determine the potential trips associated with a dog park, a comparison to a similar dog park in Laguna Beach was reviewed. The dog park in Laguna Beach is 2.5 acres in size and generates 480 trips per day. By comparison, the proposed 0.2-0.3 acre dog park would generate approximately 38 trips per day. Per the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic impact study is required when there are more than 300 trips per day generated by a project. Given the estimated trips, it was determined that there is less than significant impact with the dog park portion of the Project. Response to Comment 22-56: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4. The Draft IS/MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA to analyze the proposed Project impacts to the environment. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 2.2 Project Purpose and Objectives, the Proposed Project aids in improving safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at - grade crosswalk. This is an improvement from the present conditions where pedestrians and bicyclists typically cross the busy, major arterial roadways, West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, to reach Sunset Ridge Park. Response to Comment 22-57: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-7 and Response to Comment 22-21. This is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 22-58: Please refer to Response to Comment 22-4. The proposed Project is to analyze the environmental impacts within the designated project area as identified in Figure 2-2 of the Draft IS/MND. This is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Comment Letter #23 — California Department of Fish and Wildlife COMMENT LETTER #23 State of California - Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM. Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH ANDWILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858)467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov October 22, 2019 Mr. Andy Tran City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 atran(d-) newportbeach ca. gov Subject: Comments on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Parking Lot Project, Newport Beach,CA (SCH#2019099074) Dear Mr. Tran: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above referenced Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Parking Lot, dated September 2019. The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines § 15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code§ 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The City of Newport Beach (City) is a participating landowner under the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan. The project will construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue, connecting Sunset Ridge Park to a new asphalt parking lot located at the northeast corner of West Coast Highway, as well as createa new larger parking lot and a fenced dog park on 3.4 acres. Habitats observed on site include Artemisia californica Eriogonum fasciculatum shrubland (0.01 acre), ornamental landscaping (1.19 acres), disturbed/ruderal (1.16 acres), and developed area (1.09 acres). Protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; Endangered Species Act- listed threatened) were conducted. We offer the following comments and recommendations to assist the City in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources. 1. With regard to burrowing owl (Achene cunicularia; California Species of Special Concern):The MND states that, "[djue to the level of disturbance in the area of the Comment 23-1 Conserving Ca[ fornia's PH U[ fe Since 18 70 Mr. Andy Tran City of Newport Beach October 22, 2019 Page 2 of 5 proposed [pjroject and the high level of human activity directly adjacent to the Artemisia califomica-Eriogonum fasciculatum shrubland, the sensitive wildlife species with a potential to occur are not expected on the proposed project footprint; therefore, no project impacts to the species are expected." (page 57) The Comment Department disagrees that proximity to human activity is a valid rationale for not 23-1 conducting burrowing owl surveys. Tolerance to disturbance and/or human activities Contd. is highly variable amongst individual and pairs of burrowing owls. Some individuals and/or pairs are highly adapted to heavily altered habitats such as golf courses, airports, business complexes, and athletic fields (e.g., Sunset Ridge Park), particularly if there is foraging habitat in proximity (Gervais et al 2008). We recommend that the Biological Technical Report be amended to include protocol surveys as described in the Department's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The Biological Technical Report associated with the MND (Chambers Group 2019) describes the disturbed/ruderal habitat within the project area as, "devoid of vegetation due to recent disturbances," (page 15). The description of the native Comment plants that are found within the disturbed/ruderal polygon, in addition to the 23-2 polygon's placement within the project area (Biological Technical Report; Figure 4: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project Vegetation Communities), the Department requests that the MND discuss in greater detail the nature of the "recent disturbance" which occurred in this area; we also request confirmation that the polygon in question was not mitigation for any previous project impacts. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft MND for this project and to assist the City in further minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources. The Department requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of the forthcoming hearing date for the project (CEQA Guidelines; §15073(e)). If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Jennifer Turner at (858-467- 2717), or via email atjennifer.turnerawildlife.c.agov. Sincerely, ;i Gail . Sevrens Environmental Program Manager cc: Christine Medak (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) Mr. Andy Tran City of Newport Beach October 22, 2019 Page 3 of CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California, USA. Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrac.kBurrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA. Response to Comment #23 — California Department of Fish and Wildlife Response to Comment 23-1: Thank you for your comment. The Biological Technical Report provides further information on why burrowing owl are assumed to have a low potential to occur at the site. As noted in Section 4.3.1 of the Biological Technical Report, "This species inhabits dry, open, native or non-native grasslands, deserts, and other arid environments with low -growing and low-density vegetation. It may occupy golf courses, cemeteries, road rights -of way, airstrips, abandoned buildings, irrigation ditches, and vacant lots with holes or cracks suitable for use as burrows. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by mammals such as California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), foxes, or badgers. When burrows are scarce, the burrowing owl may use man-made structures such as openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement, pipes, culverts, and nest boxes. Burrowing owls often are found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures. Prey sources for this species include small rodents; arthropods such as spiders, crickets, centipedes, and grasshoppers; smaller birds; amphibians; reptiles; and carrion. Threats to the burrowing owl include loss of nesting burrows, habitat loss, and mortality from motor vehicles. Low quality habitat occurs within the eastern portion of the proposed Project footprint; however, the proposed Project site lacks connectivity to additional suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, this species has a low potential to occur within the proposed Project footprint. The low -quality habitat located within the proposed Project site is composed primarily of hard and compact soils and lacked the soft soils preferred by burrowing owl. No burrows were observed, which are typically utilized by this species. In addition, focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted within the project footprint and included a 500 -foot buffer and no burrowing owl or signs of burrowing owls were observed throughout the surveys. Response to Comment 23-2: The Biological Technical Report provides a general definition of "disturbed/ruderal" habitat as, "mostly devoid of vegetation due to recent disturbances. The small amount of vegetation that begins to reclaim the soil is dominated by non-native, weedy species that are adapted to frequent disturbances. Soils in Disturbed/Ruderal areas are also typically characterized as heavily compacted." This is a general definition and the "recent disturbances" discussion is not specific to the Project site. While the placement of fill material that comprises the earthen mound and original associated heavy groundwork was performed in 1980's, persistent and ongoing lower levels of disturbance have created compaction and soil conditions mostly suitable for weedy species. The proposed Project site was not previously used as a mitigation site, nor would the proposed activities impact any mitigation lands. As described in Section 4.4.1 (f) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed Project is not located within an environmental study area and there are no potentially significant impacts anticipated to the habitats or species that have the potential to occur. In addition, avoidance and minimization efforts would result in direct and indirect impacts to be less than significant to habitats, natural communities, and wildlife. The location of the bridge abutment on the Sunset Ridge Park side of Superior Avenue is within a 5.15 - acre CSS planting area that was required as a special condition of the Sunset Ridge Park CDP (Special Condition 2.1.a). There may be some temporary construction impacts to this planting area, which will be mitigated onsite (MM BIO -4), with the impacted area replanted equivalent to existing conditions. Permanent impacts due to abutment location and shading from the bridge is calculated to be 0.02 acres (886 square feet). Permanent impacts to the CSS planting area will be mitigated offsite, but within Sunset Ridge Park. This will be at a 1:1 ratio with the intent of continuing to comply with the Special Condition of the Sunset Ridge Park CDP. Comment Letter#24—California Department of Transportation COMMENT LETTER #24 S.IAIE OF CAI IFORNIA ALIFORNIA STAFF TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gayin Newsom Governor DMARTMEMOF TRANSPCRTATIO N DISTRICT 12 1750 EASTFOURTHSTREET,SUffEl00 SANTAANA, CA 92705 PHONE (657) 328-6310 FAX 657) 328-6510 TTI 711 www.dot.ca.gov October 22, 2019 Mr. Andy Tran City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 Dear Mr. Tran, Making Conservation a California Way of Life. File: IGR/CEQA SC H#: 2019099074 IGR# 2019-01233 SRI PM 20.37 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Notice of Completion (NOC) fo r the Initial Study (IS)for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project in Newport Beach. The mission of Caltrans istoprovide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transporta tion system to enhance California's economy and livability. The City of Newport Beach (City) proposes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overc rossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot with a range of 100 to 128 p arking spaces and a fenced dog park on an approximately 3.4 -acre site. The prop osedbridge will connect Sunset Ridge Parktothe newasphalt parking lot located at the northeast corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue . The p rop osedProject is located within the City of Newport Beach and is located approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline. Currently, an existing City -owned parking lot with 64 metered parking stalls is loc ated at the northea stcorner of this intersection. The existin gSuperior Parking Lot isappro xima tely 0.64 acres, with the driveway to the parking lot at approximately 0. 17 acres. Accesstotheexisting parking lot isavailable via an en tra nc a off Superior Avenue for vehicles, and viaaconcrete pathway from the intersect i onof Superior Avenue and Pad fic Coast Highway (SRI)for pedestrians and bicyclists. Directly east of the existing p arking lot isan undeveloped piece of land with steep slopeswith ground elevations ranging from approxima tely 10 feet near SR1,to ap proxi ma tely 75 feet near Sunset View Park. Properties and la nduses adjacent to the Project site include Sunset Ridge Park, Sunset View Park, Villa Balboa and Newport Crest resid enti al corn mn ities, and thelower campus of Hoag Hospital. A shopping c enter and the Lido Sands residential c ommunity are located to the south across SR1from the Project site. SRIsowned and operated by Caltrans. Caltrans isaresponsible agency and has the following comments: "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance Callfornia's economy and livability" City of 1b port Beach October 22, 2019 Page2 Traffic Operations: 1. In the Initial Study, Section 2.3.4 mentions that construction will take 14-18 months Comment forcompletion and it will avoid the fall and spring months. Please note that 24-1 temporary lane closure or sgnificantincrea seinconstruction traffic along Pacific Coa stHighway between Memorial Day and Labor Day is not recommended. Comment 2. In the Initial Study, Section 2.3.4also mentions that construction will occur during Comment the daytime hours of 7am to 4:30pm. Please note that temporary closures on 24-2 Pad ficCoast Highway should only be between the hours of gam to 3pm. PPrr naaeme nt y'ectMa 1. There is a Safety Improvement projec t by Caltrans (OQ830K) that proposes to modify traffic signals and add safety lighting at the intersection of SRI and Supe Comment rior Avenue. Caltrans' project may conflict with the City's future Comment improvement project at this intersection . Please contact Caltrans Project 24-3 Mana ger, Bob Bazargan at b ob.bazarga n(a)dotca.govor (657) 328-6298, in or er to coordinate all project stages and development for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project. TTrlo rtation Planning 1. Consid er including wayfinding sgnagefor pedestrians and bicyclists in the Comment 24-4 projec t vicinity. Thiswill enc ourage the use of Active Transportation and improve safety for Active Transportation users. 2. Consid e r providing secure bicycle storage on the project site, especially near Comment Su ns et Ridge Par k. This will enc ourage visi t ors to utilize Active Transportation to 24-5 acc ess the site, thus improving air qua lity and reducing congestion. 3. Ensure that the project will be accessible to ADA -reliant visitors. In the subsequent phase s, consider discussing how ADA -re Iia nt users will access the proposed parking lot from the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Comment Pro vid ing ADA -compliant accessibi lity will ensure that all visitors, regardless of 24-6 ability, will have access to the site and its services, as well as access to the coastal zone. 4 There are existing pedest rian, bicycle, and transit facilities near or adjacent to the site, including regionally sgnifi cant trails and corridors like the Santa Ana River Trail, Banning Channel Bikeway, and Pacific Coast Highway. During Comment c onstruct ion, Caltrans rec omm ends that appropriate detours and safety 24-7 measure sareinplace that prioritize the mobility, access, and safety of bic yclists, p ed estrians, and transit users. If sidewalks, bike lanes, or transit stops need to be "Provide a safe, sustainabl,eintegrated and efficient transportation system to enhance Catifomia's economy and livability" I City of Newport Beach October 22, 2019 Page3 Comment 24-7 close dduring construction, please ensure that closures and detours are clearly Comd. Sig rred 5. Sh o Lid any existing bike lanes be closed during construction, we recommend th use of "May Use Full Lane" MJ TCD R4-11) signage rather than "Share the Ib rnd Comment " (WI 6-1P) signage to more clearly indicate to both drivers and bicyclists th t 24-8 bicyclists may ride in the center of the travel lane while the bike lane is do Emits: • An project work proposed in the vicinity of the State right of way will require an en roachment permit, and all environmental concerns must be adequately adtlressed. Please coordinate with Caltrans in order to meet the requirements for an work within or near State Right -of -Way. Afee may apply. If the cost of work w in the State right of way is below one Million Dollars, the Encroachment Pe mit process will be handled by our Permits Branch; otherwise the permit Comment shou Id beauthorized through the Caltrans's Project Development Department. W 24-9 en applying for Encroachment Permit, please incorporate all Environmental Doc umentation, SWPPP/WPCP, NPDES, Hydraulic Calculations, R/W certification an all relevant design details including design exception approvals. For specific de ails for Encroachment Permits p roc edure, please refer to the Caltrans's Enroachment Pe rmits Manual. The late stedition of the Manual is available on the web site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developsery/permits/ I Please c onti nue to coordinate with Caltrans for ony future developments that could potential! impact State transp orta tion facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesit I Abcontact Julie Lugaro at 657-328-6368 or Julie. lugaro(c�_dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Scott She ey Branch C ief, Regional-IGR-Transit Plann in g District 12 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and t fficient transportation system to enhance Califomia's economy and livability" Response to Comment #24 — California Department of Transportation Response to Comment 24-1: Thank you for your comment; this comment has been noted. The City will limit lane closures from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Response to Comment 24-2: If a lane needs to be closed on Pacific Coast Highway it will be closed only between gam and 3pm. Response to Comment 24-3: Thank you for this information, the City will coordinate with Bob Bazarga. Response to Comment 24-4: Wayfinding signs will be considered by the City. Response to Comment 24-5: The City currently has bike racks at Sunset Ridge Park; in addition, as part of the project a bike node with fix -it station will be installed. Response to Comment 24-6: All proposed improvements will be ADA compliant. Response to Comment 24-7: Appropriate detours and safety measures will be in place during construction. Response to Comment 24-8: The City concurs and will provide signage as suggested. Response to Comment 24-9 Comment noted; appropriate State permitting will be coordinated prior to Project construction. Comment Letter #25—Michael Call COMMENT LETTER #25 Andy Tran, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-644-3315 October 19, 2019 Michael Call Cell (714) 791-1102 210 Lille Lane 208 Newport Beach, CA 93663 onecall4alll@verivon.net There are 4 total pages. The following questions are unless otherwise indicated in reference to the proposed dog park included in the Lower Sunset View Park Conceptual Design located in Newport Beach California and the word "City" refers to the City of Newport Beach. When there is a reference to "the report" this means any reports or documentation produced by the City including the Mitigation Negative Declaration and any other environmental documentation provided by the City. Your timely response to these questions is requested so as to provide adequate time for follow up questions and/or responses. 1. Very specifically describe the public demand by any individual or group for dog parks? A. In Newport Beach? B. In west Newport Beach? Comment C. At the specific location cited in the Sunset View Park proposal? 25-1 D. How were these specific demands made and recorded? E. Has there been any survey of nearby residents or current visitors to Sunset View Park? 2.Is the proposed do ark in some way to provide an alternative to the illicit do I Comment p p g p y p g park located in and alongside of the Santa Ana river? 25-2 3.Is the proposed dog park being considered an alternative to the enforcement of the present leash Comment laws? 25-3 4. Are there any statistics for? A. The number of persons that reside in Newport Beach that use dog parks? Comment B. The number of injuries to dogs and humans at the existing dog park? 25-4 1 C. The numbers of individual dogs and humans that have contracted a disease or a parasite at the Comment existing dog park? 25-4 Comment 5.Have the contributors to the Environmental Study demonstrated expertise in the size and structure of 25-5 the Dog Park? 25-14 6.Can the contributor's site studies from the scientific literature which discuss the volume of noise from Comment given projected numbers of barking dogs concentration in given spaces? 25-6 7.What expertise do the contributors have as to dog park design in general and specifically to space Comment requirements as it relates to safety of the dogs and human users? 1 25-7 8. What is the minimum safe dog park size? Comment A. What studies did the contributors rely on to make this conclusion? 25-8 B. How does park size effect dog crowd behavior? 9.Why is it the environmental report does not recommend safe guards for overcrowding and proper Comment separation distances for extremely small parks of this size? 25-9 10.What guarantees and enforceable promises are there that the staff, designers and/or engineers will Comment not increase size of the dog park without further review or public comment? 25-10 12.What are the assumptions and/or the methods used for the standard attenuation rate, given theI Comment topography and atmospheric conditions at the site? 25-11 13. Are there any studies of the effect of the removal of the mound of dirt? Comment A. Would the removal of the mound of dirt cause an increase of noise at the park and at in the Villa Balboa Community? 25-12 14.1s the City staff aware, as cited in the environmental study, at the proposed location of the dog park, Comment the sound levels are already in excess to the City's existing permissible levels? 25-13 Commenmen t 15. Will the City proposal for the dog park likely magnify the noise level with its present design? 25-14 16.Will the City be taking this opportunity to mitigate the noise levels that have already been Comment determined to be in excessive by the Cities environmental report? 25-15 17.1s the City aware that almost all other dog parks are on commercial or industrial cites NOT immediate) adjacent and asim importantly accessible to adensel Comment Y 1 ( P Y ) y populated residential community on highly valuable land long treasured for other uses? 25-16 18.Why is there no discussion of the health hazards of a critical care hospital in close proximity to the proposed dog park? A. Why is there no discussion in the report of the constant use of the existing parks walkway by Hoag Hospital doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators often wearing their scrubs and patients as a Comment probable transportation of pest and infectious diseases to this critical care hospital and even directly to 25-17 patients with compromise immune systems? 2 19. Why does the report not address the fact that the proposed dog park will disrupt existing recreational activities? A.Why does the report not discuss the interference of the proposed dog park with the present terrain and continuity of park and recreation from Sunset Ridge Park on the west all the way to Hoag Hospital on the east? Comment B.Many individuals enjoy the view the Huntington Beach Air Show and celebrate Independence Day by 25-18 watching the fireworks all along the coast from Huntington Beach all the way to Laguna Beach from our favorite park. People enjoy the view and serene environment most every evening of the year. Why does the report not discuss the present natural and cultural resources and recreational usage includes all the citizens of Newport Beach and surrounding communities' visiting the park? 20. Is the City aware that the Villa Balboa Community, the predominate nearby community, is now and has always been a no dog development? A. Is the City aware that the original CCRs which are still in effect prohibit dogs in the Villa Balboa development? B.Is the City aware that the Villa Balboa association as obtained an attorney's letter stating the Comment opposition to the proposed dog park? 25-19 C.Has it been considered that the current quite enjoyment by humans (including hopefully compliant dog owners with their dogs) does not diminish the enjoyment of this unique and widely used location by others? 21. Why does the report not discuss the negative impact on property values caused by the loss of the quiet enjoyment of nearby homeowners? A.Why does the report not have any proximity study of the impact of the lack of substantial buffers to Comment significant residential communities? 25-20 B.Why does the report not discuss or study the impact of a dog park being super -imposed on the highly valued ocean view home in direct proximity? 22. Why does the report not compare and contrast other uses to determine the highest and best use? A.Why does the report not analyze the highest and best use for the public good comparing a dog park Comment to alternative recreational activities at the property like workout trails and courses? 25-21 B.Why does the report no explore completing the View Park to enhance the viewing experience for visitors? 23.Why does the report not explore or discuss the overburden and abusive allocation of services in Comment west Newport Beach as exampled by the: 1. New Homeless Shelter and SOS Kitchen, 2. PCH Noise, 3. 25-22 Illegal Dog Beach, 4. Nightly Police helicopter flyovers? 24.Why does the report not explore or discuss the overburden and abusive allocation of services on the Villa Balboa Community as exampled by the: 1. Cogent Plant presently out of compliance noise, plums of gases and negative effect on homeowner views and the continuing cost of damages to the exterior of the Comment 25-23 Villa Balboa Structures, 2. Hoag future campus expansion, 3. Ambulance noise, 4. Night time 3 required helicopter flights over head to meet the contractual fly over time, 5. Superior Bridge Comment (Prospective) and 6. Expanded Adjacent Parking (Prospective)? 25-23 Contd. 4 Response To Comment Letter #25 — Michael Call Response to Comment 25-1: Thank you for your comment. The City held community meetings with Villa Balboa and other local neighborhood groups to discuss the proposed Project. The purpose of the proposed Project is a construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. The objectives of the project are: • To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. • To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. Response to Comment 25-2: Please refer to response to Comment 25-1. This is outside the scope of CEQA analysis, however your comment is included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 25-3: Please refer to response to Comment 25-2. Signage will be included that off -leash dogs must remain within the dog park area. As outlined in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 7.04.020: "No person having the care, charge or control of any dog shall cause or allow, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control, such dog to be present upon any beach, street, alley, or public place, or upon any private property or premises other than his or her own without written consent of the owner or lessee of such land unless such dog is securely restrained by a substantial leash or chain not exceeding six feet in length and controlled by a person competent to restrain such dog. This section shall not be construed as allowing dogs on leashes in the areas from which dogs are prohibited as designated by Sections 7.04.025, 7.04.030, and 7.04.050. (Ord. 89-8 § 1, 1989: Ord. 1230 § 1, 1967: Ord. 796 (part), 1956: 1949 Code § 4107)." Park users shall comply with the City's code for use of dog restraints in public places. Response to Comment 25-4: Please refer to Response to Comment 25-1. Design of the size and structure of the dog park is outside the scope of CEQA analysis, however this comment is included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 25-5: Please refer to response to Comment 25-1; this is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 25-6: The noise analysis of the proposed Dog Park utilized published data of the noise level measured at an existing dog park. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, according to the CaIEEMod model run, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. Response to Comment 25-7: Dog park design is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 25-8: Please refer to Response to Comment 25-1; dog park design and crowd behavior are outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 25-9: Thank you for your comment; dog park design is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 25-10: According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and 15162, if there are substantial changes to an approved Project that could result in significant impacts, additional CEQA documentation would be required. Response to Comment 25-11: Thank you for your comment. The noise measurement locations were selected in order to obtain the ambient noise measurements at the locations that would experience the greatest noise increase from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project. No noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the Villa Balboa Condos, since the grade is relatively flat in the Sunset View Park area that covers the nearest 200 feet to the Villa Balboa Condos and then there is a steep slope to the Project site. The southwest edge of Sunset View Park will block the line -of -sight between the proposed Dog Park and the Villa Balboa Condos. In fact the proposed dog park will be located more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at Sunset View Park. Since sound travels in straight lines, the southwest edge of Sunset View Park will effectively act like a 20 foot high sound wall between the proposed dog park and the condos. As such, only nominal construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur from the proposed project at the Villa Balboa Condos and no operational noise impacts from the proposed dog park or any other noise sources are anticipated to occur at the Villa Balboa Condos. The noise analysis utilized the most conservative attenuation rate assumptions, which are based on flat ground. As detailed above, if topography is taken into account, the dog park noise impacts at the nearest homes would be much lower than the 37 dB reported, since the line -of -sight between the nearest homes at Villa Balboa is blocked by an approximately 20 foot elevation grade difference, which would provide similar noise reduction as if there was a 20 foot high wall located between the nearest homes and the proposed dog park. Response to Comment 25-12: See Response to Comment 25-11. Response to Comment 25-13: The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code does not provide any noise standards for public parks. As such, the existing noise level at the proposed Dog Park does not violate the City's noise standards. The CEQA analysis analyzed impacts of increased noise from the Project in addition to the ambient noise levels. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.13.2 Impact a) the noise from the proposed dog park, from both dogs barking and dog -owners talking, would be well below (at least 30 dB below) ambient noise levels. Noise is only additive if the noise source is within 10 dB of ambient noise levels. Since noise from the proposed dog park would be at least 30 dB below ambient noise levels, it would not provide a quantitative contribution to existing ambient noise levels and will not be discernible at the nearby homes. A noise study was conducted for the Proposed Project to compare noise levels for similar activities at other comparable facilities; and these noise measurements are presented in detail in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. Additionally, according to the CaIEEMod model run, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate nine or fewer additional daily trips above current conditions, which would have a negligible impact to the nearby roadway noise levels. Therefore, it has been determined that the noise levels generated at the dog park would be within the City's exterior daytime and nighttime residential noise standards. Response to Comment 25-14: Please refer to response to Comment 25-13. The proposed design of excavating the location for the proposed dog park and lowering the elevation by approximately 20 feet will provide additional sound reduction for the nearest homes located to the northeast of the proposed dog park. Response to Comment 25-15: Please refer to response to Comment 25-13. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the nearest homes in the vicinity of the Project. The residential exterior noise standards provided in the Municipal Code only apply to non -transportation noise sources. As such, there is no evidence provided in the Draft IS/MND that shows that any of the nearby homes currently exceed the City's residential exterior noise standards. The CEQA analysis analyzed impacts of increased noise from the Project in addition to the ambient noise levels. Response to Comment 25-16: Dog park design is outside the scope of CEQA analysis; however, the City Council will consider public review comments in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Response to Comment 25-17: The Draft IS/MND focuses on the impacts of the proposed Project to the existing environment. As described in the Draft IS/MND, Section 4.3.3 Impact d) a regular maintenance schedule, including proper handling and removal of pet waste will be established to prevent accumulation of dog waste at the park thus preventing the generation of odor. Additionally, as part of the design, the dog park would include conveniently -sited waste receptacles away from residences, and provision of waste bags for owners' use. In addition, with the use of synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, the ease of cleaning and maintenance is increased. The appropriate disposal of dog waste onsite would minimize odors perceptible to people. Pursuant to Section 7.20.020 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, it is unlawful for a person in charge of any animal "to permit such animal to defecate and to allow the feces to thereafter remain on any public sidewalk, public beach or park or on any other public property or on any private property other than that of the owner..." The Project's provision and maintenance of bags for the disposal of dog waste and of trash receptacles at the dog park would facilitate compliance with Municipal Code Section 7.20.020. Potential infectious diseases from pests is outside the scope of CEQA analysis for this Project, but your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. Response to Comment 25-18: The purpose of the proposed Project is a construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue that would connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Superior Parking Lot at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. • To improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at -grade crosswalk. • To provide additional parking spaces to better serve both passive uses and organized sporting events (mostly youth) at Sunset Ridge Park in an area where parking is limited. • To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at -grade crosswalk to the bridge. • To expand recreational options in this part of the City by developing a small dog park just below Sunset View Park, adjacent to the expanded parking lot. The proposed Project would not obstruct the views of the coastal area, or views from Sunset View Park. Views of the coastline from Sunset View Park will be unaffected. Response to Comment 25-19: The City held community meetings with Villa Balboa and other local neighborhood groups to discuss the proposed Project. Please refer to Response in Comment 25-7. Response to Comment 25-20: Please refer to Response to Comment 25-7. Property values are outside the scope of CEQA analysis, however your comment will be included for City Council's consideration. The proposed dog park will be approximately 50 feet downslope of Sunset View Park, and approximately 100 feet to the southwest of Sunset View Park. Response to Comment 25-21: Please refer to the Response to Comment 25-2. The purpose of CEQA is to analyze a proposed project's impact on the environment. Response to Comment 25-22: Please refer to Response to Comment 25-11 and Response to Comment 25-13. The Draft IS/MND analyzed the proposed Project's impacts in addition to existing ambient conditions. However, the new homeless shelter, SOS kitchen, and illegal dog beach are outside the scope of the Project; however, this comment will be considered by City Council in their review. Response to Comment 25-23: Please refer to Response to Comment 25-18. In order to determine the existing noise environment, 24- hour noise measurements were taken in the project vicinity. Noise Measurement Site 3 was located as near as 250 feet from the Villa Balboa condos and captured all large scale noise sources and would have captured any noise created from ambulances and helicopters that operated in the Project vicinity. The Hoag Hospital Cogen Plant and future Hoag Hospital campus expansion are outside the scope of this project; however, this comment will be considered by City Council in their review of the Project and CEQA document. Comment Letter #26 — SandV Frizzell COMMENT LETTER #26 October 18, 2019 Newport Beach City Council 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Follow-up Proposed Dog Park at Sunset View Park To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for having the meeting Tuesday, Oct. 15 with those concerned about the proposed Dog Park at Sunset View Park. Many could not attend because of the venue and other issues. We appreciate each of you taking your time, providing valuable information; and listening and responding to our concerns Comment and thoughts. As was abundantly clear, we do not want a dog park in lower Sunset View 26-1 Park or anything else other than additional parking. Parking is very much needed for Sunset Ridge Park and parking in general for beach access. It was brought up at the meeting that the dirt mound is a place where visitors and residents alike go to enjoy the fabulous views. I have dozens of pictures of people enjoying the magnificent views from this dirt mound. We urge you to Comment consider enhancing it with a sturdy grass or ground covering to increase 26-2 enjoyment of this special area. In regard to the bridge, it seems a good idea, rather extravagant but with the added parking helpful to get people safely across the street to Sunset Ridge Park. I think it is important to keep Comment the bridge the lowest profile possible in style and color. I much prefer the Concrete Pedestrian 26-3 Bridge as apposed to the Steel Truss. What is most important is preserving the dirt mound for residents and visitors Comment to continue to enjoy the incredible views. Please do not take this away. 26-4 Sandy Frizzell (Villa Balboa resident) 200 Paris Lane #214 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Response To Comment Letter #26 — Sandy Frizzell Response to Comment 26-1: Thank you for your comment. Comment noted. Response to Comment 26-2: The City of Newport Beach General Plan designates public viewpoints for coastal views within the city. Areas near the Project site that have such designation include Sunset Ridge Park, Sunset View Park, and along the trail above the current parking lot, including the designated point where a bench was installed. The City's Local Coastal Plan also designates the same public view points in the designated parks and along the paved trail that fronts the Villa Balboa Community. Further, the bridge associated with the Project will provide safer unobstructed views of the coast. Response to Comment 26-3: The bridge options associated with the proposed Project were designed specifically to protect view lines and prevent visual obstruction of valuable coastal views. Response to Comment 26-4: Please refer to Response to Comment 26-2. Comment noted. Comment Letter #27 — Doul; Tamkin COMMENT LETTER 427 From: Doug Tamkin <dtamkin@artivation.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 10:07 AM To: Tran, Andy Subject: Dog Park Initial Study Comments Attachments: BH Dog Park.JPG Dear Mr. Tran, The Draft Initial Study for the proposed dog park at lower Sunset View Park admits that it obtained its dog park noise data from the study that Beverly Hills did for their dog park. This "Draft Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Beverly Hills Dog Park Project" reveals that its author, Rincon Consultants, Inc., took its noise measurements at a "comparable off -leash dog park in Santa Barbara, California." So we have Newport Beach borrowing its assumptions from Beverly Hills, which based its assumptions on a dog park (at Tucker's Grove Park) in Santa Barbara. The six nearest residences to that Santa Barbara dog park range in distance from 150 feet to 300 feet, but are single-family homes that are shielded by abundant mature tree growth between them and the park. Of most concern, however, is that Newport Beach's assumptions are in essence only theoretical projections of how the noise from barking dogs is predicted to combine with ambient noise levels. A real-world noise study has yet to be conducted by NB that takes into account the actual perceptual impact the noise from the dog park will have on the residents adjacent to this unique location. Most of the data and conclusions compiled by all of these reports, including that of Newport Beach, appear to focus primarily on the impact of construction -related noise during a project's development, but then become more speculative with respect to the project's actual use. They fail to acknowledge the annoyance of, for example, barking dogs on a Sunday morning. Furthermore, ambient background noise levels are not constant, and frequently diminish enough for transient sounds, i.e. barking, to become prominent. The Beverly Hills dog park is surrounded almost completely by buildings that are commercial in nature, including an auto dealership, a city vehicle and facility maintenance center, an animal shelter/hospital and other businesses. The nearest residences are no closer than 650 feet from the dog park. All of this is on level ground, and the commercial buildings create a sound -blocking shield around the dog park that protects the residences from line -of -sight sound transmission. The only line -of -sight path is northward along Foothill Rd., but the very few homes at the end of that path are in excess of 700 feet away and are across heavily -traveled Santa Monica Blvd. This situation is hardly analogous the proposed location at lower Sunset View Park. The uphill location of the facing residences at Villa Balboa presents numerous unimpeded, line -of -sight opportunities for nuisance noise to be experienced by a large number of people. It will not be fair to these residents if their peace and quiet is ultimately compromised by assumptions drawn from a borrowed report on a very dissimilar set of specifics. At the very least, Newport Beach needs to devise their own testing methodology that attempts to replicate the actual conditions of the proposed site. (Attached is an image from Google Maps depicting the above-described line -of -sight sound path at Beverly Hills Dog Park.) Respectfully, DouglasTamkin Villa Balboa Comment 27-1 Comment 27-2 ` ,� � •�� .�. t(iii - 0A '40 ,. � Mercedes Benz AHills AftGl ��°f of Beverly COMmorcial Cei AN J _ w.lEY T - 1 1 •'Bever "Hll1s Ballroom Youn Israel of ,• `� -�' I , _- Merc d B nz � 'ofsBeverly Millsa 01"' N�orth'Beverl p�Mi s -Apt A. ChOill Gall ry": Beveily'HII1s�Small. llui — Animal Naspital ��— k 7. s:— ��� 9 2 k Fttr�ess<Club� B�I U!uer y Hill"s, .- - ! _ ' '9333 W 3r retI Xi - 3.Measure distance Total d1stance: 755.13 i(23016 m) Response to Comment Letter #27 — Doug Tamkin Response to Comment 27-1: Thank you for your comment. The noise measurement locations were selected in order to obtain the ambient noise measurements at the locations that would experience the greatest noise increase from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project. No noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the Villa Balboa Condos, since the grade is relatively flat in the Sunset View Park area that covers the nearest 200 feet to the Villa Balboa Condos and then there is a steep slope to the Project site. The southwest edge of Sunset View Park will block the line -of -sight between the proposed Dog Park and the Villa Balboa Condos. The proposed dog park will be located more than 20 feet lower than the elevation at Sunset View Park. Since sound travels in straight lines, the southwest edge of Sunset View Park will effectively act like a 20 foot high sound wall between the proposed dog park and the condos. As such, only nominal construction noise impacts are anticipated to occur from the proposed project at the Villa Balboa Condos and no operational noise impacts from the proposed dog park or any other noise sources are anticipated to occur at the Villa Balboa Condos. Response to Comment 27-2: It is standard practice for CEQA documents to reference other CEQA documents that analyzed similar projects, such as the proposed dog park. Since the CEQA analysis for the Beverly Hill's Dog Park, utilized scientific methods and accepted noise analysis methodologies, the noise assumptions provided in the Beverly Hills Dog Park analysis provides a reasonable estimate of the noise impacts from the proposed dog park. It should be noted that the dog park noise at the nearest home was calculated based on the distance to the nearest Villa Balboa condo, however as detailed above, the line -of -sight between the Villa Balboa condos and the proposed dog park is blocked by the topography, as such the calculated dog park noise would actually be much lower at the nearest homes than what was presented in Table 4-24 of the Draft IS/MND. SECTION 6.0 — REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This errata section identifies changes made to the Draft MND to correct or clarify the information contained in the document. Changes made to the Draft MND are identified here in stFi,equt text to indicate deletions and bold italics to signify additions. Section 2.3.3, Dog Park Construction of the proposed Project would also include the installation of a fenced dog park with 6 -foot tall fences, separating large and small dogs, which may include benches and trash cans. The dog park will be 0.2 to 0.3 acres in size. The dog park would require a new water service for the water fountain and for irrigation. Security lighting at the dog park would be down -shielded to prevent light scatter. Hours at the dog park would be consistent with the Municipal Code which restricts park hours to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. In addition, a shade structure may be installed at the dog park, approximately 10 to 15 feet in height. The top of the shade structure would be below the Sunset View Park ground elevation and would be designed to protect public coastal views. Based on comments received during the public review period for the Proposed Project, the City has developed some alternative designs for the dog park including the following: Option 1: Providing a passive recreation area adjacent to the parking lot, with similar earthwork and grading to the proposed Project. This alternative proposes a level area with natural turf adjacent to the parking lot. The 2:1 sloped area between the turf and upper Sunset View Park will be landscaped. The proposed fencing and shade structure and artificial turf included in the Dog Park alternative would also be eliminated with Option 1. Option 2: Providing a passive recreation area adjacent to upper level Sunset View Park that involves constructing terraced walls at the edge of the proposed parking location order to create a level, natural grass area adjacent to Upper Sunset View Park. The terraced areas in front of the walls would be sloped and landscaped. The proposed grass area will be an extension of Upper Sunset View Park and would be accessed from the existing walkway. This alternative requires less grading and earthwork than the proposed Project and Option 1, and reduces the amount of soil export. These alternatives concept designs are only for the recreational area element and will not impact the proposed conceptual design of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge or the parking lot, Section 4.1, Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge, new asphalt parking lot, and fenced dog park. The proposed bridge will span Superior Avenue from east to west by approximately 240 to 280 feet long, and 12 to 16 feet wide. The superstructure will be approximately 8 to 16 feet tall. The bottom of the superstructure will be approximately 17 to 25 feet above the asphalt surface of Superior Avenue. Depending on the structure type selection, the bridge may either be a single -span structure or a 3 -span structure. Two intermediate bridge supports on Superior Avenue will be required if a 3 -span structure is selected. The dog park may include a shade structure 10 to 15 feet in height and would be designed to protect public coastal views. Alternatively, if the City chooses to move forward with an option that keeps the knoll in place, a 20 foot high retaining wall would be required to support the new parking lot and existing knoll. This 20 foot high retaining wall will introduce a taller wall than was planned for the Proposed Project (an 8 -foot tall retaining wall). Although the higher retaining wall would introduce a larger man-made structure to the Project site, the introduction of retaining walls is largely consistent with the viewshed, which already contains views of the build environment. The City of Newport Beach provides a variety of coastal and scenic viewpoints. These views include open waters, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. Because of the grid -like pattern of the streets and highways, coastal views can be seen in these areas, especially for north -south tending streets (City of Newport Beach 2017a). According to the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Local Coastal Program, public viewpoints have been identified on southern end of Sunset Ridge Park along West Coast Highway (also known as State Route 1 or Pacific Coast Highway) and the northern perimeter of the proposed parking lot. Superior Avenue is also identified as a Coastal View Road (City of Newport Beach 2006). Policy 4.4.1-6 from the Local Coastal Program states that public coastal views must be protected from several roadway segments within the City of Newport Beach. This includes the roadway segment of Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway (City of Newport Beach 2017a). Section 4.3, Air Quality d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?) Less than Significant Impact. Any diesel equipment used during construction of the proposed Project would consist of mobile equipment that would be changing locations, allowing the odors to disperse rapidly and not impact any nearby receptors. Should diesel equipment be required during maintenance at the proposed Project site, it would also change locations, allowing the odors to disperse rapidly and not impact any nearby receptors. Construction and operation of the proposed dog park could result in accumulation of pet waste; however, a regular maintenance schedule will ensure proper handling and removal of pet waste such that objectionable odors will not be allowed to accumulate. Similarly, as part of the dog park design, waste receptacles and bags will be provided for owners' use in maintaining the dog park. Use of bags to contain pet waste limit odors from penetrating beyond the boundaries of the dog park. Further, waste receptacles will be sited to avoid locations closest to residences, while maintaining convenient locations for dog park users. In addition, the proposed dog park would include HatUFal synthetic turf specifically designed for dog parks, that would be wateFed dai • irrigated, and the regular watering and the ^ ^f *h^ t., would quickly break down any waste remnants including urine that would limit any remaining odors from penetrating the boundaries of the dog park. The Project site would not introduce any other objectionable odors. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. Section 4.4, Biological Resources The location of the bridge abutment on the Sunset Ridge Park side of Superior Avenue is within a 5.15 -acre CSS planting area that was required as a special condition of the Sunset Ridge Park CDP (Special Condition 2.1. a). There may be some temporary construction impacts to this planting area, which will be mitigated onsite (MM 810-4), with the impacted area replanted equivalent to existing conditions. Permanent impacts due to abutment location and shading from the bridge is calculated to be 0.02 acres (886 square feet). Permanent impacts to the CSS planting area will be mitigated offsite, but within Sunset Ridge Park. This will be at a 1:1 ratio with the intent of continuing to comply with the Special Condition of the Sunset Ridge Park CDP. Mitigation measures for direct impacts that may occur to sensitive plant species that may be present within the proposed Project footprint are listed below. MM 13I0-4: Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland located within the proposed Project footprint should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. o Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland located within the proposed Project footprint, that may be avoided, shall be flagged or construction or silt fencing should be installed along the avoidable vegetation to delineate construction limits and to prevent encroachment into adjacent natural communities. o Any impacts to Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland which cannot be avoided will be mitigated through one of the following, in order of priority: ■ Onsite Mitigation: Any temporary impacts to CSS will be revegetated within the Sunset Ridge planted area, in areas that are not currently vegetated. Specifically, there is an opportunity for revegetation in an area outside of the delineated wetlands that, with approval from the Commission, could provide additive benefits to the Sunset Ridge Park planted area, immediately to the northeast of the Project site. This will provide a continuation of the CSS habitat previously revegetated onsite. The City will replant the area to be equivalent to existing conditions, which consists of superior high quality native vegetation with coverage of primarily CSS. If this area is not approved for revegetation by the Commission, alternative onsite mitigation opportunities will be evaluated. ■ Offsite Mitigation: Additive habitat assessment in the area adjacent to the project site within the replanted CSS would be provided to mitigate impacts from direct disturbance from the bridge structure and potential impacts from shading. The proposed Project will not result in significant impacts to sensitive plant species, as both temporary and permanent impacts will be mitigated as outlined above. Implementation of the listed mitigation measures will result in less than significant impacts to sensitive plant species and habitats within the proposed Project site. Impacts to areas determined by the Coastal Commission to be wetlands are discussed in item (b), below. (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. There are no riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, or waters of the United States or State are present within the proposed Project footprint. Within the survey area H _ conducted for the jurisdictional delineation surveys, wetlands, as defined by the Coastal Act and the City's LCP were identified both on and off the Project site. Superior Avenue Wetlands There is one distinct wetland area located off site within relatively close proximity to the Proposed Project site, along the slope on the north side of Superior Avenue. The Superior Avenue wetland area is approximately 115 feet from its closest point to the permanent structures of the proposed bridge is approximately 0.15 -acre in size. Staging, worker access, and vehicle movement would occur within the 100 foot boundary of the wetland area; however, this activity would be similar to existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the Project area. Per Title 21, Section 21.30B.040.0 of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan: C. Wetland Buffers. A protective open space buffer shall be required to horizontally separate wetlands from development areas. Wetland buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. 1. Exception: Smaller wetland buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that: a. A one hundred (100) foot wide buffer is not possible due to site- specific constraints; and b. The proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance." The Superior Avenue wetlands is outside of the 100 -foot buffer from the bridge's permanent structures. Further, the existing wetlands are already surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, primarily attributed to recreational and maintenance activities associated with the Sunset Ridge Park above and immediately adjacent to the wetlands, as well as the pedestrian and vehicle traffic adjoining the wetlands below. These on-going urban activities are less than 20 feet (and in some cases only a few feet away) from the wetlands. In addition, the wetlands are upslope from the proposed impact area, and moreover, the intensity of the bFi.dge ,.,,.,S+Fuct;,,,, bridge's permanent structures would be strictly confined to the identified impact area, which would be approximately 115 feet from the nearest point to the wetlands. Staging, worker access, and vehicle movement would occur within the 100 foot boundary of the wetland area; however, this activity would be similar to existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the Project area. To further obviate concerns regarding any unforeseen impacts to the wetlands, the limits of the wetlands will be clearly demarcated in the field prior to the commencement of construction activities, and a biologist shall monitor the construction work to ensure that encroachment into the wetlands does not occur. Also, the construction contractor should install a suitable barrier (e.g., snow fencing) that is clearly visible to construction personnel, particularly any construction equipment operators, to prevent any incidental construction impacts to these jurisdictional wetland areas. Therefore, given the information above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed bridge construction activities would not temporarily or permanently impact those wetlands nor jeopardize the biological integrity or preservation of the wetlands. Following its completion, the pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue is not expected to create any adverse shading impacts to the existing wetlands identified upslope along the north side of Superior Avenue because of the distance the bridge will be from the nearest point to the wetlands (i.e., 115+ feet). SECTION 7.0 — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This document, along with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and the Notice of Determination, constitute the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rincon Development Project in the City of Chino Hills. Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. The City of Chino Hills, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the MND and MMRP. Signature Date Printed Name Title SECTION 8.0 — REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors) 2012 The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press. Second Edition. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2018 Height and Low Clearances. Accessed May 2019. http_//www. dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/height. ht I City of Newport Beach 2005 Environmental Study Areas Map. Local Coastal Program; Coastal Land Use Plan. Available online at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/LCP/LCP 2005 CLUP/MAP4- 1LCP05 ESA.pdf 2006 General Plan. Available online at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General Plan/COMPLETE FEB 2019/General P Ian 2006 Complete.pdf 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Ridge Park Project. Banning Ranch Conservancy 2013 Energy Action Plan 2017a Coastal Land Use Plan. Available online at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/LCP/Internet%20PDFs//CLUP Cover%20and%2 OTable%20of%20Contents.pdf 2017b Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. Available online at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/htmI/pdfs/NewportBeach21. pdf 2019a Newport Beach Municipal Code. Accessed May 2019. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/­ 2019b Municipal Operations — Parks and Trees 2019c Water Master Plan 2019d Capital Improvement Program Proposed for Fiscal Year 2019-20 Department of Conservation (DOC) 1981 Generalized Aggregate Resource Classification Map. Orange County — Temescal Valley and Adjacent Production. California Division of Mines and Geology. 2004 Agricultural Preserves. Williamson Act Parcels. 2019 Data Viewer. DOC Maps. Accessed May 2019. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/dataviewer/ Department of Transportation (DOT) 2019b California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available online at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16 livability/scenic highways/ Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Google 2019 EnviroStor. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Accessed May 2019. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov 2019 Google Maps. Accessed May 2019. https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5081521,- 117.3263889,14z Gray, J. and D. Bramlet 1992 Habitat Classification System, Natural Resources, Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, CA. Holland, R.F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) 2005 Watershed G Drainage Map Orange County Water District (OCWD) 2018 Well Locations Map 2015 Groundwater Management Plan Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J.M. Evens 2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, CA. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Appendix IV -B. CARB's Mobile Source Strategy State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2014 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) Permit. Order No. R8-2014- 0002. NPDES Permit No. CAS 618030. Accessed June 2019. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water issues/programs/stormwater/docs/o cpermit/2014/Draft R8-2014-0002.pdf 2019 GeoTracker Database. Accessed May 2019. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2019 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Accessed May 2019. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2019 U.S. Quaternary Faults Map. Accessed May 2019. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/­­webappviewer/index.html ERRATA — Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project The following errata is intended to correct minor errors and respond to additional comments received after the drafting of the Final MND. Revisions are shown in strikeout text and additional are emboldened and underlined. Superior Avenue Pedestrion and Bicycle Bridge tint.( Parking Lot Project Newport Beach, Colifornia Section 4.4 Biological Resources (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. There are no riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, or waters of the United States or State are present within the proposed Project footprint. Within the survey area conducted for the jurisdictional delineation surveys, wetlands, as defined by the Coastal Act and the City's LCP were identified both on and off the Project site. Superior Avenue Wetlands There is one distinct wetland area located off site within relatively close proximity to the Proposed Project site, along the slope on the north side of Superior Avenue. The Superior Avenue wetland area is approximately 115 feet from its closest point to the permanent structures of the proposed bridge; and this wetland area impaet beundafy is approximately 0.15 -acre in size. Staging, worker access, and vehicle movement would occur within the 100 -foot beun 9#ybbuffer of the wetland area; however, this activity would be similar to existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the Project area. Per Title 21, Section 21.30B.040.0 of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan: C. Wetland Buffers. A protective open space buffer shall be required to horizontally separate wetlands from development areas. Wetland buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. 1. Exception: Smaller wetland buffers maybe allowed only where it can be demonstrated that: a. A one hundred (100) foot wide buffer is not possible due to site- specific constraints; and b. The proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance." The proposed bridge's permanent structures are outside of the 100 foot buffer from theThe Superior Avenue wetlands it outside of the 190 feet buffet: s#om th r, •dgef permanent stmrtu � y Further, the existing wetlands are already surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, primarily attributed to recreational and maintenance activities associated with the Sunset Ridge Park above and immediately adjacent to the wetlands, as well as the pedestrian and vehicle traffic adjoining the wetlands below. These on-going urban activities are less than 20 feet (and in some cases only a few feet away) from the wetlands. In addition, the wetlands are upslope from the proposed impact area, and moreover, the intensity of the bFid Genstructionbridge's permanent structures would be strictly confined to the identified impact area, which would be Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Porkirug Lot Project Newport Beach, California approximately 115 feet from the nearest point to the wetlands. Staging, worker access, and vehicle movement would occur within the 100 foot beuwderybu er of the wetland area; however, this activity would be similar to existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the Project area. To further obviate concerns regarding any unforeseen impacts to the wetlands, the limits of the wetlands will be clearly demarcated in the field prior to the commencement of construction activities, and a biologist shall monitor the construction work to ensure that encroachment into the wetlands does not occur. Also, the construction contractor should install a suitable barrier (e.g., snow fencing) that is clearly visible to construction personnel, particularly any construction equipment operators, to prevent any incidental construction impacts to these jurisdictional wetland areas. Therefore, given the information above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed bridge construction activities would not temporarily or permanently impact those wetlands nor jeopardize the biological integrity or preservation of the wetlands. Following its completion, the pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue is not expected to create any adverse shading impacts to the existing wetlands identified upslope along the north side of Superior Avenue because of the distance the bridge will be from the nearest point to the wetlands (i.e., 115+ feet). Superior Aveime Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Porlunq Lot Project Newport Beach, California SECTION 7.0 — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This document, along with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and the Notice of Determination, constitute the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project in the City of Newport Beach. Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. The City of Newport Beach, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the MND and MMRP. Signature Printed Name Date Title 4 SuperivrAvenae Pecleslrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parkinq Lot Prolert Newport Beach, California Additional Response to Comments information In response to comments received after the public comment period closed, we are providing supplemental explanations below. Burrowing Owls For questions regarding the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) comment letter, in our Final MND and Response to Comments, we provided the CDFW with additional information regarding why burrowing owl mitigation was determined to not be required. The CDFW was under the assumption that the City did not include burrowing owl mitigation measures simply due to the fact that there was a high level of disturbance in the area of the proposed Project. However, as noted in Response to Comment 23-1, "The low -quality habitat located within the proposed Project site is composed primarily of hard and compact soils and lacked the soft soils preferred by burrowing owl. No burrows were observed, which are typically utilized by this species." In addition, during a habitat assessment and vegetation mapping, delineation surveys, and focused surveys for California gnatcatcher, when biologists were onsite for over 20 hours in total, no burrowing owl or signs of burrowing owl were observed. It is for these reasons that additional protocol -level surveys for burrowing owl are not required in order to assess site suitability for the species. Coastal Sage Scrub The proposed project will include ground disturbance and indirect impacts within the S.15 -acre CSS planting area within Sunset Ridge Park. The CSS planting was required as a special condition of the Sunset Ridge Park CDP (Special Condition 2.1.a). The special condition included in the CDP is not considered mitigation, nor was this area previously used as a mitigation site. Special conditions associated with the CDP are not equivalent to mitigation lands and requirements associated with mitigation lands do not apply to these areas. California Department of Transportation Conditions The California Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted a comment letter that outlined Caltrans requirements. Since these will be conditions of approval as part of the Caltrans permit approval process, it is not required that these be included as mitigation measures in the Final MND. Additionally, since mitigation measures are only required for significant impacts per CEQA, mitigation is not required for transportation impacts. 61 Exhibit "C" Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 (PA2019-014) State Clearinghouse Number 2019099074 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT PROJECT Newport Beach, CA (Orange County) Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by: <<Mot CHAMBERS GROUP 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, California 92707 November 2019 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 (Assembly Bill 3180) requires that mitigation measures identified in environmental review documents prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are implemented after a project is approved. Therefore, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during the construction phase of Superior Avenue Pedestrian And Bicycle Bridge And Parking Lot Project. The City of Newport Beach (City) is the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND. This MMRP provides the City with a convenient mechanism for quickly reviewing all the mitigation measures including the ability to focus on select information such as timing. The MMRP includes the following information for each mitigation measure: The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be implemented; The phase of the project during which the required mitigation measure must be monitored; and The enforcement agency. The MMRP includes a checklist to be used during the mitigation monitoring period. The checklist will verify the name of the monitor, the date of the monitoring activity, and any related remarks for each mitigation measure. N m N 'E m yL. 4 w m J N N C w m J �A N y m J VI L w m L m L m a w z v z v z 0 �v 0 c 0 0 u o cc o d p U c p « a c 0 a o « c ? c U c ° U V G O J Cc U C p j p O « a a c 0 « c c U 0 ° U U W w L v O m N m O g m> c `�°- ,' a m C W W y p« O Y q �, O C v N . U P+ j V c -0 O w "O .N J« N L N = �+ V=>« N • v 3 3 =p 'Y m o o s ,� > 2 t « o m Y c t E o o N .O C c y$ y ._ L a m m •L'' c a c m °- O w c p` - w v °u w o ri w 3 w w Yin Y c ° w w c c m c o '^ a m c 1.2 �o,[« m w o ami t u M u E m c a > q> 2 p m o -o o 3 aw. u H n«u'c E wE vu cm L, wp ° E o u v cE ? a� wvc wm>ao o ° o E o m a 0.N v > o $°at r° « a9o Y -0mc fn' N C W rn w p w N u m. N C« v LL O m 2 m vmwi c>0 c an c w c °uw° Y oG m —0 E t a Y, c m« ELY " v `? E u Lv, w m m v v« c m m V UO °? m a°+ E> T N Y i0 0 T owNm 0«cNYc �cwaamumcw its«c�m'�°'�'a 0 o E .' E `oa •E u v « v, « T m c— v p_ > ay� > wa w w L y— M c o w m c 3 tm c a a c o m o u w ° w � v v o a O m 'u c a +L+ 'L" w Z w = y « 0 0 a Y c c — c E n m c'R E 'p 0 m o E 'o w �' « o v 'L^ w �'Tw v—v c o m 3m:c c c y—= c' ` o -'y m c ru 'C2. lw L ]LvvE L O? iu L w ' ou C`m pC0 N'o E Ov N c c hO 41 mN p ~mCw 3 ?Np N U w m ww V c m c E a c E E v h y w w m y m 3 o E a u u m E m o .v o` a y `o v a °u o. „ o` E E a °u N a` i s °u ° m 2 of E a v o c L o Tc y, a c m v v c E° ° 2 « 10 3 v «ym c 'c° :° E v° a r m o 'E o $ o p w 2 v v c wo vs °r =a nv y M 3 N= u m e 3 .o v o v o w o w u 0° °-c E o v �• m -«« 3 '9 3o«" v o v .' ° u n«" v 3 « ° E° 3« ° v a o �' m n« «= h FE v c '$ «°« o°a N E H a « �o «v Ev vx wLo v•c '°m > o ° �NmeouyuoEv E m mv c 0 o N ° cauuvm co E v0 m o >• `w E a y a o o m o ',�° 3 mi t>~ 3 u -a u a c v m ° L o '— L = M :E `° E a r Y a w v p >' = c c o m 3 v o o m Y „ 3 o Y N = y c a- v �_ v m v a c- an o o •E O o c E Q a Q« m e o c ai m •Y-" v m w d h a t m v o ° m o w w$ E v w> o `0 4 3= N v a m v c o« O C = m j n o > v a a W a n 0 o v° o o o H $ v'� ,v. o w? a v 3 °° v v v o-° �' a> o > o .m « 0 0 0« c �' E `o « ° V yNv, t'i •'^ C C Q v « v .'O^ a O v C a 0 W �- m O Y O L .N « g c p Y a�o`$:LE,°, '� ;;c«oE,v,' o �•� wo cm�«N ��on d p a« v o EE O 'ac.. E E o •� 'o m .Y v j u v E a«'' E c `T0 O v E Y y r E o« c o o O >, N L I u° >m • • f E r$ 0 3 E m 3 C t C O 'E C C 0 'E C c « U v m d m C d m C y N L m °o. L m °o. L CO p L m o L m 0 L m 0 3 3 3 z 3 z" o Z V 0 41 V 0 11 O V O U O V O O _ j C O > O j O t O t 0U O V CC u p U U CO p C U C O C U 2 C U C Y c U O U « C m 0 OL � O N O. C d « �O t m m c w° m c Z m z t t w m o E E m cc y w v >°- m v Zt „ '9 c -r3N-_hEm u:oc°, `�°`E ¢ 'oo Z oaE c o v E 0 o vE.2 °v' v ' o E E E o3°v° t E > c u 26 E E a ° o a E whhup «''.- «° 0 vv a«Ho o� 0 3nC` om � vE a ° o 0 ` ; R v Nv hE_vw « w mw 0u M 02vcv O o m mvm,m m v u o! pm ' 3 u E= mL4o0 u sc2 3a 6' `«u ° " o° moa y mvd V .2 tv'g m Y0 oh 0, m -« o E � m p -c,Nv° m O >y o >,«0 xdE .h om > ° co 0 o v E0 E sso�W°c c ov o° 9•mE ° >o � vm 75 o u Em E oo E od E= ^? °o_°?o o E ' W d . r W D vNg ¢ c vC 6� p 3 Oo E m�mc- w Nvoawmi•=E «� E E a Z Y Y a m n p N o m m m N O _"w•^cOO-E.ya' o°«om "m vmw + W ° v _ v o v o p zWm m E CW E 0 uEoo�E n 3 Z V WO W 0 . :- 0 > o t x a y 0 °r 0 onE ma° o =„ d y«>_ m > u co>u a o v •� m L v '°" °C,° vc¢s°yv N Em? Y ¢v` 6 m E a ' -' 22 H•w'`" yan+ wT O am+ O V -0 O m U W h 0-0 o v o u m up ° o j o vy 3 Eo oSto - o 1 t t o¢ fo o .00{xmE°p o.N_uEu 2o ou_v0l UvEm mma a ° u ,mmmy "M r2Em EEE STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2019-102, was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 19th day of November, 2019; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Mayor Diane Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill, Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman NAYS: None RECUSED: Council Member Kevin Muldoon IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 20th day of November, 2019. c Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Newport Beach, California