Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project_PA2019-014 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 4, 2021 Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) ▪ Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 ▪ Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum No. ND2019-002 SITE LOCATION: Bridge to span Superior Avenue north of West Coast Highway Intersection – Parking lot and recreation area at northeast corner of intersection of West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Hoag Lower Campus and Sunset View Park APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department OWNER: City of Newport Beach APPELLANT: David Tanner PLANNER: Chelsea Crager, Associate Planner 949-644-3227, ccrager@newportbeachca.gov Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer 949-644-3315, atran@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A request for a coastal development permit (CDP) to allow the removal of the existing surface parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface parking lot, and a pedestrian/bicycle concrete bridge over Superior Avenue. The proposed project includes a staircase from the bridge to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, and open space improvements to upper Sunset View Park. The project would include earthwork, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping improvements. The project includes retaining walls that exceed the 8-foot maximum height permitted by Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). As such, the project includes a request for relief from Title 21 development standard, pursuant to NBMC Section 21.52.090. The project complies with all other applicable development standards. The project site is partially located on Sunset Ridge Park, which is subject to review and approval by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) due to prior permitting of the park. This portion of the project will require CCC review. This CDP is intended to cover portions of the project within the City’s permit authority as designated in the Local Coastal Program (Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and an approval in concept for the portion of the project subject to the CCC review. 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-005 affirming the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum No. ND2019-002 and approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 (Attachment No. PC 1). 3 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 3 VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Parks and Recreation (PR) Parks and Recreation (PR) Public Surface Parking Lot NORTH Multiple Residential (RM) Versailles on the Bluff (PC-10) Multi-Unit Residential SOUTH Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Commercial Center EAST Private Institutions (PI) Hoag Hospital (PC-38) Hoag Hospital WEST PR PR Sunset Ridge Park Sunset View Park 5 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE6 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 4 INTRODUCTION Background In 2010, the City Council reviewed and adopted the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Sunset Ridge Park, a 13.7-acre active public park, including a baseball field and two soccer fields, at the northwest corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. In the EIR project description, the park project included the construction of a new access road from West Coast Highway to the west side of Sunset Ridge Park that would terminate at a planned 97-space parking lot. The proposed access road would be constructed on the adjacent private property, Newport Banning Ranch, which is located immediately west of Sunset Ridge Park. The City boundary line is along the western edge of Sunset Ridge Park. As the City pursued a CDP and coordinated with CCC staff, the City recognized that the CCC would likely not approve the permit with the access road due to potential effects to environmentally sensitive habitat area. In addition, since the access road would need to be constructed on private property, Newport Banning Ranch would be required to be a co-applicant for the Sunset Ridge Park CDP. As a result, the 97-space parking lot originally contemplated for Sunset Ridge Park was not included in the project’s final design. Visitors to Sunset Ridge Park currently utilize the existing 64-space surface parking lot on the east side of Superior Avenue. This parking lot was constructed by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as mitigation for removing on-street parking as a part of the 1988 West Coast Highway widening project. The intent of the 64- space parking lot was to replace the loss of on-street parking for coastal access. Visitors to Sunset Ridge Park currently park in this parking lot and cross Superior Avenue via an at-grade crosswalk on Coast Highway. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the proposed project to enhance access to the Sunset Ridge Park, to support its intended use, and to complete park improvements to the vacant and underutilized portion of the site. The City Council also approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project. The Council’s action included waiving Zoning Code development standards and use permit requirements, and approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Dokken Engineering to prepare the project plans. City Council considered a dog park as a part of the project at the north end of the project site; however, the Council chose to eliminate the dog park option after a public outreach effort. On August 25, 2020, City Council approved a revised single-span concrete bridge conceptual design rather than the original multi-span design. To remain consistent with 7 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 5 CEQA requirements and due to this design change, the City prepared an Addendum to the MND to evaluate potential impacts of the change. Project Setting The project site is located at the northeast corner of the West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue intersection, approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline. The site is currently developed with a 64-space surface parking lot. Due to the proximity to the coast, this area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The existing public parking lot primarily serves visitors to the beach and Sunset Ridge Park. The area between the existing parking lot and Sunset View Park to the north above the Hoag Cogeneration facility is currently undeveloped and contains a dirt mound/berm, that was created from grading spoils during the 1982 Superior Avenue widening and realignment project. Project Description The project includes a pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Superior Avenue, an expanded parking lot, and open space improvements to Sunset View Park. The primary goals of this project are to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to increase parking availability for visitors. The project site is currently developed with a 64-space flat surface parking lot and passive open space at Sunset View Park. The project does not include changes to the Superior Avenue or West Coast Highway rights-of-way, and does not include the removal of any existing at-grade crosswalks. Figure 1: Photo simulation showing proposed bridge as viewed from West Coast Highway looking northeast (Figure 2- 3 of MND Addendum). 8 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 6 A CDP is required for the development in the coastal zone and for the request to deviate from NBMC Title 21 (Implementation Plan) development standards for the height of retaining walls. Due to the location of the site in proximity to coastal resources, this CDP may be appealed to the City Council by any interested party (or reviewed by the City Council) and it is subject to appeal to the California Coastal Commission by an aggrieved person as that term is defined by the Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Zoning Administrator Decision and Appeal On December 10, 2020, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing and approved the requested application, including adoption of the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The approved minutes from this hearing are attached as Attachment No. PC 4. During the meeting, two members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. David Tanner expressed concern that the incorrect Addendum to the MND had been included in the posted materials for the meeting, the project includes removal of an existing at-grade sidewalk, and he requested staff address comments in a 16-page letter submitted the day before the hearing. The comment letter is attached as Attachment No. PC 8. Mr. Jim Mosher expressed concern about visual impacts of the project, landscaping, and that the California Coastal Commission was already reviewing a portion of the project. Staff and the Zoning Administrator carefully considered the comments prior to the Zoning Administrator’s action to approve the application. On January 4, 2021, Mr. Tanner filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision citing that the project does not conform to the standards of the Local Coastal Program or the public access policies of the Coastal Act, and that the environmental review for the project is inadequate (Attachment No. PC 2). Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.64.030(C)(3) (Conduct of Hearing), a public hearing on a call for review is conducted “de novo,” meaning that it is a new hearing. The prior decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve Coastal Development Permit CD2020-118 has no force or effect. The Planning Commission is not bound by the Zoning Administrator’s prior decision. DISCUSSION Land Use and Development Standards The project site is located at the northeast corner of the West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue intersection. Except where the bridge crosses Superior Avenue, the project is located on properties within the PR (Parks and Recreation) Coastal Zoning District, which is intended to provide for areas appropriate for land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Parking facilities and passive parks are allowed uses in this 9 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 7 coastal zoning district. A CDP is required for development in the coastal zone and for the request to deviate from development standards, as described below. Height The property is located within the Shoreline Height Limit Area, where the base height limit for nonresidential structures with flat roofs is 26 feet and 31 feet for structures with sloped roofs. The height may be increased up to a maximum of 35 feet with a flat roof or 40 feet with a sloped roof with approval of a CDP. In this case, the request is that height be increased to approximately 32 feet for the bridge structure at its tallest point above the street grade below. This height is necessary to provide a walkable bridge with California disabled access-compliant slope from the parking lot to the park and to provide sufficient vertical clearance under the bridge to Superior Avenue and sidewalks below. The residential structures to the north of the project and Sunset Ridge Park to the west of the project are developed at higher elevations than the proposed bridge; therefore, the proposed bridge does not appear out of scale with the surrounding development. Further, in accordance with NBMC 21.30.060.D.16 (Exceptions to Height Limits – Government Facilities), structures owned, operated, or occupied by the City or other governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public may be allowed to exceed the height limit subject to the approval of a CDP in compliance with Chapter 21.52 (Coastal Development Review Procedures) where the increase in height is necessary to accommodate design features required for the facility to function. In this case, the height of the bridge is necessary to provide adequate vertical clearance for vehicular traffic to travel along Superior Avenue and to provide a bridge with compliant slope for the walking surface, and to provide necessary guardrails and projectile barriers. Figure 2: Photo simulation showing proposed bridge as viewed from Sunset Ridge Park looking south (Figure 4-1 of MND Addendum), with height callout. 10 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 8 Retaining Walls The proposed project includes retaining walls up to a height of 25 feet to support the new surface parking lot, which also serves to support the public plaza and viewing benches adjacent to the parking lot, to achieve sufficient vertical clearance under the proposed bridge, and to support the expanded passive open space at Sunset View Park. NBMC Section 21.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls) limits the height of retaining walls to 8 feet measured from finished grade at the base of the wall, not including any required guardrails. NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards) provides standards and approval findings for relief from the development standards of the Implementation Plan when doing so is consistent with the purpose of the certified Local Coastal Program and will not have an adverse effect on coastal resources. Approval findings include a determination that there are practical difficulties and special circumstances associated with the property, and that the approval will not negatively affect environmental or coastal resources. In this case, the project site includes unique topography. The east side of Superior Avenue features an upward sloping grade that follows the incline of Superior Avenue, with a 64- space relatively flat surface parking lot and a dirt mound near the northernmost edge of the project site. Significant earthwork and grading are necessary to create a project site suitable for the larger, 130-space surface parking lot. Further, the grade of the site must be raised to allow the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge between the subject site and the higher grade of Sunset Ridge Park, hence the need to increase the height of the retaining walls. The passive recreation area at Sunset View Park is at a higher elevation than most of the project site, and the extension of this open space area, offering public coastal views, requires retaining walls to support this feature. Retaining walls less than 25 feet would not support the proposed project. Stepping the walls would not eliminate the need to exceed the 8-foot limit and would reduce the area for the proposed parking lot. Staff believes all required findings for approval can be made and is recommending approval with findings detailed in the attached resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). Wetlands The project is located less than 100 feet from a wetland along West Coast Highway. NBMC 21.30B.040.C (Wetlands, Deepwater Areas, and Other Water Areas) allows wetland buffers of less than 100 feet when a 100-foot buffer is not possible due to site-specific constraints; and the proposed buffer would be protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and the type of disturbance. The project area is confined in area and size, and a 100-foot buffer around the wetland could not be accommodated without eliminating essential components of the project. Further, the wetlands are currently surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, including landscape maintenance, pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The wetlands are small in size 11 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 9 (approximately 0.03 acre) and are isolated from any adjacent habitat having substantive ecological value as a resource. An analysis of potential impacts to the wetland is detailed in the MND, including an assessment by a qualified biologist. Specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. The biologist concludes the buffer provided with the mitigation measures is adequate to protect the resource. A portion of the project is within Sunset Ridge Park, which is subject to the review and approval of the California Coastal Commission due to the prior coastal development permit issued for the park. This part of the project includes a bridge abutment that is greater than 100 feet from a wetland along Superior Avenue, consistent with the wetland buffer requirement in NBMC Section 21.30B.040.C. A planting area is proposed adjacent to the bridge abutment, which may encroach into the 100-foot wetland buffer area. A qualified biologist has been consulted to ensure that any planting within the buffer area is appropriate to ensure consistency with the requirements of NBMC Section 21.30B.040.C to avoid any impact to the resource. Hazards The property is in an area known for the potential for seismic activity. All projects are required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) and the Building Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Permit issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design mitigation identified in the investigations. Construction plans are reviewed for compliance with CBC and approved investigations prior to building permit issuance to ensure that seismic hazards are properly mitigated. Public Access The project site is not located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline. The site does not currently provide vertical or lateral access to the waterfront, nor would it provide access under the proposed conditions. Vertical access to the beach is available via street ends throughout the Balboa Peninsula, and the project will not affect the public’s ability to gain access to, use, and/or view the coast. Visitors to Sunset Ridge Park who utilize the new parking lot are likely to cross Superior Avenue via the new pedestrian/bicycle bridge and are not expected to increase the use of the at-grade crosswalk. The development includes the demolition of an existing 64-space flat surface public parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface public parking lot. The result is a net gain of 66 parking spaces, thereby increasing public access to the coast by providing additional parking opportunities in the area. The bridge also serves to visually connect the parking for Sunset Ridge Park, enhancing public access to the park. Further, 12 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 10 the open space area of Sunset View Park will be expanded as a part of the project, providing additional public space to passively recreate. The project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. Superior Avenue is identified as a coastal view road. The bridge is designed to preserve the existing view lines and minimize the potential for visual obstruction. The proposed bridge does not block the public views of the coast from the higher elevations of either park. A visual impact analysis and aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. In addition, the project includes expanded view opportunities from the plaza and benches at the elevated parking lot, from the bridge itself, and from the expanded open space area of Sunset View Park. Appeal As stated above, Mr. David Tanner (“Appellant”) filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision on January 4, 2021, citing that the project does not conform to the standards of the Local Coastal Program or to the public access policies of the Coastal Act, and that the environmental review for the project is inadequate (Attachment No. PC 2). Prior to and since submittal of the appeal, staff has met with Mr. Tanner several times to respond to questions and to encourage him to submit more detailed information in support of his appeal. This appeal was originally scheduled on the February 18, 2021, Planning Commission agenda; however, was continued to March 4, 2021, to allow staff time to prepare responses to a 46-page supplemental letter submitted by the Appellant on February 10, 2021. The Appellant’s supplemental letter is included as Attachment No. PC 6. A total of 247 comments were identified and bracketed by staff to facilitate their review and response. Staff’s written response to each comment identified is provided as Attachment No. PC 7. Staff has summarized some of the key issues raised by Mr. Tanner’s letter and provided responses below. CEQA – Piecemealing The Appellant’s letter states that the Addendum to the MND (“Addendum”) constitutes piecemealing under CEQA, specifically alleging that the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project is linked to the future West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project. These two projects are separate and distinct. The Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project is a stand-alone project that has independent utility and could be constructed to meet the project objectives without any future projects. Additionally, the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project also has its own 13 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 11 independent utility and would not require the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project to be complete in order to be constructed. Further, at the time that the 2019 MND for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project was written and completed, the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project was not a reasonably foreseeable future project, as funding had not been approved. CEQA – Cumulative Projects The Appellant’s letter states that the Addendum does not sufficiently address cumulative impacts of future projects. More specifically, the appellant contends the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project (“West Coast Highway Project”) should be fully analyzed. As previously stated, the West Coast Highway Project is a separate and distinct project. Further, the West Coast Highway Project has only recently been initiated. Many projects details, including its design, remain unknown at this time. The project’s general location, bulk and scale, as understood at this time, were included in the CEQA cumulative aesthetics analysis; however broader CEQA analysis would be speculative at this time as detailed further in the February 24, 2021 memorandum from the Chambers Group (Attachment No. PC 9). Compliance with Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program The Appellant alleges that the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project is not compliant with the Local Coastal Program and requires a variance from the Zoning Code. However, In November 2019, the City Council waived the NBMC Title 20 (Zoning Code) development standards and use permit requirements for the project, consistent with NBMC 20.10.040 (Applicability of Zoning Code), which allows the City Council to exempt specific City-implemented projects from Zoning Code requirements. The project’s location in the Coastal Zone means the project is also subject to the development standards found under NBMC Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). Section NBMC 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards) provides that development standards of the Implementation Plan may be modified or waived through the approval of a CDP. Compliance with all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program including the Implementation Plan’s purposes to “protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources” and “to ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views and access; and ensure that growth, development, and environmental management is conducted a manner consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Land Use Plan” are detailed in the draft resolution, MND, and Addendum. 14 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 12 Permit Jurisdiction The Appellant questions the status of the CDP that has been submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for their review. Consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program certification, the CCC retains permit jurisdiction over existing CDPs. Sunset Ridge Park has an existing CDP issued by the CCC. The bridge abutment within Sunset Ridge Park is therefore subject to review by the CCC. Portions of the project not located in Sunset Ridge Park are within the City’s permit jurisdiction. City staff previously consulted with CCC staff with regard to jurisdiction and CDP authority and received direction and concurrence that two CDPs, one from the City and one from the CCC, are the appropriate entitlement path for the project. A coastal development permit application for the portions of the project that are in CCC’s permit jurisdiction was submitted to the CCC on November 5, 2020. The application was deemed incomplete on December 4, 2020. Based on staff review of the project as well as thoroughly reviewing concerns submitted by the Appellant, staff has not identified any outstanding issues with the project. The project conforms to all applicable sections of the Local Coastal Program. Alternatives If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission may deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in a resolution for denial. Environmental Review On November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-102 certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, approving a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The project reviewed under the MND included a new pedestrian/bicycle steel truss or concrete cast- in-place bridge approximately 260 feet long and 14 feet wide that crosses Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot with approximately 128 parking spaces, a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, extension of upper Sunset View Park (open space, earthwork, grading, and retaining walls, landscape and irrigation improvements, and other amenities including a drop-off area, bicycle fix-it station, and a drinking water fountain. The project also proposed a possible extension of an access road through the parking lot to connect to the Hoag Memorial Hospital property (“Original Project”). The current project proposes minor changes to the 2019 design, including an updated bridge design. The new bridge design is a single span concrete arch bridge that is approximately 200 feet long and 18 feet wide. The bridge will not require any mid-span 15 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 13 piles to support the bridge. Due to the differences between the Original Project and the proposed Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, an addendum to the MND was prepared pursuant to Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City retained Chambers Group to prepare the addendum because they prepared the MND for the Original Project. The MND Addendum does not identify any component of the project that would result in a “potentially significant impact” on the environment per CEQA guidelines. Additionally, there are no new circumstances or new information to warrant the preparation of additional supplemental analysis or EIR. The MND Addendum includes two updated photo simulations showing the new bridge design. A view simulation analyzing the potential cumulative view impacts of a potential future City project to modify West Coast Highway and construct a second pedestrian/bicycle bridge across West Coast Highway is included in the Addendum to the MND. The analysis concludes that the second bridge, based on location, is not anticipated to block any important public views of the ocean individually or cumulatively. Public Notice This item was continued to a date certain from the February 22, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting. Notice of the February 22, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners and residential occupants of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website Prepared by: Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Submitted Appeal Form PC 3 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 PC 4 December 10, 2020, Zoning Administrator Minutes PC 5 December 10, 2020, Zoning Administrator Staff Report without attachments PC 6 February 10, 2021, Appellant Letter 16 Appeal of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Page 14 PC 7 Staff Responses to Appellant Letter PC 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum PC 9 Chambers Group Memorandum PC 10 Public Comments PC 11 Project Plans 01/12/18 17 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE18 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions 19 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE20 RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADOPTING MITITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM NO. ND2019-002 AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2020-143 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE, SURFACE PARKING LOT, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO OPEN SPACE AND GRANTING RELIEF FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AT SUPERIOR AVENUE NORTH OF THE WEST COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION, BOUNDED BY WEST COAST HIGHWAY, SUPERIOR AVENUE, HOAG LOWER CAMPUS AND SUNSET VIEW PARK (PA2019-014) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the City of Newport Beach (“Applicant”) with respect to property located at the northeast corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 424-041-13, 424-041-11, 424-041-12, 424-042-02, 424-042-03, and 424-041-09 (“Property’), requesting approval of a coastal development permit. 2. The Applicant seeks a coastal development permit to allow the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface parking lot, with pedestrian/bicycle concrete bridge over Superior Avenue (“Project”). The proposed bridge includes a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, and open space improvements to upper Sunset View Park. The Project would include earthwork, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping improvements. The Project includes retaining walls that exceed the 8-foot maximum height permitted by Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). As such, the Project includes a request for relief from the Title 21 development standard, pursuant to Section 21.52.090 (Coastal Development Review Procedures – Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards) of the NBMC. 3. The Project site is partially located on Sunset Ridge Park, which is within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction and will therefore require a separate coastal development permit for the portions of the project site outside the City’s permit authority. This coastal development permit is intended to cover the portions of the project within the City’s permit authority as designated in the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 2 of 14 4. Except where the bridge crosses Superior Avenue, the Property is located within the PR (Parks and Recreation) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is PR (Parks and Recreation). 5. The Property is located within the coastal zone. Except where the bridge crosses Superior Avenue, the Coastal Land Use Plan category is PR (Parks and Recreation) and the Coastal Zoning District is PR (Parks and Recreation). 6. A public hearing was held online on December 10, 2020, observing restrictions due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this hearing. 7. The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2020-082, adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum No. ND2019-002 and approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143. 8. On January 4, 2021, Mr. David Tanner filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision citing that the project does not conform to the standards of the Local Coastal Program, that the project does not conform to the public access policies of the Coastal Act, and that the environmental review for the project is inadequate. 9. A de novo telephonic public hearing was held on February 18, 2021 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapters 20.62 and 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain, March 4, 2021, at the conclusion of the public hearing. 10. A de novo telephonic public hearing was held on March 4, 2021 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapters 20.62 and 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. On November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-102 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) that was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) set forth in the California Public Resources Code 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 3 of 14 Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing State regulations set forth in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) and City Council Policy K-3. The project reviewed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) included a new pedestrian/bicycle steel truss or concrete cast-in-place bridge approximately 260 feet long and 14 feet wide that crosses Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot with approximately 128 parking spaces, a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, extension of upper Sunset View Park (open space, earthwork, grading, and retaining walls, landscape and irrigation improvements), and other amenities including a drop-off area, bicycle fix-it station, and a drinking water fountain. The project also proposed a possible extension of an access road through the parking lot to connect to the Hoag Memorial Hospital property (“Original Project”). 2. The Project proposes minor changes to the 2019 Project, including an updated bridge design. The new bridge design is a single span concrete arch bridge that is approximately 200 feet long and 18 feet wide. The bridge will not require any mid-span piles to support the bridge. Due to the differences between the Original Project and the proposed Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, an addendum to the MND was prepared pursuant to Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City retained Chambers Group to prepare the addendum because they prepared the MND for the Original Project. The MND addendum also considers cumulative projects including the potential future project to widen West Coast Highway and construct a second bridge. The MND addendum does not identify any component of the project that would result in a “potentially significant impact” on the environment per CEQA guidelines. 3. The addendum to the MND, including the MMRP, is hereby recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission. The addendum to the MND and all materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision is based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits – Findings and Decision) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The neighborhood is developed with a variety of uses, including residential uses to the north and southwest, commercial uses to the south, Sunset Ridge Park to the west, and Hoag Hospital to the west. The proposed design, bulk, and scale of the development is 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 4 of 14 consistent with and complementary to the existing, varied neighborhood pattern of development. 2. The Property is in an area known for the potential for seismic activity. All projects are required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) and the Building Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Permit issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design mitigation identified in the investigations. Construction plans are reviewed for compliance with approved investigations and CBC prior to building permit issuance, consistent with the requirements of NBMC Section 21.30.015(E) - (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Property Development Standards – General Site Planning and Development Standards – Development in Shoreline Hazardous Areas). 3. The Project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. The bridge is designed to preserve the view lines and minimize the potential for visual obstruction. The proposed bridge does not block the public views of the coast from the higher elevations of either park. A visual impact analysis and aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. In addition, the Project includes expanded view opportunities from the plaza and benches at the elevated parking lot and from the bridge itself. 4. Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.35.050 (Water Quality Control - Water Quality and Hydrology Plan), because the development contains more than seventy-five (75) percent of impervious surface area, a Water Quality and Hydrology Plan (WQHP/WQMP) was prepared by Dokken Engineering, dated September 2020. The final WQHP/WQMP will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Engineer Geologist prior to building permit issuance. The WQHP/WQMP includes a polluted runoff and hydrologic site characterization, treatment control, best management practices (BMPs), use of a low-impact development approach and bioretention system to retain the design storm runoff volume on-site, and documentation of the expected effectiveness of the proposed BMPs. Construction plans will be required to comply with the approved WQHP/WQMP prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The Project site is located less than 100 feet from a wetland along West Coast Highway. NBMC 21.30B.040.C (Local Coast Program Implementation Plan – Habitat Protection – Wetlands, Deepwater Areas, and Other Water Areas – Wetland Buffers) allows wetland buffers of less than 100 feet when a 100-foot buffer is not possible due to site-specific constraints; and the proposed buffer would be protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and integrity of disturbance. The Project area is confined in area and size, and a 100-foot buffer around the wetland could not be accommodated without eliminating essential components of the Project. Further, the wetlands are currently surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, including landscape maintenance, pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The wetlands are small in size (approximately 0.03 acre) and are isolated from any adjacent habitat having substantive ecological value as a resource. An analysis of potential impacts to the wetland is included in the MND, and specific mitigation measures have been 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 5 of 14 included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project will have no detrimental effect on wetland coastal resources. 6. A portion of the Project is within Sunset Ridge Park which is within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction. This part of the Project includes a bridge abutment that is greater than 100 feet from a wetland along Superior Avenue, consistent with the wetland buffer requirement in NBMC Section 21.30B.040.C (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Habitat Protection – Wetlands, Deepwater Areas, and Other Water Areas – Wetland Buffers). A planting area is proposed adjacent to the bridge abutment, which may encroach into the 100-foot wetland buffer area. A qualified biologist will be consulted prior to any planting within the buffer area to ensure consistency with the requirements of NBMC Section 21.30B.040.C (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan - Habitat Protection – Wetlands, Deepwater Areas, and Other Water Areas – Wetland Buffers). 7. In accordance with NBMC Section 21.30.060.D.16 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Property Development Standards – Height Limits and Exceptions – Exceptions to Height Limits – Government Facilities), structures owned, operated, or occupied by the City or other governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public may be allowed to exceed the height limit subject to the approval of a coastal development permit in compliance with Chapter 21.52 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Coastal Development Review Procedures) where the increase in height is necessary to accommodate design features required for the facility to function. In this case, the height of the bridge is necessary to provide adequate vertical clearance to Superior Avenue and public sidewalks, to provide a bridge with an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant walking surface, and to provide necessary guardrails and projectile barriers. Finding: B. Conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline. The Project site does not currently provide vertical or lateral access to the waterfront, nor would it provide access under the proposed conditions. Vertical access to the beach is available via street ends throughout the Balboa Peninsula, and the Project will not affect the public’s ability to gain access to, use, and/or view the coast. 2. The development includes the demolition of an existing 64-space flat surface public parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface public parking lot. The result is a net gain of 66 parking spaces, thereby increasing public access to the coast by providing additional parking opportunities in the area. Further, the open space area of 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 6 of 14 Sunset View Park will be expanded as a part of the project, providing additional public space to passively recreate and additional coastal view opportunities. 3. The Project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. The bridge is designed to be mindful of view lines and the potential for visual obstruction. Aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. Finding: C. The Planning Commission has considered the following: i. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program to the maximum extent feasible; and ii. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal resources. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. With exception of the variance to the retaining wall height, the proposed development complies with and is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). See Facts in Support of Findings A and B above. 2. The Project includes retaining walls up to 25 feet in height. These retaining walls are necessary to support the new surface parking lot, which also serves to support the public plaza and viewing benches adjacent to the parking lot, to achieve sufficient vertical clearance under the proposed bridge, and to support the expanded passive open space at Sunset View Park. Retaining walls less than 25 feet would not support the proposed Project. 3. The Project is designed to preserve the existing view lines and minimize the potential for visual obstruction. The bridge does not block the public coastal views from either Sunset Ridge Park or Sunset View Park. Aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, the Project will have no detrimental effect on coastal view resources. Finding: D. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district. 26 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 7 of 14 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project site features unique topography. The west side of Superior Avenue features an upward sloping grade that follows the incline of Superior Avenue, with a 64-space flat surface parking lot and a dirt mound near the northernmost edge of the Project site. Significant earthwork and grading are necessary to create a project site suitable for the larger, 130-space surface parking lot. Further, the grade of the site must be raised to allow the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge between the subject site and the higher grade of Sunset Ridge Park. The passive recreation area at Sunset View Park is at a higher elevation than most of the Project site, and the extension of this open space area, offering public coastal views, requires raising the grade around the existing dirt mound, and retaining walls to support this feature. 2. The strict application of the retaining wall height limit results in physical hardships inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the LCP and would restrict the ability to construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Superior Avenue, by preventing the bridge to be built with an appropriate slope for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the bridge. The taller retaining walls have no detrimental effect on environmental or visual resources that the development standards are intended to protect. Section 21.52.090(B)(1) (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Coastal Development Review Procedures – Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards – Applicability – Modifications) of the NBMC specifically allows modification or waiver of development standards through approval of a coastal development for projects that will not have an adverse effect on coastal resources. 3. The PR Coastal Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Allowed uses include both active and passive parks. Both Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park are consistent with this designation and providing safe parking and access to both parks is an essential park amenity that this project helps to achieve. Finding: E. The variance complies with the findings required to approve a coastal development permit in Section 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits – Findings and Decisions). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project conforms to applicable sections of the LCP in that public coastal views and public access will not be negatively affected. The Project includes the adopting of an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, and specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project will have no detrimental effect on coastal resources. 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 8 of 14 2. The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline. The Project site is located north of West Coast Highway, approximately 1,000 feet from the coast. 3. All Facts in Support of Findings A and B above are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: F. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Property is located north of West Coast Highway, approximately 1,000 feet from the coast. Direct coastal access is currently provided and will continue to be provided by street ends throughout the Balboa Peninsula. The Project includes the demolition of an existing 64-space flat surface parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface parking lot. This larger public parking area will provide increased public access to the nearby coast as well as to both Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park. There are no public trails or coastal bluffs located on the Project site. The purpose of this Project is to enhance public access to Sunset Ridge Park, provide additional public view opportunities, and increase public parking and access to parks and beaches. 2. Facts in Support of Finding B.1 and B.2 are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: G. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Findings A.3 and B.3 are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: H. The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation, or wildlife species. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project site currently contains a surface parking lot, developed landscaping, a dirt mound, and some undeveloped open space. An analysis of potential impacts to biological resources is included in the MND, and specific mitigation measures have been included to 28 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 9 of 14 reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project will have no detrimental effect on coastal resources. 2. Facts in Support of Finding A.5 and A.6 are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. A view simulation analyzing the potential cumulative view impacts of a potential future City project to widen West Coast Highway and construct a second pedestrian bridge is included in the Addendum to the MND and concludes that the second bridge, based on location, is not anticipated to block views of the ocean individually or cumulatively. Finding: I. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict with, the purpose of this Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Approval of the coastal development permit will not be contrary to the applicable policies of the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan intended to protect coastal resources. Policy 4.4.1-6 of the Local Coastal Program states that public coastal views must be protected from several roadway segments in the City, including the segment of Superior Avenue abutting the project, which is designated as a Coastal View Road. The increased height of the retaining walls supporting the project does not impede views of the coast from Superior Avenue. 2. Approval of the coastal development permit will not be contrary to Policies 4.4.1-2 and 4.4.1-7 of the Local Coastal Program, which state that new development, including landscaping, should be designed and sited so as to minimize visual impacts to public coastal views, and to frame and accent public coastal views. The retaining walls and the development they support will include drought-tolerant landscaping which will maintain the aesthetic character of the area. 3. The granting of the coastal development permit to allow the increased retaining wall height is consistent with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Coastal Development Review Procedures – Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards), which provides for relief from development standards for projects that will have no detrimental effect on environmental or visual coastal resources. In accordance with Section 21.30.060(C)(3) (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Property Development Standards – Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limits – Required Findings) of the NBMC for increased height limits, the base height limit for nonresidential and mixed-use structures with flat roofs is twenty-six (26) feet and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is thirty-one (31) feet. The height of a nonresidential structure within the Shoreline Height Limit Area may be increased up to a maximum of thirty- five (35) feet with a flat roof or forty (40) feet with the approval of a Coastal Development Permit. In this case, the Applicant requests that height be increased to a maximum of 32 feet for the bridge, which is regulated as a flat structure. In accordance with Section 21.30.060(C)(3) (Local 29 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 10 of 14 Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Property Development Standards - Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limits – Required Findings) of the NBMC for increased height limits, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: J. The project is sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas; and Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Findings A.3 and B.3 are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: K. The project is sited and designed to minimize visual impacts and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Findings A.3 and B.3 are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The bridge design is a single span concrete arch, which is specifically designed to complement and be compatible with the surrounding development. The single span eliminates the need for a mid-span support, which otherwise would have required a support in a median of Superior Avenue. The bridge is further designed without any roof or shade cover, which keeps the profile of the structure low in this scenic area. 3. The Project does not affect existing public views and does not detract from the character of the area. The overall Project height is below the maximum permitted with approval of a coastal development permit. The proposed bridge spans across Superior Avenue, which slopes steeply up to the north. Properties to the north of the Project site are developed with finished grades higher than the top of the proposed bridge, and the bridge will not appear out of scale or character with surrounding development. The bridge also serves to visually connect the parking for Sunset Ridge Park, enhancing public access to the park. 4. The retaining walls facing West Coast Highway will be visually softened with vines and trees to vertically break up the massing of the walls. Finding: L. Where feasible, the project will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. 30 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 11 of 14 Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The Property is currently developed as a surface parking lot with developed landscaping, a dirt mound, and some undeveloped open space. The Project has been designed to harmonize with and enhance the surrounding development by maintaining a low profile, avoiding a mid-span support for the bridge, and including drought-tolerant landscaping throughout the project. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum No. ND2019-002 (SCH No. 2019099074), as depicted in Exhibit “A,” which consists of the MND Addendum, Appendices, and Adopted MND. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan), of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 of the City’s certified LCP and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF MARCH 2021. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY:_________________________ Eric Weigand, Chairman BY:_________________________ Lauren Kleiman, Secretary 31 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 12 of 14 32 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 13 of 14 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. Revisions to the approved plans shall require separate review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to this Coastal Development Permit or the processing of a new coastal development permit. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the scenic easement located on Sunset Ridge Park shall be modified or removed. 4. No demolition or construction materials, equipment debris, or waste, shall be placed or stored in a location that would enter sensitive habitat, receiving waters, or a storm drain or result in impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, streams, the beach, wetlands or their buffers. 5. 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 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 MBTA: A. 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. B. It is a violation of state and federal law to kill or harm a native bird. To ensure compliance, consider hiring a biologist to assist with the survey for nesting birds, and to determine when it is safe to commence construction activities. If an active nest is found, one (1) or two (2) short follow-up surveys will be necessary to check on the nest and determine when the nest is no longer active. 6. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GHPs) shall be implemented prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity as designated in the Construction Erosion Control Plan. 7. The discharge of any hazardous materials into storm sewer systems or receiving waters shall be prohibited. Machinery and equipment shall be maintained and washed in confined areas specifically designed to control runoff. A designated fueling and vehicle 33 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-005 Page 14 of 14 maintenance area with appropriate berms and protection to prevent spillage shall be provided as far away from storm drain systems or receiving waters as possible. 8. Debris from demolition shall be removed from work areas each day and removed from the project site within 24 hours of the completion of the project. Stockpiles and construction materials shall be covered, enclosed on all sites, not stored in contact with the soil, and located as far away as possible from drain inlets and any waterway. 9. Trash and debris shall be disposed in proper trash and recycling receptacles at the end of each construction day. Solid waste, including excess concrete, shall be disposed in adequate disposal facilities at a legal disposal site or recycled at a recycling facility. 10. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 11. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Coastal Development Permit. 12. This Coastal Development Permit may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “A” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Coastal Development file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Coastal Development Permit. 15. Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 21.54.060 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan – Permit Implementation, Time Limits, and Extensions - Time Limits and Extensions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 16. The Applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 34 Attachment No. PC 2 Submitted Appeal Form 35 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE36 37 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE38 Attachment No. PC 3 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 39 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE40 RESOLUTION NO. ZA2020-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MITITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM NO. ND2019-002 AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2020-143 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE, SURFACE PARKING LOT, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO OPEN SPACE AND GRANTING RELIEF FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AT SUPERIOR AVENUE NORTH OF THE WEST COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION, BOUNDED BY WEST COAST HIGHWAY, SUPERIOR AVENUE, HOAG LOWER CAMPUS AND SUNSET VIEW PARK (PA2019-014) THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The City of Newport Beach (“Applicant”) with respect to property located at the northeast corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, APN’s 424- 041-13, 424-041-11, 424-041-12, 424-042-02, 424-042-03, and 424-041-09, requesting approval of a coastal development permit. 2. The Applicant proposes a coastal development permit to allow the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface parking lot, with pedestrian/bicycle concrete bridge over Superior Avenue. The proposed bridge includes a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, and open space improvements to upper Sunset View Park. The project would include earthwork, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping improvements. The project includes retaining walls that exceed the 8-foot maximum height permitted by Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). As such, the project includes a request for relief from the Title 21 development standard, pursuant to Section 21.52.090. 3. The project site is partially located on Sunset Ridge Park, which is within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction and will therefore require a separate coastal development permit for the portions of the project site outside the City’s permit authority. This coastal development permit is intended to cover the portions of the project within the City’s permit authority as designated in the Local Coastal Program (Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). 4. Except where the bridge crosses Superior Avenue, the subject property is located within the PR (Parks and Recreation) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is PR (Parks and Recreation). 41 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 2 of 12 5.The subject property is located within the coastal zone. Except where the bridge crosses Superior Avenue, the Coastal Land Use Plan category is PR (Parks and Recreation) and the Coastal Zoning District is PR (Parks and Recreation). 6.A public hearing was held online on December 10, 2020, observing restrictions due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID- 19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1.On November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-102 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) that was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) set forth in the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing State regulations set forth in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) and City Council Policy K-3. The project reviewed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) included a new pedestrian/bicycle steel truss or concrete case-in place bridge approximately 260 feet long and 14 feet wide that crosses Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot with approximately 128 parking spaces, a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, extension of upper Sunset View Park (open space, earthwork, grading, and retaining walls, landscape and irrigation improvements, and other amenities including a drop-off area, bicycle fix-it station, and a drinking water fountain. The project also proposed possible extension of an access road through the parking lot to connect to the Hoag Memorial Hospital property (“Original Project”). 2.The current project proposes minor changes to the 2019 Project, including an updated bridge design. The new bridge design is a single span concrete arch bridge that is approximately 200 feet long and 18 feet wide. The bridge will not require any mid-span piles to support the bridge. Due to the differences between the Original Project and the proposed Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot project, an addendum to the MND was prepared pursuant to Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City retained Chambers Group to prepare the addendum because they prepared the MND for the Original Project. The MND addendum also considers cumulative projects including the potential future project to widen West Coast Highway and construct a second bridge. The MND addendum does not identify any component of the project that would result in a “potentially significant impact” on the environment per CEQA guidelines. 3.The addendum to the MND, including the MMRP, is hereby recommended for adoption by the Zoning Administrator. The addendum to the MND and all materials, which 42 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 3 of 12 constitute the record upon which this decision is based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits – Findings and Decision) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A.Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. Facts in Support of Finding: 1.The neighborhood is developed with a variety of uses, including residential uses to the north and southwest, commercial uses to the south, Sunset Ridge Park to the west, and Hoag Hospital to the west. The proposed design, bulk, and scale of the development is consistent with and complementary to the existing, varied neighborhood pattern of development. 2.The property is in an area known for the potential for seismic activity. All projects are required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) and the Building Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Permit issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design mitigation identified in the investigations. Construction plans are reviewed for compliance with approved investigations and CBC prior to building permit issuance, consistent with the requirements of NBMC 21.30.015(E) - (Development in Shoreline Hazardous Areas). 3.The project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. The bridge is designed to preserve the view lines and minimize the potential for visual obstruction. The proposed bridge does not block the public views of the coast from the higher elevations of either park. A visual impact analysis and aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. In addition, the project includes expanded view opportunities from the plaza and benches at the elevated parking lot and from the bridge itself. 4.Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.35.050 (Water Quality and Hydrology Plan), because the development contains more than seventy-five (75) percent of impervious surface area, a Water Quality and Hydrology Plan (WQHP/WQMP) was prepared by Dokken Engineering, dated September 2020. The final WQHP/WQMP will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Engineer Geologist prior to building permit issuance. The WQHP/WQMP includes a polluted runoff and hydrologic site characterization, treatment control, best management practices (BMPs), use of a low-impact development approach and bioretention system to retain the design storm runoff volume on-site, and 43 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 4 of 12 documentation of the expected effectiveness of the proposed BMPs. Construction plans will be required to comply with the approved WQHP/WQMP prior to the issuance of building permits. 5.The project is located less than 100 feet from a wetland along West Coast Highway. NBMC 21.30B.040.C allows wetland buffers of less than 100 feet when a 100-foot buffer is not possible due to site-specific constraints; and the proposed buffer would be protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and integrity of disturbance. The project area is confined in area and size, and a 100-foot buffer around the wetland could not be accommodated without eliminating essential components of the project. Further, the wetlands are currently surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, including landscape maintenance, pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The wetlands are small in size (approximately 0.03 acre) and are isolated from any adjacent habitat having substantive ecological value as a resource. An analysis of potential impacts to the wetland is included in the MND, and specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will have no detrimental effect on wetland coastal resources. 6.A portion of the project is within Sunset Ridge Park which is within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction. This part of the project includes a bridge abutment that is greater than 100 feet from a wetland along Superior Avenue, consistent with the wetland buffer requirement in NBMC 21.30B.040.C. A planting area is proposed adjacent to the bridge abutment, which may encroach into the 100-foot wetland buffer area. A qualified biologist will be consulted prior to any planting within the buffer area to ensure consistency with the requirements of NBMC 21.30B.040.C. 7.In accordance with NBMC 21.30.060.D.16, structures owned, operated, or occupied by the City or other governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public may be allowed to exceed the height limit subject to the approval of a coastal development permit in compliance with Chapter 21.52 (Coastal Development Review Procedures) where the increase in height is necessary to accommodate design features required for the facility to function. In this case, the height of the bridge is necessary to provide adequate vertical clearance to Superior Avenue and public sidewalks, to provide a bridge with an ADA- compliant walking surface, and to provide necessary guardrails and projectile barriers. Finding: B.Conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone. Facts in Support of Finding: 1.The project site is not located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline. The site does not currently provide vertical or lateral access to the waterfront, nor would it provide access under the proposed conditions. Vertical access to the beach is available 44 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 5 of 12 via street ends throughout the Balboa Peninsula, and the project will not affect the public’s ability to gain access to, use, and/or view the coast. 2.The development includes the demolition of an existing 64-space flat surface public parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface public parking lot. The result is a net gain of 66 parking spaces, thereby increasing public access to the coast by providing additional parking opportunities in the area. Further, the open space area of Sunset View Park will be expanded as a part of the project, providing additional public space to passively recreate and additional coastal view opportunities. 3.The project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. The bridge is designed to be mindful of view lines and the potential for visual obstruction. Aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. Finding: C.The Zoning Administrator has considered the following: i.Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program to the maximum extent feasible; and ii.Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal resources. Facts in Support of Finding: 1.With exception of the variance to the retaining wall height, the proposed development complies with and is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). See Facts in Support of Findings A and B above. 2.The project includes retaining walls up to 25 feet in height. These retaining walls are necessary to support the new surface parking lot, which also serves to support the public plaza and viewing benches adjacent to the parking lot, to achieve sufficient vertical clearance under the proposed bridge, and to support the expanded passive open space at Sunset View Park. Retaining walls less than 25 feet would not support the proposed project. 3.The project is designed to preserve the existing view lines and minimize the potential for visual obstruction. The bridge does not block the public coastal views from either Sunset Ridge Park or Sunset View Park. Aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, the project will have no detrimental effect on coastal view resources. 45 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 6 of 12 Finding: D.The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1.The project site features unique topography. The west side of Superior Avenue features an upward sloping grade that follows the incline of Superior Avenue, with a 64-space flat surface parking lot and a dirt mound near the northernmost edge of the project site. Significant earthwork and grading is necessary to create a project site suitable for the larger, 130-space surface parking lot. Further, the grade of the site must be raised to allow the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge between the subject site and the higher grade of Sunset Ridge Park. The passive recreation area at Sunset View Park is at a higher elevation than most of the project site, and the extension of this open space area, offering public coastal views, requires raising the grade around the existing dirt mound, and retaining walls to support this feature. 2.The strict application of the retaining wall height limit results in physical hardships inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the LCP and would restrict the ability to construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Superior Avenue, by preventing the bridge to be built with appropriate slope for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the bridge. The taller retaining walls have no detrimental effect on environmental or visual resources that the development standards are intended to protect. Section 21.52.090(B)(1) (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards) of the NBMC specifically allows modification or waiver of development standards through approval of a coastal development for projects that will not have an adverse effect on coastal resources. 3.The PR Coastal Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Allowed uses include both active and passive parks. Both Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park are consistent with this designation and providing safe parking and access to both parks is an essential park amenity that this project helps to achieve. Finding: E.The variance complies with the findings required to approve a coastal development permit in Section 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits – Findings and Decisions). Facts in Support of Finding: 1.The project conforms to applicable sections of the LCP in that public coastal views and public access will not be negatively affected. The project includes the adopting of an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, and specific mitigation 46 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 7 of 12 measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will have no detrimental effect on coastal resources. 2.The project site is not located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline. The project site is located north of West Coast Highway, approximately 1,000 feet from the coast. 3.All Facts in Support of Findings A and B above are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: F.The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. Facts in Support of Finding: 1.The property is located north of West Coast Highway, approximately 1,000 feet from the coast. Direct coastal access is currently provided and will continue to be provided by street ends throughout the Balboa Peninsula. The project includes the demolition of an existing 64-space flat surface parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface parking lot. This larger public parking area will provide increased public access to the nearby coast as well as to both Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View. There are no public trails or coastal bluffs located on the project site. The purpose of this project is to enhance public access to Sunset Ridge Park, provide additional public view opportunities, and increase public parking and access to parks and beaches. 2.Facts in Support of Finding B.1 and B.2 are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: G.The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Fact in Support of Finding: 1.Facts in Support of Findings A.3 and B.3 are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: H.The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation, or wildlife species. 47 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 8 of 12 Fact in Support of Finding: 1.The project site currently contains a surface parking lot, developed landscaping, a dirt mound, and some undeveloped open space. An analysis of potential impacts to biological resources is included in the MND, and specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will have no detrimental effect on coastal resources. 2.Facts in Support of Finding A.5 and A.6 are hereby incorporated by reference. 3.A view simulation analyzing the potential cumulative view impacts of a potential future City project to widen West Coast Highway and construct a second pedestrian bridge is included in the Addendum to the MND and concludes that the second bridge, based on location, is not anticipated to block views of the ocean individually or cumulatively. Finding: I.The granting of the variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict with, the purpose of this Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program. Facts in Support of Finding: 1.Approval of the coastal development permit will not be contrary to the applicable policies of the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan intended to protect coastal resources. Policy 4.4.1-6 of the Local Coastal Program states that public coastal views must be protected from several roadway segments in the City, including the segment of Superior Avenue abutting the project, which is designated as a Coastal View Road. The increased height of the retaining walls supporting the project does not impede views of the coast from Superior Avenue. 2.Approval of the coastal development permit will not be contrary to Policies 4.4.1-2 and 4.4.1- 7 of the Local Coastal Program, which state that new development, including landscaping, should be designed and sited so as to minimize visual impacts to public coastal views, and to frame and accent public coastal views. The retaining walls and the development they support will include drought-tolerant landscaping which will maintain the aesthetic character of the area. 3.The granting of the coastal development permit to allow the increased retaining wall height is consistent with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards), which provides for relief from development standards for projects that will have no detrimental effect on environmental or visual coastal resources. In accordance with Section 21.30.060(C)(3) (Required Findings) of the NBMC for increased height limits, the base height limit for nonresidential and mixed-use structures with flat roofs is twenty-six (26) feet and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is thirty-one (31) feet. The height of a nonresidential structure within the Shoreline Height Limit Area may be increased up to a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet with a flat roof or forty (40) feet with approval 48 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 9 of 12 of a Coastal Development Permit. In this case, the Applicant requests that height be increased to a maximum of 32 feet for the bridge, which is regulated as a flat structure. In accordance with Section 21.30.060(C)(3) (Height Limits and Exceptions - Required Findings) of the NBMC for increased height limits, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: J.The project is sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas; and Fact in Support of Finding: 1.Facts in Support of Findings A.3 and B.3 are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: K.The project is sited and designed to minimize visual impacts and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1.Facts in Support of Findings A.3 and B.3 are hereby incorporated by reference. 2.The bridge design is a single span concrete arch, which is specifically designed to complement and be compatible with the surrounding development. The single span eliminates the need for a mid-span support, which otherwise would have required a support in a median of Superior Avenue. The bridge is further designed without any roof or shade cover, which keeps the profile of the structure low in this scenic area. 3.The Project does not affect existing public views and does not detract from the character of the area. The overall project height is below the maximum permitted with approval of a coastal development permit. The proposed bridge spans across Superior Avenue, which slopes steeply up to the north. Properties to the north of the project site are developed with finished grades higher than the top of the proposed bridge, and the bridge will not appear out of scale or character with surrounding development. The bridge also serves to visually connect the parking for Sunset Ridge Park, enhancing the public access to the park. 4.The retaining walls facing West Coast Highway will be visually softened with vines and trees to vertically break up the massing of the walls. Finding: L.Where feasible, the project will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. 49 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 10 of 12 Fact in Support of Finding: The property is currently developed as a surface parking lot with developed landscaping, a dirt mound, and some undeveloped open space. The proposed project has been designed to harmonize with and enhance the surrounding development by maintaining a low profile, avoiding a midspan support for the bridge, and including drought tolerant landscaping throughout the project. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1.The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum No. ND2019-002 (SCH No. 2019099074), as depicted in Exhibit “A,” which consists of the MND Addendum, Appendices, and Adopted MND. 2.The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3.This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 Local Coastal Implementation Plan, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 of the City’s certified LCP and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020. 50 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 11 of 12 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2.Revisions to the approved plans shall require separate review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to this Coastal Development Permit or the processing of a new coastal development permit. 3.No demolition or construction materials, equipment debris, or waste, shall be placed or stored in a location that would enter sensitive habitat, receiving waters, or a storm drain or result in impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, streams, the beach, wetlands or their buffers. 4.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 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 MBTA: A.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. B.It is a violation of state and federal law to kill or harm a native bird. To ensure compliance, consider hiring a biologist to assist with the survey for nesting birds, and to determine when it is safe to commence construction activities. If an active nest is found, one (1) or two (2) short follow-up surveys will be necessary to check on the nest and determine when the nest is no longer active. 5.Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GHPs) shall be implemented prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity as designated in the Construction Erosion Control Plan. 6.The discharge of any hazardous materials into storm sewer systems or receiving waters shall be prohibited. Machinery and equipment shall be maintained and washed in confined areas specifically designed to control runoff. A designated fueling and vehicle maintenance area with appropriate berms and protection to prevent spillage shall be provided as far away from storm drain systems or receiving waters as possible. 51 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-082 Page 12 of 12 7.Debris from demolition shall be removed from work areas each day and removed from the project site within 24 hours of the completion of the project. Stockpiles and construction materials shall be covered, enclosed on all sites, not stored in contact with the soil, and located as far away as possible from drain inlets and any waterway. 8.Trash and debris shall be disposed in proper trash and recycling receptacles at the end of each construction day. Solid waste, including excess concrete, shall be disposed in adequate disposal facilities at a legal disposal site or recycled at a recycling facility. 9.The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 10.The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Coastal Development Permit. 11.This Coastal Development Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning Administrator if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 12.Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “A” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans. 13.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Coastal Development file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Coastal Development Permit. 14.Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 21.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 15.The Applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 52 Attachment No. PC 4 December 10, 2020 Zoning Administrator Minutes 53 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE54 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 12/10/2020 Page 5 of 7 The Zoning Administrator asked staff to revise the resolution to clarify the Coastal Commission memorandum and revise or remove Conditions of Approval No. 2, 3, and 5, which are not applicable to the project. The Zoning Administrator also requested staff to add a condition of approval that provided the City flexibility to add additional pay stations where necessary. Action: Approved as amended ITEM NO. 8 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 (PA2019-014) Site Location: Bridge to span Superior Avenue north of West Coast Highway Intersection – Parking lot and recreation area at northeast corner of intersection and bounded by West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Hoag Lower Campus and Sunset View Park Council District 2 Chelsea Crager, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the project is a coastal development permit and addendum to a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge, parking lot, and recreation area. The project does not include any changes to crosswalks and is a standalone project. A portion of the project is located in Sunset Ridge Park, where the California Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction. In November 2019, the City Council approved the conceptual design for the project and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council also waived application development standards and use permit requirements of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 20. The City Council chose not to pursue a dog park as a part of the application, instead choosing to expand open space of Sunset View Park. In August 2020, the City Council approved a revised conceptual design, including a single-span concrete bridge and the addition of stairs to the public sidewalk. The Applicant requests relief from development standards for height of retaining walls up to 25 feet in height, which are a necessary component of the project. The project is located in the shoreline height limitation area, which allows flat structures up to 35 feet in height with approval of a coastal development permit. The maximum height of the bridge over the street is under 32 feet. The project will improve public access with a net gain of public parking spaces and expanded open space at Coastal View Park. Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park are designated coastal view points and Superior Avenue is a coastal view road. Aesthetics were reviewed with the MND and Addendum, and impacts were found to be less than significant. Staff included a memorandum in the hearing materials which includes an amended draft resolution including two additional facts in support of Finding A. Further, the memorandum includes the correct version of the Addendum to the MND. An outdated version was inadvertently included with the original materials. There were no changes to analysis or conclusions in the Addendum. The draft resolution should be updated to note that the project is consistent with the shoreline height limitation regulations over the right-of-way, and included the correct date of the November 2019, City Council meeting. The Zoning Administrator noted that the plaza with benches proposed in the project serve to provide additional coastal view opportunities. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, David Tanner, spoke and stated that he would like individual responses to his submitted letter with graphics. The incorrect Addendum was provided to the public for review, and the MND was not included in the materials. Mr. Tanner asked if the City had known about the West Coast Highway 55 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 12/10/2020 Page 6 of 7 bridge project when approving the conceptual design for the Superior Avenue bridge, if analysis would have been different. He stated that the project includes removal of the crosswalk pursuant to a CalTrans memorandum on the City website. Another member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that it is awkward that the California Coastal Commission is reviewing a portion of the project. The staff report was not clear about what is being reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. The project has visual impacts from both parks and to motorists on Superior Avenue. The parking lot side of the bridge includes manicured landscaping, while the Sunset Ridge Park side of the bridge includes more natural landscaping. Mr. Mosher stated that if there is a plan to remove a crosswalk as a part of this project, it would be an access issue. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. The Zoning Administrator noted that he reviewed Mr. Tanner’s 16-page comment letter. The Zoning Administrator noted that a primary concern of the letter was that the project is piecemealing and is closely related to the future West Coast Highway Widening project and references a staff report to the City Council from August 2020. The Zoning Administrator reviewed that staff report. Andy Tran, Public Works Senior Civil Engineer, noted that the two projects are separate. When the Superior Avenue Bridge project was conceptually approved in 2019, the West Coast Highway Widening project did not exist. City Council chose to expand passive open space at Sunset View Park in lieu of a dog park. The West Coast Highway Widening project was kicked off in August 2020. If both projects are completed, crosswalks may be removed. Either of the two projects could move forward without the other. The purpose of the West Coast Highway Widening project is to improve the intersection. Mr. Tran noted that 97 parking spaces were originally identified as required for the development of Sunset Ridge Park. Because a road was never developed, onsite parking was not developed for the park. The Zoning Administrator confirmed that the intent of the subject project is to provide parking for, and a safe accessible path to, Sunset Ridge Park. The Zoning Administrator confirmed with Associate Planner Crager that under the City’s Local Coastal Program certification, the California Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction over existing coastal development permits. The Zoning Administrator noted that the staff report and Addendum clearly describe the primary aspects of the park including the bridge, the parking lot, and the expanded open space. The plans clearly show the project and heights, and visual simulations in the MND and Addendum support the findings in the draft resolution. The MND is accessible online, and the location is noted on the public notice, including staff’s contact information for help. Ms. Crager confirmed no questions were received regarding accessing the MND online. The Zoning Administrator confirmed with Mr. Tran that the existing pedestrian bridge located down West Coast Highway is not related to this project. The Zoning Administrator noted that the Implementation Plan includes an exception to height limitations for government projects that are necessary to achieving the project’s purpose. Ms. Crager confirmed this section is applicable to the project. The Zoning Administrator confirmed with Ms. Crager that the Addendum includes a discussion of potential cumulative impacts of the future West Coast Highway Widening project, including a visual simulation. The Zoning Administrator incorporated edits to the resolution, including additional facts in support of Findings A, C, D, F, G, H, J, and K. Edits also included striking out conditions of approval that are not applicable. Action: Approved as amended V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. 56 Attachment No. PC 5 December 10, 2020 Zoning Administrator Staff Report without Attachments 57 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE58 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT December 10, 2020 Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) ▪ Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 ▪ Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 SITE LOCATION: Bridge to span Superior Avenue north of West Coast Highway Intersection – Parking lot and recreation area at northeast corner of intersection and bounded by West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Hoag Lower Campus and Sunset View Park APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach OWNER: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: Chelsea Crager, Associate Planner 949-644-3227, ccrager@newportbeachca.gov LAND USE AND ZONING • General Plan Land Use Plan Category: PR (Parks and Recreation) • Zoning District : PR (Parks and Recreation) • Coastal Land Use Plan Category: PR (Parks and Recreation) • Coastal Zoning District: PR (Parks and Recreation) PROJECT SUMMARY A request for a coastal development permit to allow the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface parking lot, with pedestrian/bicycle concrete bridge over Superior Avenue. The proposed bridge includes a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, and open space improvements to upper Sunset View Park. The project would include earthwork, grading, retaining walls, and landscaping improvements. The project includes retaining walls that exceed the 8-foot maximum height permitted by Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). As such, the project includes a request for relief from Title 21 development standard, pursuant to Section 21.52.030. The project complies with all other applicable development standards. The project site is partially located on Sunset Ridge Park, which is within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction. This part of the project will require their review. This coastal development permit is intended to cover portions of the project within the City’s permit authority as designated in the Local Coastal Program (Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). 59 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Zoning Administrator, December 10, 2020 Page 2 Tmplt: 05/27/20 RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Adopt Draft Zoning Administrator Resolution No. _ adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 and approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 (Attachment No. ZA 1). DISCUSSION Background The Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot project includes a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Superior Avenue, a larger replacement parking lot, and open space improvements to Sunset View Park. The primary goals of this project are to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to increase parking availability. The project site is currently developed with a 64-space flat surface parking lot and passive open space at Sunset View Park. The project site is located at the northeast corner of the West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue intersection, approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline. Due to the proximity to the coast, this area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sunset Ridge Park, which is located across Superior Avenue, was constructed in December 2014 and is a 13.7-acre active park with a baseball field and two soccer fields. Due to coastal permitting constraints, Sunset Ridge Park was constructed without an on-site parking lot. Visitors to Sunset Ridge Park currently use the existing 64-space flat surface parking lot and cross Superior Avenue via an at-grade crosswalk. The existing public parking lot primarily serves visitors to the beach and Sunset Ridge Park. The area between the existing parking lot and Sunset View Park is currently undeveloped. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the project and approved its associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The Council’s action included waiving Zoning Code development standards and use permit requirements, and approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Dokken Engineering to prepare the project plans. 60 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Zoning Administrator, December 10, 2020 Page 3 Tmplt: 05/27/20 Land Use and Development Standards The project site is located at the northeast corner of the West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue intersection. Except where the bridge crosses Superior Avenue, the project is located on properties within the PR (Parks and Recreation) Coastal Zoning District, which is intended to provide for areas appropriate for land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Parking facilities and passive parks are allowed uses in this coastal zoning district. A coastal development permit is required for development in the coastal zone and for the request to deviate from development standards. The property is not eligible for a waiver for de minimis development because the property is in the Coastal Commission Appeal Area. The property is located within the Shoreline Height Limit Area, where the base height limit for nonresidential structures is 26 feet for structures with flat roofs and 31 feet for structures with sloped roofs. The height may be increased up to a maximum of 32 feet with a flat roof or 40 feet with a sloped roof with approval of a coastal development permit. In this case, the request is that height be increased to approximately 29 feet for the bridge structure. This height is necessary to provide a walkable bridge with an America Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant 2.4 percent slope from the parking lot to the park and to provide sufficient vertical clearance under the bridge to Superior Avenue and sidewalks below. The structures to the north of the project are developed at a higher elevation than the proposed bridge; therefore, the proposed bridge does not appear out of scale with the surrounding development. The proposed project includes retaining walls up a height of 25 feet to support the new surface parking lot, to achieve sufficient vertical clearance under the proposed bridge, and to support the expanded passive open space at Sunset View Park. Section 21.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) - (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls) limits the height of retaining walls to eight feet measured from finished grade at the base of the wall, not including any required guardrails. Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards) of the NBMC (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards) provides standards and approval findings for relief from the development standards of the Implementation Plan when doing so is consistent with the purpose of the certified Local Coastal Program and will not have an adverse effect on coastal resources. Approval findings include a determination that there are practical difficulties and special circumstances associated with the property, and that the approval will not negatively affect environmental or coastal resources. Staff believes all required findings for approval can be made and is recommending approval for the reasons detailed in the attached resolution. 61 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Zoning Administrator, December 10, 2020 Page 4 Tmplt: 05/27/20 Hazards The property is in an area known for the potential for seismic activity. All projects are required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) and the Building Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Permit issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design mitigation identified in the investigations. Construction plans are reviewed for compliance with approved investigations and CBC prior to building permit issuance. Public Access The project site is not located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline. The site does not currently provide vertical or lateral access to the waterfront, nor would it provide access under the proposed conditions. Vertical access to the beach is available via street ends throughout the Balboa Peninsula, and the project will not affect the public’s ability to gain access to, use, and/or view the coast. The development includes the demolition of an existing 64-space flat surface public parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface public parking lot. The result is a net gain of 66 parking spaces, thereby increasing public access to the coast by providing additional parking opportunities in the area. Further, the open space area of Sunset View Park will be expanded as a part of the project, providing additional public space to passively recreate and additional coastal view opportunities. The project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. Superior Avenue, is identified as a coastal view road. The bridge is designed to be mindful of view lines and the potential for visual obstruction. Aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-102 certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot project, approving a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The project reviewed under the MND included a new pedestrian/bicycle steel truss or concrete case- in place bridge approximately 260 feet long and 14 feet wide that crosses Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot with approximately 128 parking spaces, a staircase from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, extension of upper Sunset View Park (open space, earthwork, grading, and retaining walls, landscape and irrigation improvements, and other amenities including a drop-off area, bicycle fix-it 62 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Zoning Administrator, December 10, 2020 Page 5 Tmplt: 05/27/20 station, and a drinking water fountain. The project also proposed possible extension of an access road through the parking lot to connect to the Hoag Memorial Hospital property (“Original Project”). The current project proposes minor changes to the 2019 Project, including an updated bridge design. The new bridge design is a single span concrete arch bridge that is approximately 200 feet long and 18 feet wide. The bridge will not require any mid-span piles to support the bridge. Due to the differences between the Original Project and the proposed Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot project, an addendum to the MND was prepared pursuant to Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City retained Chambers Group to prepare the addendum because they prepared the MND for the Original Project. The MND addendum does not identify any component of the project that would result in a “potentially significant impact” on the environment per CEQA guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. APPEAL PERIOD: This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date the Resolution is adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 of the City’s certified LCP and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. For additional information on filing on appeal, contact the Planning Division at 949-644-3200. Prepared by: 63 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Zoning Administrator, December 10, 2020 Page 6 Tmplt: 05/27/20 MS/cc Attachments: ZA 1 Draft Resolution ZA 2 Vicinity Map ZA 3 MND Addendum No. ND2019-002 ZA 4 Project Plans 64 Attachment No. PC 6 February 10, 2021 Appellant Letter 65 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE66 David J. Tanner Page 1 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 February 10, 2021 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission Subject: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 & Variances to exceed the maximum height of the bridge abutments, bridge height and retaining walls Addendum ND2019-002 to Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH 2019099074 APPEAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Mr. Chairman, This project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code and its Local Coastal Program (LCP). These inconsistencies combined with the project’s potential to result in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts disqualify the project from the use of an Addendum to the 2019 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Another form of document to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required for the project. One that addresses Coastal Act/LCP environmental concerns and federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) concerns in addition to CEQA concerns. These inconsistencies and the project’s potential for significant adverse environmental impacts do not support the Findings required for approval of a Coastal Development Permit. All development in areas where the Coastal Commission retains coastal development permit authority shall require conceptual approval from the City prior to application to the Coastal Commission.1 The project site is one such area. An approval in concept by the City indicates that the proposed development conforms in concept to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary actions, and therefore entitles the applicant to apply to the Coastal Commission for a Coastal Development Permit. The precedential value of the City’s decision for future interpretations of its LCP along West Coast highway is extremely high. The extent and scope of the project approved by the City has been deliberately understated. The significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision are clear. The City does not have factual and/or legal support for the City's decision that the project is consistent or inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the certified LCP. By approving the project CEQA Addendum to the MND, Coastal Development Permit and Resolution the City is telling the Coastal Commission: 1) The proposed Project conformed to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary actions; and   1 LCP Section 21.52.015.1 (B) Projects Bisected by City and Coastal Commission Jurisdiction   67 David J. Tanner Page 2 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 2) The proposed Project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and therefore entitles the City to apply to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit. If the Zoning Administrators approval were left unchallenged, this decision will have resulted in yet another black eye for the City of Newport Beach and its citizens in the eyes of the Coastal Commission. The project does not conform to the requirements of CEQA, does not conform to all City land use and development regulations, and does not conform to all applicable sections of the City’s certified LCP. Starting in 2014 (perhaps earlier) the City began discussing traffic improvements to the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. These improvements implement the long-range (2040) California Transportation Plan (CTP) required by federal and State law. The CTP is incorporated in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and incorporated in the City General Plan, Circulation Element. To accommodate the anticipated population growth and associated increase in traffic volume the CTP focus now is on improving the efficiency of California’s arterial roadways. The Caltrans Future Mobility Plan transitions from away from building new roads to reducing total vehicle miles traveled, reducing single occupancy vehicle use, increasing use of mass transit and other forms of transportation. The City Public Works Department is tasked with insuring among other things, the City has an adequate and safe circulation system to meet its needs. Caltrans, OCTA and the City Public Works Department all have a common goal, to ensure an adequate circulation system. They work collectively to achieve this goal. The City divided the project into two phases. The proposed project (Phase 1) and the West Coast Highway Widening and Bridge Project (Phase 2). The City can explain their rational for this decision. On August 25, 2020, the Public Works Department described the intersection improvements as follows: “The Superior Avenue Bridge project involves constructing a new pedestrian bridge across Superior Avenue and a new larger parking lot. The new pedestrian bridge will improve access to Sunset Ridge Park and the new larger parking lot will provide additional parking for visitors to Sunset Ridge Park and the beach. The WCH Bridge project involves widening West Coast Highway to increase vehicular capacity and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway. With the completion of both projects, sidewalks and two crosswalks at this intersection can be eliminated as pedestrians will be able to use the two new bridges and ramps. Eliminating two crosswalks and moving the pedestrians from the street level to the bridges and ramps will significantly improve pedestrian access and safety. This will also greatly improve traffic signal operation and vehicular circulation by allowing more traffic signal green time for vehicles traveling through the intersection.” In order to complete the intersection improvements, the City began applying for grants from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Public records show project information generated by the City was provided to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the (OCTA). Depending on the source of funds applied for the project was described differently. Funding was applied for individual components of the project. For example, in communications with OCTA the project was described as the Newport Beach 68 David J. Tanner Page 3 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Bicycle and Ped Bridge. Other communication with OCTA described OCTA’s priority for Project O funds as: “OCTA is reviewing this element and its benefits toward adding capacity to the MPAH, a core requirement for Project O, but may ultimately be excluded from the overall project consideration.” 2 What is clear from this communication is the intended use of the funds is to increase roadway capacity, not pedestrian and bicycle safety. Going back at least to 2018 and continuing to the present, the City publicly discussed Phase 1 as the active phase of the project. At the present time, the City acknowledges the existence of Phase 2, but denies any linkage to the proposed project, claiming each phase is “independent”, that the second Phase is undefined and may never happen. On October 18, 2018 the City submitted an application for OCTA’s Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Category (Planning Phase). The application was entitled “City of Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2)”. The application justifies the project need in answering a “Reduced Traffic Congestion and Delay” question in part as follows. “Although the intersection LOS calculations only show a slight improvement with the implementation of this project, there is a significant improvement in terms of delay that motorists will experience due to the proposed removal of the crosswalk across West Coast Highway. Given the high ADT on West Coast Highway, this critical east-west vehicular movement is often times delayed by pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the highway. This intersection, especially in the opposing north-south direction experiences a high volume of pedestrians and bicyclist due to the proximity of Balboa Peninsula. The construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge will allow the elimination of the at-grade crosswalk, which will in turn add a significant amount of traffic signal time to the critical east-west vehicular movement, ultimately reducing delay” The City’s explanation, is supported by technical analysis showing the combined effects of Phase 1 and Phase 2 which clearly shows the main benefit of the Project is to WCH, through the removal of the crosswalk and construction of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge. A significant effort and expenditure of funds went into the preparation of the grant application. This 27-page application contains detailed exhibits and specific information describing the planned improvements. The application was accompanied by a draft City Council Resolution. The cover of the City’s application is provided below in Figure 1. This demonstrates the Phase 2 project was ongoing in 2018. On October 23, 2019 the City submitted a second application for OCTA’s Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Category (Planning Phase). The application was again entitled “City of Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2)”. This 27-page application contains detailed exhibits and specific information describing the planned improvements. The application was accompanied by a draft City Council Resolution. The materials submitted with this application appear   2 Source: Email from Joseph Alcock OCTA to Andy Tran 12-11-2018 69 David J. Tanner Page 4 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 identical to the October 18, 2018 application, with a new date. The Phase 2 project is clearly active in 2019. In August 2020 months prior to the Zoning Administrator’s hearing on the project, the City publicly acknowledged Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds (CMAQ) funds and state funding has been secured for construction of Phase 1 and partial funding for Phase 2. Phase 2 is clearly active and on-going at this time. Figure 1 West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2). __________ This background discussion is important to provide and understand of the allegation of piecemealing, one of the core allegations of this appeal. The City states Phase 1 and Phase 2 are “independent projects”, that “Although these two projects are separate, they are immediately adjacent to one another” and “The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed 70 David J. Tanner Page 5 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 improvements of the WCH Bridge project. Because of the proximity of these two projects, they will need to be closely coordinated.” The City has stated continuously in print and in speech since 2018 Phase 2 has not been funded, is undefined and may never be build. This has had a dramatic impact on the definition of the project description scope of analysis. The scope of the project defined in permit applications and environmental analysis has a direct effect on the level and type of analysis, the significance of project impacts, project alternatives, project timing and outcome of the permits. Piecemealing is prohibited by CEQA. The Supreme Court’s test to determine piecemealing and impact of piecemealing to CEQA and LCP compliance is discussed later in these comments. _________ While the City is best suited to explain their plan, from my research, the City’s plan appears to be to get Phase 1 permitted by the City, Caltrans and the Coastal Commission, and once permitted, publicly acknowledge Phase 2 as an independent project. The City is hoping to process an amendment to the existing CDP issued by the Coastal Commission for the Sunset Ridge Park, and limit the scope of the amendment to the grading needed for the bridge abutment and its height variance for Phase 1. Phase 2 will require state and federal funding and approvals from the City, Caltrans and Coastal Commission. The plan may have sounded good, but the regulations based on the facts, don’t allow this to happen. Phase 1 requires compliance with both CEQA and NEPA. NEPA permitting is required because the City received federal funding. Initially, the City’s plan was to prepare a joint CEQA/NEPA environmental document. A consultant (the Chambers Group, Inc.) was retained by the City in June 2019 to provide CEQA/NEPA services. A CEQA consultant is a non-biased independent consultant. In the Professional Services Agreement (PSA), the Chambers Group, Inc. proposed to prepare a joint CEQA/NEPA document. Their PSA’s Scope of Work states:3 A. Work Plan "The Work Plan below therefore includes detailed information on how Chambers Group will prepare an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (EA/IS), the findings of which will inform whether we proceed with a Finding of No Significant Impact/Negative Declaration (FONSI/ND) or FONSI/Mitigated Negative Declaration (FONSI/MND)." It is clear as of the date of their PSA (April 2019), the Chambers Group Inc. had pre-determined the 2019 project was going to qualify for either a FONSI/ND or a FONSI/MND. They did not anticipate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or Environmental Impact Statement. A joint CEQA/NEPA document is the recommended procedure by both CEQA (Guidelines Section: 15222) and Caltrans.4 Introductory meetings were held with the City, the Chambers Group Inc. and   3 Source Professional Services Agreement, The Chambers Group, Inc., April 23, 2019  4 Caltrans/Programs/Environmental Analysis/SER/Vol.1 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/standard-environmental-reference-ser/volume-1-guidance-for- compliance/ch-37-preparing-joint-nepa-ceqa-documentation 71 David J. Tanner Page 6 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Caltrans. The City, Caltrans and OCTA needed to figure out who would take the CEQA/NEPA lead. Caltrans acts as the NEPA lead under a memorandum of understanding between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the state. Based on Caltrans understanding of the project, it was agreed between the parties the City would prepare an independent CEQA document and Caltrans would prepare and independent NEPA document. CEQA and NEPA compliance efforts were closely coordinated by the City. In fact, the City and its consultant the Chambers Group Inc. provided Caltrans all the environmental analysis and forms. The public records show Caltrans provided review and coaching to City Staff and the Chambers Group, Inc. to help focus the NEPA analysis and its outcome. For whatever reason, the public has never been told of the NEPA permitting or any of the federal environmental concerns. It would have been nice to have been told for example, there is a scenic easement in favor of the State existing on approximately 40% of Sunset Ridge Park. That this easement area will be impacted by the bridge and bridge abutment. That this easement does not allow any structures. Let alone, the bridge and its abutment that exceed the maximum permitted height by 6 feet! The Scenic Easement is depicted on Figure 2. Staff can explain why they chose not to tell the public. Figure 2 Sunset Ridge Park Scenic Easement Area (shown in red) In order for Phase 1 to obtain Coastal Development Permit approval, Findings must ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views, or if this is not feasible, the LCP requires the project to justify those impacts. In this case, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Coastal Development Permit were approved for the Phase 1 project in 2019. There were no significant environmental impacts identified and a MND   Chapter 37 - Preparing Joint NEPA/CEQA Documentation  72 David J. Tanner Page 7 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 was certified by the City. Based on modifications to the project an Addendum to the MND was prepared for a refined project design and a new Coastal Development Permit was approved in December 2020 by the City Zoning Administrator (the proposed project being appealed). The 2020 Coastal Development Permit also found the project conformed to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary actions (CEQA); as well as conformed to all applicable sections of the certified LCP. In June 2019, the City acting as the lead agency for implementation of CEQA, defined the Project (Project Description) as Phase 1. Consequently, the CEQA analysis for the 2019 MND and it’s 2020 Addendum failed to address the “whole of the action” (both phases of the project) which is required by CEQA. This practice is referred to as “piecemealing”, a practice prohibited by CEQA. This same project description was used for the Coastal Development Permit and its scope of analysis. This Project Description and analysis was provided to Caltrans for use in the federal NEPA documentation. Similarly, the CEQA Addendum, Staff Report and Findings for the CDP for the Phase I project do not mention the NEPA process. While the failure to disclose the ongoing NEPA process and federal environmental issues in the CEQA document may not be illegal, it certainly does not follow the intent of CEQA which stresses public awareness, government transparency and recommends the Lead Agency error on the side of the environment. Staff and its CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group, Inc. can explain why they chose not to mention the federal environmental process/issues in the CEQA document, Staff Report, CDP Findings, etc. The NEPA process relied upon the City’s Phase 1 Project Description. It appears from the public records the scope of the project analysis was focused to the project described in the federal or OCTA grant application (the bridge). The scope of analysis can best be described by My Charles Baker, Caltrans Senior Environmental Planner or Environmental Branch Chief who seems to have been the Caltrans lead for the project, or one of several OCTA project contacts in the public record. The City and the Chambers Group, Inc. assisted Caltrans in the preparation of the documents required for the NEPA analysis. Caltrans based its decisions in part on the information provided by the City and its consultant the Chambers Group, Inc. Caltrans asked the City numerous questions and commented on the content of materials submitted before making its final decision. The City’s CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group, Inc. prepared a draft a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) 5 and provided it to Caltrans. The PES stated the following: Question No. 1. “The proposed Project would be designed in one phase with no future construction proposed.” 10. “The proposed Project is not located adjacent to water resources such as streams, rivers, bay, inlets, lakes and drainage sloughs.” 17. “The proposed Project is located within an urbanized area with no wetlands adjacent to the proposed Project site.” 22. “The proposed Project is the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge that would span Superior Avenue. The presence of the bridge may result in a visual impact to the area.” 33. “The proposed Project would occur within the City’s right-of-way and would not encroach on federal or state lands.”   5 Caltrans PES Form_06.20.19.pdf 73 David J. Tanner Page 8 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Staff and the City’s CEQA Consultant, the Chambers Group. Inc. are best suited to explain these statements. While the City was preparing the draft MND in 2019, Caltrans was preparing the draft NEPA document for the project. The City, the Chambers Group and Caltrans coordinated to complete the NEPA document. Following review of the certified MND, on January 13, 2020 Caltrans determined the 2019 project qualified for a Categorical Exclusion (CE). A CE is defined as: “A categorical exclusion (CE) is a class of actions that a Federal agency has determined, after review by CEQ, do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is normally required. The use of categorical exclusions can reduce paperwork and save time and resources.”6 (Note: CEQ refers to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)) The analysis required for the Coastal Development Permit looks at the environment from the perspective of the California Coastal Act. Compliance with the act involves an additional set of criteria. In the analysis for the 2019 and 2020 Coastal Development Permit, Staff and the City’s CEQA consultant made a series of errors. Two such errors are: not recognizing the site is a “sensitive coastal resource area” as defined by the LCP/Public Resource Code7 and claiming the site is not located on a coastal bluff. These errors significantly reduce the level of analysis required for CEQA and the CDP. Similar to the 2019 Phase 1 project, the Project Description and project analysis for the 2020 Addendum, Staff Report and Coastal Development permit Findings are riddled with errors, omissions and misrepresentations, in my opinion, to deliberately attempt to define the project in a way to minimize its environmental impacts, to obtain public support (advertising the project to the public as a public safety improvement project) and to piecemeal the project to attempt to hide the project’s primary goal, to satisfy Caltrans, OCTA and the City’s Public Works Department objective to widen and improve the efficiency of the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. A few examples of erroneous claims made in the CEQA Addendum/MND, Coastal Development Permit, Staff Report and Resolution include:  The project is a Government Facility  The project is not located on a coastal bluff  The project is not part of a larger project  The project will not result in significant visual or land use impacts  All trees to be removed are ornamental  The project can be approved without requiring variances to exceed the maximum height allowable for the bridge, bridge abutments and retaining walls.  The protect maintains, enhances and restores the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources”. (Section 21.10.020.B.)   6 Source: NEPA.GOV. Categorical Exclusions. https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa-practice/categorical-exclusions.html   7 Public Resources Code Section 30116  74 David J. Tanner Page 9 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663  The Project ensures that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views.” (Section 21.10.020.G) These claims have a significant effect by enabling the City to make CDP Findings and reducing the scope of analysis for the CEQA document and the CDP. Staff makes another fundamental mistake. Staff failed to recognize the requirements of LCP Section 21.52.015.1 (B) “Projects Bisected by City and Coastal Commission Jurisdiction”. Staff believes the Coastal Commission’s only involvement will be an amendment to an existing Coastal Development Permit (CDP 5-11-302) previously issued for Sunset Ridge Park. The only part of the Phase 1 project Staff believes the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over is the evaluation of the construction of the western bridge abutment within Sunset Ridge Park. Staff made another fundamental mistake by only submitting the City’s 2009 CEQA MND to the Coastal Commission as the environmental analysis for the Coastal Commission’s Coastal Development Permit. The MND even combined with the 2020 Addendum do not address all LCP policies or environmental concerns. This strategy is flawed. The standard of review for development within the coastal zone is the certified LCP. CEQA policies are not the standard of review for LCP compliance. In simple terms, this means when considering the CDP for approval, it is the project’s compliance with the LCP policies that take priority. The environmental analysis must consider the Coastal Act/LCP environmental concerns and not be solely based on CEQA Guideline Checklist questions and CEQA Guideline thresholds of significance. In this case, the City Addendum/MND can help fulfill the analysis required by the LCP, but the MND/Addendum is only a supporting document. The City does not have factual and/or legal support for the City's decision that the project is consistent or inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the certified LCP. The Coastal Commission has told Staff this, yet Staff has failed to take heed. In June 2020 Coastal Development Permit (CDP2019-003) which used a similar Staff analysis was approved by the City for the Garden Office and Parking Structure project, located close by in Newport Beach. The City approval was appealed to the Coastal Commission. In the initial Costal Commission analysis, the Coastal Commission noted: “the standard of review for this appeal is the certified LCP. It should also be noted that CEQA policies are not the standard of review for this appeal.”8 Put in simple terms, the LCP requires that in addition to the City General Plan, Municipal Code and CEQA requirements, the Local Coastal Program land use policies, implementation standards and Coastal Act/LCP environmental concerns be included in the analysis to satisfy the Findings required for a Coastal Development Permit. This has not been done and if this were to be done, it is my opinion, the Coastal Development Permit would be denied. Examples of required LCP analysis not completed include:  Demand for Access and Recreation.9 (justify a shortage of parking exists for Sunset Ridge Park)   8 California Coastal Commission, Staff Report: Appeal - Substantial Issue. Appeal No. A-5-NPB-20-0025, August 23, 2020 9 LCP Section 21.30A.040 (B) (2) 75 David J. Tanner Page 10 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663  An analysis demonstrating there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative (“the primary goals of this project are to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to increase parking availability”)  Relationship and Proportionality.10 (The provision of public access shall bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement and the project’s impact and shall be proportional to the impact.)  Justification for the claims of Special Circumstances (for reduction in the 100’ buffer from wetlands and variances to allow an increase in the maximum allowable height of retaining walls, the bridge and bridge abutments)  The requirement to justify the project will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources (the discussion of the Phase 2 project, as well as any other proposed projects and or approved and not yet built projects in the area) This information must be analyzed in an updated CEQA document prior to approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The Staff Report, CEQA document, Findings in support of the CDP and public comments received as a part of this appeal must be provided to Caltrans for this project. Based on Caltrans comment below,11 it is likely a new/amended Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and updated VIA score will be assigned to the project. Combined with the current level of public controversy over the project’s environmental effects, it is likely a new/updated more extensive NEPA document will be required for the project. “Also, I’m not real comfortable at this point with the “TBD” answer given for question #2, about the potential for public controversy on this project. I understand that community meetings are ongoing at this point, but it would be nice if you could beef up the expanded answer on page 11 of the PES with info regarding whether the community has been generally supportive of the project to date. Again, if there’s even a hint of controversy involved here, I cannot release a NEPA CE, and we’d have to go to a higher level document.” Given the number of LCP policy and development plan conflicts facing the project and their anticipated impact on the project, I recommend the City re-evaluate the feasibility of the project. __________ Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit Status An amended Coastal Development Permit application to Sunset Ridge Park CDP 5-11-302 was submitted on November 2020 to the Coastal Commission by the City. The application asks to allow construction of the bridge abutment, and requests an exception (variance) to exceed the maximum permitted height of the bridge abutment. The Coastal Commission has deemed this application incomplete. __________   10 21.30A.040 Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts. 11 email from Baker, Charles, Caltrans, July 11, 2019, RE: Newport Bicycle and Pedestrian PES – for review, CML 5151 (031)  76 David J. Tanner Page 11 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 What Actions Should the Planning Commission Take at This Juncture? The appeal questions the decision of the Zoning Administrator, the independent non-biased judgement of the City’s CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group, Inc. and members of Staff involved in the decision-making process. The actions being appealed are the certification of the project’s CEQA document and the Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission is tasked with conducting a de-novo review of the project. The appeal questions the adequacy of CEQA compliance and the interpretation of LCP policies and standards. If the Planning Commission’s decision is appealed to the Coastal Commission, the ultimate decisionmaker is the California Coastal Commission. The Appellant recommends the Planning Commission request a “’call for review” by Coastal Commission staff to provide guidance on any controversial component of the project. Upon receipt of the Coastal Commissions responses. I recommend the Planning Commission determine the following: 1. The appropriate scope of the project (Phase 1 or Phase 1 & 2); 2. The appropriate CEQA and LCP environmental document for the project; and 3. Once the appropriate CEQA and LCP environmental document(s) is prepared, and circulated for public review, the Planning Commission determine the adequacy of the CEQA document and the merits of the Coastal Development Permit. This comment letter is part of the public record. The City should assume Coastal Commission staff has seen these comments. The following Sections list specific shortfalls justifying this appeal. Section 1. PROBLEMS WITH OWNERSHIP, EASEMENTS, PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING. Section 2. WHAT DOES GOING-FORWARD AT THIS TIME MEAN FOR THE PROJECT AND THE CITY? Section 3. THE PROJECT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM OR THE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES OF THE COASTAL ACT. Section 4. AN ADDENDUM TO THE PRIOR CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH 2019099074) IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT. Section 5. THE CEQA ADDENDUM/MMND FAILS TO ADDRESS WHOLE OF THE ACTION. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT. Section 6. PROJECT HISTORY. 77 David J. Tanner Page 12 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Section 1. PROBLEMS WITH OWNERSHIP, EASEMENTS, PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING Property Ownership, Easements and Use Restrictions In addition to the Scenic Easement prohibiting any structures on a portion of Sunset Ridge Park, the ownership of the entire property cannot be determined. Assessor Parcel numbers provided do not cover the entire property. The City failed to disclose who owns approximately 20% of the property subject to the Coastal Development Permit area under the City’s jurisdiction. Appellant assumes the property is owned by the California Department of Transportation. This irregular shaped area generally occupies the eastern portion of the site, extending from the parking lot access drive northward to Superior Avenue, as shown on Figure 3. Figure 3 NBGIS Exhibit Depicting Assessor Parcels Assessor Parcel Numbers 424-041-11 & 424-041-13 (the existing parking lot) were dedicated to the City by Caltrans as environmental mitigation to offset parking impacts from the prior widening of Pacific Coast Highway under the condition these parcels be used exclusively for parking in perpetuity. If not, ownership of the parcels reverts back to the State. The condition of dedication does not allow for a bridge. State approval is required. Separate state and/or federal permitting by Caltrans is required for the Project. None of this has been disclosed to the public or analyzed. Unidentified Property  Ownership  78 David J. Tanner Page 13 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 According to the City NB-GIS data base, the boundary of the Project as defined in Resolution 2020-082 does not include any property west of the centerline of Superior Avenue. The application fails to disclose who owns the western half of Superior Avenue spanned by the bridge and what approvals are required. Regulatory Setting - Coastal Act Permit Jurisdiction The property is located within both the Coastal Commission’s and City’s coastal development permit jurisdictions.12 As a result, coastal development permits are required by both the City and the Coastal Commission. The 2019 project was an approval in concept by the City. Staff was directed to refine the project based on a decision made by the City Council. An approval in concept indicates that the proposed development conforms in concept to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary actions, and therefore entitles the applicant to apply to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit. The City may approve or conditionally approve a coastal development permit application, only after first finding that the proposed development conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. (LCP Section 21.52.015.1) An application for a Coastal Development Permit amending Sunset Ridge Park CDP 5-11-302 has been submitted to the Coastal Commission by the City. The Coastal Commission has deemed this application incomplete. If the Coastal Commission had reviewed this project, they would have determined the 2019 project does not conform to the standards of the LCP or the public access policies of the Coastal Act for the same reasons as the proposed project does not comply. In addition, the 2019 project requested a height variance of 38’ for the bridge, which is beyond the maximum height variance allowance permitted by the LCP. Project Description – Justification for Project Goal “The primary goals of this project are to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to increase parking availability” The LCP requires the applicant justify a “Demand for Access and Recreation” (LCP Section 21.30A.040, B, 2) There is no evidence in the record that the city prepared a Demand Access and Recreation analysis to support the Phase 1 project assertion that “Visitors to Sunset Ridge Park currently use the existing smaller parking lot located south of Sunset View Park and cross Superior Avenue via an at -grade crosswalk.”, or more importantly, there is a shortage of parking for park users. There is no evidence in the record to support the assertion the enlargement of the parking lot and addition of a pedestrian bridge over Superior Avenue will significantly increase use of the Sunset Ridge Park or improve safety. This is simply a goal the City wishes to achieve. The City claimed: “In addition to the proposed bridge, the project will also include sidewalk improvements, curb ramps, signage, and traffic signal modifications to mitigate reduced sight distance caused by the proposed bridge. It should be noted that Sunset Ridge Park was only opened in late 2014, so none of the data presented reflect the more than 16,000 children and youth (plus their families) expected to   12 “The Coastal Commission retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands, such as submerged lands, tidelands, and public trust lands, and has appellate authority over development approved by local government in specified geographic areas and for major public works projects and major energy facilities.”  79 David J. Tanner Page 14 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 use the intersection each year to access the soccer and baseball fields at the newly opened park.”13 The facts presented in the 2018/9 funding application to OCTA are that the overwhelming majority of people parking vehicles in the existing parking lot use the parking lot to cross WCH to access the south side of WCH and the beach. The information is in direct contradiction to the Project Description for the project which states the majority of people park in the parking lot to use Sunset Ridge Park. The facts are the City has received complaints from the adjacent residential neighborhood north of Sunset Ridge Park on the west side of Superior Avenue about people parking their vehicles on public streets in their neighborhood to use Sunset Ridge Park. Parking is free in the residential neighborhood. People parking in the residential neighborhoods on the west side of Superior Avenue do not need to cross Superior Avenue to access Sunset Ridge Park. The only time the existing metered (pay) parking lot is full is when people come to use the beach or there is a special event at the park (very rare, if ever!). All other times the parking lot is less than full, many times with only a few cars. For example, Figures 4-9 show a crowded Sunset Ridge Park with a less than full parking lot on Saturday December 9, 2020 at 10:00 am and again on Sunday January 3, 2021 at 10:30 am. The park is full and the parking lot is not. The City NB-GIS website identifies the Sunset Ridge Park capacity at 35. General hours of operation are 7 am to 9 pm. The park has no night-time lighting. Actual hours of use vary depending on the hours of sunlight. During winter months when there are fewer daylight hours, time of use is reduced to approximately 7 am to 5- 6 pm. The baseball field overlaps the 2 soccer fields preventing the 3 fields from being used simultaneously. The LCP requires the City demonstrate there is a demand for access and recreation, not just claim a parking problem contributes to their perception of an underutilized park to justify the impact to coastal resources caused by the project. The reality is the people choosing to drive to the Sunset Ridge Park choose to park for free in the adjacent residential neighborhood and walk to the park. The proposed expansion of the metered parking lot (a pay parking lot) will not attract users to the park if users can continue to park for free in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The parking lot is and will be used almost exclusively for beach users. Therefore, the project will not contribute to significant traffic enhancements at the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway as claimed, and will not contribute to significant pedestrian safety as claimed. To the contrary, not all pedestrians and bicyclists accessing Sunset Ridge Park will from the south side (ocean side) of WCH will choose to use the bridge if the crosswalk remains as proposed. Using the bridge is an inconvenience because of the stairs or distance to the ramp. Therefore, the change in traffic signal phasing (green time) will be minimal at best. Very few people are going to pay to park in the new parking lot and use the bridge to access the park, when they can park for free in the adjacent residential neighborhoods and avoid the need to cross Superior Avenue. People choosing to park for free over metered parking is true for most if not all residential areas close to the beach. The parking lots increased number of parking stalls will add to the total number of pedestrians and bicycles crossing WCH at Superior Avenue to access the beach. Therefore, the Phase 1 project as an “independent project” will increase pedestrian and bicycle safety hazards for pedestrians and bicycles crossing WCH. Something not addressed in the MND, its Addendum or Staff Reports. The MND (page 112) justifies a less than significant Transportation impact by stating “In addition, the larger parking lot would serve the existing park users”. None of the increased capacity of the parking lot was assumed to be used by people going to-and-from the beach in the MND, when in fact, the overwhelming majority of existing parking lot users use the parking lot to access the coastal side of WCH and back. If a change in use of the parking lot will occur as a result of the proposed project, the LCP requires the City provide documentation to support this claim. No documentation has been provided. The inconvenience of the proposed stairs and ramps to the bridges to cross the intersection has the potential to cause residents that currently walk to nearby businesses to drive rather than walk, or decide since they have to drive, to visit other business.   13 Source: Active Transportation Program - Cycle 2 Application Form Part B  80 David J. Tanner Page 15 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Figure 4 View from Sunset Ridge Park looking easterly, at parking lot Saturday, December 19, 2020 9:50 am Figure 5 View of Sunset Ridge Park looking northerly Saturday, December 19, 2020, 9:50 am 81 David J. Tanner Page 16 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Figure 6 View of Sunset Ridge Park looking northwesterly, Saturday, December 19, 2020, 9:50 am Figure 7 View of Sunset Ridge Park looking westerly, Saturday, December 19, 2020, 9:50 am 82 David J. Tanner Page 17 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Figure 8 View of Sunset Ridge Park looking westerly, Sunday, January 3, 2021, 109:32 am Figure 9 View from Sunset Ridge Park looking easterly, at parking lot, Sunday, January 3, 2021, 109:32 am 83 David J. Tanner Page 18 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 One of the City’s reasons for the bridge is to increase safety at this intersection. The intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway is dangerous as are many other intersections in the City. Improving the pedestrian safety at this intersection should be a priority. The Appellant believes the City should be guided by the City General Plan. Specifically, the General Plan Vision Statement reflecting the city-wide residents vision developed over a 2 year period of “reducing traffic citywide by 28,920 trips each day over the life of the plan.”14 The Appellant believes significant traffic calming measures are a least damaging environmental alternative, one consistent with the General Plan, Caltrans Future Mobility Plan, and a better long-term alternative than widening and increasing the capacity of WCH, constructing bridges, bridges and more bridges, wherever pedestrians and bicyclists cross Pacific Coast Highway or its cross streets. Increasing the capacity on WCH will increase the risk of injury and fatal accidents. Linkage between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects A direct linkage between the 2019 project (Phase 1), its final design (the proposed Project) and Phase 2, the WCH Widening and Bridge project was established in 2014. A Layout Plan prepared in October 2018 by the City Public Works Department submitted as part of a grant application (see cover page, Figure 1) to OCTA is provided below on Figure 10. This linkage was reaffirmed most recently by the City Council’s approval of Agenda Item #12 on August 25, 2020. Additional documents establishing the linkage are identified in Sections 4-6 of these comments. This is important because the CEQA document is required to address the “whole of the action” (Phases 1 & 2) which it does not. The Local Coastal Plan requires the applicant to justify the project will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. This analysis has not been done by the City. Figure 10 10-10-2018 City Public Works - Layout Plan (does not show the entire project)   14 City of Newport Beach General Plan, Introduction, page 1-2 84 David J. Tanner Page 19 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 August, 2020 City Council changes to the Phase 1 project - not included in Phase 1 Project Description These design changes (changes to the project’s “project description”) resulting from the August 25, 2020 City Council action are not disclosed and/or incorporated in the Staff Report for, or any of the attachments presented at the December 10, 2020 Zoning Administrators hearing. The existence of a Phase 2 project is dismissed by the City as speculation. The revised project description which should have described how “The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project” (Phase 2) is not incorporated in the Staff report or CEQA Addendum to the 2019 MND. These changes were known by the Staff that “The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project”. Yet, the Zoning Administrator and Staff’s denials of any linkage between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 project can be heard on the audio recording of the Zoning Administrator hearing and is reiterated by Staff to this day. I believe by accident one revised exhibit was inadvertently included in the Staff Report materials for the Zoning Administrators hearing. This exhibit reflects the coordination between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. This rendering of the updated bridge design for Superior Avenue is depicted on Attachment D to the August 25, 2020 Staff Report approved by the City Council and in the CEQA Addendum. The combined Phase I and 2 projects result in the removal of the pedestrian staircase to the parking lot at the northeast corner of Superior Avenue and WCH. This stairway is eliminated when Phase 1 and 2 are planned together. This one change indicates project coordination as of the August 25, 2020 City Council meeting. CEQA Identification of Cumulative Projects The Phase 2 WCH Widening and Bride project is identified in the CEQA addendum as a potential cumulative project. The Addendum states: “Since the time of Project approval, the City has received funding for an additional project which could be considered a cumulative project. This project includes widening West Coast Highway and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway to provide access from the parking lot across West Coast Highway as shown in Figure 4-3: West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge Location. As shown in Figure 4-4: West Coast Highway Bridge Rendering, this second bridge is not anticipated to block views of the ocean. However, it is unknown at this time when this Project would be constructed. Similar to other cumulative projects, this project would be considered a discretionary action that would trigger CEQA and it would be required to undergo project specific environmental review similar to the proposed Project, prior to construction. Impacts would be less than significant, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required.” How can the City’s independent non-biased CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group, Inc. conclude at that time the WCH Widening and Bridge project “Impacts would be less than significant, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required” when the firm’s contract amendment approved by the City Council on August 25, 2020, bases their scope of work and fee on the anticipated requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the WCH Widening and Bridge project? The anticipation of an EIR anticipates the WCH Widening and Bridge project will result in one or more significant adverse impacts, let alone the fact the environmental analysis has not been completed/certified! The need for an EIR for the WCH Widening and Bridge project is further confirmed in the Staff Report for the August 25, 2020 City Council hearing. The Staff Report makes it clear in Staff’s mind the WCH Widening and Bridge project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts. 85 David J. Tanner Page 20 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 The WCH Widening and Bridge Project is described in the August 25, 2020 staff report as follows: “The WCH Bridge project involves widening West Coast Highway to increase vehicular capacity and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway. With the completion of both projects, sidewalks and two crosswalks at this intersection can be eliminated as pedestrians will be able to use the two new bridges and ramps. Eliminating two crosswalks and moving the pedestrians from the street level to the bridges and ramps will significantly improve pedestrian access and safety. This will also greatly improve traffic signal operation and vehicular circulation by allowing more traffic signal green time for vehicles traveling through the intersection. The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project.” (Pg. 12-3) As far as CEQA compliance and LPC compliance, the Phase 2 project is either a part of the project and described in the CEQA document or it is a cumulative project required to be discussed by the LCP. Either way, Phase 2 is required to be discussed in detail. There is no evidence in the city public record this analysis occurred. For the City’s independent non-biased CEQA consultant, The Chambers Group, Inc. to predetermine this project would have less than significant impact on coastal views or coastal resources is wrong! For the Zoning Administrator to certify this CEQA Addendum to the 2019 MND is wrong! Errors in the analysis and their significance Why is the City denying the linkage of the proposed Project to the WCH Widening and Bridge project? Simple, this would require the Project to prepare an EIR, addressing both phases of the project which will delay the project for over a year and likely involve the project in the General Plan Housing, Land Use and Circulation Element update, and its EIR process, let alone potentially disqualify both phases of the project from obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. Why didn’t the Project consider the visual impact of 88 trees proposed to be planted in the new parking lot and its slopes? These trees have the potential exceed the height of the bridge and result in significant adverse visual impacts. If the trees are to be maintained to ensure their height does not impact views of coastal resources, what will that height be? Palm trees are one of the tree species listed on the plant palette. How will a palm tree’s height be maintained? Cut the tops off? The CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group. Inc. should explain this omission. Why doesn’t the analysis discuss the removal of “Special Trees” covered by the City’s G-Series Policies located at the northeast corner of Superior Avenue and WCH? The Addendum and 2019 MND state all trees are ornamental. This is a conscious statement! The CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group. Inc. should explain this statement. Why didn’t the CEQA document acknowledge the scenic easement covering roughly 1/3rd of Sunset Ridge Park which prohibits all structures, such as the proposed bridge? The CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group. Inc. should explain this omission. In the big picture its simple, any of these impacts represent a potentially significant adverse impact requiring the preparation of an EIR and potentially disqualifying the project from meeting the requirements for a Coastal Development Permit. The design of the proposed Project requires variances to exceed the maximum permitted height of retaining walls, the height of the bridge and bridge abutments. The only way for the project to qualify for relief from the maximum height standards is for the project to be a “Government Facility” (Section 21.30.060.D.16). Both the 86 David J. Tanner Page 21 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 City Municipal Code and LCP define Government Facilities and provides examples. These examples are: “libraries, community centers, public hospitals, public utilities, lifeguard towers, tsunami warning sirens, architectural design features that accommodate emergency vehicles or essential equipment, etc.”. Bridges, bridge abutments and retaining walls are not on the list and are not accessory uses to a Government Facility. Government Facilities are prohibited uses on the parking lot parcels. The City is proposing a government public works project. Not all government public works projects are Government Facilities. The City errored when it declared the project a Government Facility. City Staff should explain this decision. Without the ability to qualify for height variances, the project’s feasibility is in question. A second reason the project does not qualify for relief from LCP Implementation Plan Development Standards (height variance) is because relief from the standards is dependent on the project not having an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources (LCP Section 21.52.090.A). The City fails to justify its claims. The CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group. Inc. should explain this conclusion. Waivers or modification of certain standards of this Implementation Plan may be permitted when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district. While making the claim of special circumstances, the City failed to identify other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district who enjoy similar privileges. The proposed Project does not meet the required 100’ land use buffer from the Superior Avenue Wetlands and a wetland on WCH adjacent to the existing parking lot, a requirement of the LCP. While making the claim of special circumstances, the City failed to identify other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district who enjoy similar privileges. The City also failed to provide the required LCP analysis demonstrating there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative. (LCP Section 21.30B.010.G.2). Section 2. WHAT DOES GOING-FORWARD AT THIS TIME MEAN FOR THE PROJECT AND THE CITY? The Coastal Commission has the final decision should the City’s decision be appealed. Coastal Commission Staff has deemed the current Coastal Development Permit application incomplete. That is not good news for the City. As a condition of delegating authority to the City to approve Coastal Development Permits, the Coastal Commission required the City to administer the LCP pursuant to the requirements of the Coastal Act. In accepting this privilege, the City gave its word to do so. In recent years Coastal Commission Staff has agreed with appellants on several City approved CDP appeals. The Coastal Commission has become skeptical/leery of the City. When the City proceeds with an Approval in Concept, the City is giving its word to the Coastal Commission the project conforms in concept to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary actions, and that the City has found that the project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified LCP. Appellant has discussed some of the major concerns with City Staff who have had discussions with Coastal Commission Staff. Appellant would not raise these issues if the Appellant believed the Coastal Commission would not support the Appellants position. What is the purpose, Appellant would lose on appeal! Should Coastal Commission Staff disagree with the City’s Approval in Concept for the 2019 project, or the proposed Project, it can continue to ask for more information, provide negative comments on the Approval in Concept, and/or proceed to a hearing with a recommendation for Denial of the CDP. 87 David J. Tanner Page 22 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 If the CDP is approved as proposed by the City, there is a certainty it will be appealed to the Coastal Commission. If Coastal Commission Staff agrees with one or more of the allegations in the appeal, the project will await a Coastal Commission hearing which could take a year or longer. Therefore, it is in the City’s best interest from both a reputation and a timing standpoint to ensure both its residents and Coastal Commission Staff support the project and agree with the City CDP Findings, thereby reducing the probability of an appeal. The Appellant does not disagree with the project’s goals of increasing public access to coastal resources or increasing public safety. However, appellant expects the City to be forthright, transparent and to follow the rules. If the City chooses to approve a Coastal Development Permits it is expected the project meet the Coastal Act goals of preserving, protecting and enhancing coastal resources and protects and enhances coastal views. At this point, the lack of forthrightness and transparency by the Zoning Administrator, certain project Staff members and the City’s CEQA consultant has led to a total distrust of their actions. Unfortunately, these actions have compounded the existing lack of public trust in the City’s analysis of development applications along the Mariners Mile, the ongoing General Plan Update process and other proposed development projects throughout the City. The Appellant seek the Planning Commission’s help. The Appellant and members of the community look forward to working with Commissioners, City Staff, Coastal Commission Staff and other agencies to address our concerns with the goal of refining project proposals into projects which can be supported by all. Section 3. THE PROJECT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM OR THE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES OF THE COASTAL ACT Local Coastal Plan Intent and Policies Two purposes of the LCP are to "Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources" and "to ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views ..." (LCP Section 21.10.020, (B) & (G)) The California Coastal Act states new development in highly scenic areas shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.15 In this case, the LCP designates Superior Avenue a “Coastal View Road”, Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park designated “Public View Points”. It is the intent of the Coastal Act to protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. This includes the site’s disturbed landform and visual resources. The project design requires approximately 33,000 cubic yards of cut which will further impact the topography of the coastal bluff, require height variances to exceed the maximum permitted height for retaining walls, the bridge and bridge abutments and encroachments upon the Superior wetlands and WCH wetlands. There are thousands of cars and many bicyclists and pedestrians that travel down Superior Avenue daily that enjoy the view of coastal resources. Think of a stadium. Seating is angled like Superior Avenue. When someone with a big hat or a sign sits in front of you, it doesn’t matter where in the stadium you are sitting, if the person sits in front of you, your view will be impacted. The same will occur with the proposed bridge! The view impact will be even worse because the bridge will exceed the maximum height permitted by the LCP development standard. Staff’s analysis only considers the view from the top of Sunset View Park and Superior Avenue, not the view impacts of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists traveling down Superior Avenue, or looking north from West Coast Highway or Balboa Avenue at the proposed grading to the coastal bluff face, its large retaining walls, the bridge and bridge abutments which greatly exceed the maximum permitted height   15 California Coastal Act of 1976 – Article 6 - Section 30251 PRC, http://www.coastal.ca.gov/fedcd/cach3.pdf, Accessed February 2, 2006.  88 David J. Tanner Page 23 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 limits. The Coastal Act/LCP does not limit the direction of view analysis. The Planning Commission should consider public comments received as part of this appeal when determining the significance of the project’s visual impact. The project needs to demonstrate compliance with the LCP intent and specific policies. Neither the 2019 project or the proposed Project is designed to minimize landform alterations or is sited and designed to protect public views to and along the ocean (views from Superior Avenue a designated View Corridor), protect sensitive coastal resource areas (Superior Avenue, the coastal bluff, Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park), minimize visual impacts and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. Thirty-three thousand cubic yards of cut, height variances for a 32-foot-high bridge, bridge abutments and grading required for retaining walls up to 25 feet high do not minimize alterations to coastal bluffs. The project’s visual impacts are not compatible with the surrounding area. Project compliance with all of the standards listed in the LCP are a requirement of the Coastal Development Permit. The project fails to comply with many LCP requirements, some of which are listed in this section. Yet, the City’s CEQA Addendum/MND claims the project will result in no significant environmental impacts. Importantly, a finding of no significant environmental impacts is required by the LCP for the project to qualify for a Coastal Development Permit. The City’s CEQA consultant, the Chambers Group, Inc. should explain. Exceptions to LCP Implementation Plan maximum height limits Variances are required to exceed the maximum height limits established in the LCP. To be eligible for a Variance, the City claims the facility is a “Government Facility” which it is not. (LCP Section 21.30.060.D.16). This project is a “government project” the definition of which includes a wide range of public works projects. Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 The City of Newport Beach’s action on Local CDP No. CD2020-143 authorized the demolition of an existing 64-space metered surface parking lot and the construction of a new larger 130-space metered parking lot, a pedestrian and bicycle bridge crossing Superior Avenue connecting the new parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park. The project includes landscaping disturbed areas including the use of trees. The City approved project also included hardscape and drainage to collect and treat surface runoff before being discharged in the municipal storm drain system. The project will require approximately 33,000 cubic yards of grading (cut) to construct the surface parking lot, and require construction of large retaining walls up to 25 feet tall. The surface parking lot is located adjacent to the corner of Superior Avenue, a designated Coastal View Road and West Coast Highway, and below Sunset View Park a designated public view point. The project will export approximately 10,500 cubic yards to an undetermined location(s) in the area. The project included variances/exception to exceed the maximum permitted height limits for bridge abutments, the height of the bridge and the height of retaining walls.  The City’s conclusion that the development is consistent with the provisions of the LCP was not adequately supported by documents in the record file or the City’s findings as stated in Local CDP No. CD2020-143.  The standard of review for this appeal is the certified LCP. CEQA policies are not the standard of review for this appeal.  The proposal to construct a new metered surface parking lot and pedestrian and bicycle bridge that requires extensive grading and new retaining walls is not supported by a finding that the landform alteration is the minimum amount necessary to support the development, nor does it analyze design alternatives that do not require the structure to be constructed, or large new retaining walls near the property lines and below a public view point on the bluff face. As the project has been designed and approved by the City, the development would significantly alter the bluff face (which has been previously altered by an existing smaller 64 space metered parking lot and smaller retaining wall established by CDP No. 5-88-255 and 89 David J. Tanner Page 24 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 subsequent amendments to mitigate for the loss of street parking resulting from the expansion of Pacific Coast Highway from 4 to 6 lanes.  The City prepared a visual analysis of the project site from Pacific Coast Highway and the top of the bluff from Sunset Ridge Park. There is not sufficient evidence that the project would protect scenic resources consistent with LUP Policies 4.4.1-1 through 4.4.1-3.  The project site is located within 100 feet of a wetland located on a moderately steep and disturbed slope extending up the slope from the sidewalk along Superior Avenue (Superior Wetlands). This wetland area is approximately 0.15 acre. The wetland is located on a slope that extends from the concrete-lined v-ditch at the toe of the slope to the edge of Sunset Ridge Park at the top of the slope. The dominant vegetation associated with the wetland area is cattail and non-native Mediterranean tamarisk. According to the City hired biologist, the source of the groundwater to the wetland is undetermined and is discharged into a surface v-ditch at the foot of the drainage. Under LUP policy 4.2.2-3, a minimum 100-foot buffer is required around a wetland for new development unless a proposed development site has site-specific constraints that preclude the provision of a 100-foot buffer or it can be demonstrated that a buffer width of less than 100 feet can protect the wetland. The staff report and the applicant’s biologist report do not specify whether there are site-specific constraints that would prevent the applicant from providing the appropriate buffer, nor do they adequately justify why a 100-foot buffer is not required for protection this wetland. The applicant’s biologist report characterizes the Superior Wetland as a generally low-value wetland. Similarly, the project will impact a wetland near the NE corner of Superior and PCH. The applicant’s biologist report characterizes the WCH Wetland as a generally low-value wetland. However, Policy 4.2.2-3 does not limit the requirement of a 100-foot buffer to high-value wetlands. Given that wetlands are a rare coastal resource in this region, extra care must be given to protect the wetlands from further degradation. It is possible that a reduced wetland buffer may be approved for this site and still protect biological resources consistent with the LCP, but the City-approved CDP does not include adequate findings to justify the reduced buffer or identify alternatives that would allow for a greater buffer. The City did not appropriately apply Section 4.2.2-3 to this project. Therefore, the City failed to demonstrate consistency with the certified LCP.  The City’s conclusion that the development is consistent with the provisions of the LCP Section 21.30A.040-A. (Relationship and Proportionality) was not adequately supported by documents in the record file or the City’s findings as stated in Local CDP No. CD2020-143.  The City’s conclusion that the development is consistent with the provisions of the LCP Section 21.50.070- B. (Environmental Review) was not adequately supported by documents in the record file or the City’s findings as stated in Local CDP No. CD2020-143. The City should have required visual analysis from the ocean inland, West Coast Highway inland and West Balboa Blvd. inland to adequately analyze how the development as a whole could impact the topography and views of the coastal bluff, but the visual analysis in the City Record relied upon artist renderings of the bridge which did not include adequate locations to fully identify the project impacts to the coastal bluff, the public parks or Superior Avenue a Coastal View Road. Similarly, the City should have required a visual analysis from the public parks and at multiple locations along Superior Avenue. The City should have explained how the scenic easement prohibiting construction of the project on Sunset Ridge Park and the land use restriction on the parking lot prohibiting the construction of the bridge and bridge abutment complied with Coastal Act policies. California’s coastal bluffs are significant coastal resources, and great care should be taken when designing new development to protect the visually aesthetic qualities of these rare landforms. The project is not consistent with LUP Policy 4.1.1-1 in that the project does not include appropriate measures to adequately protect the visual qualities of the coastal bluff. If such measures are included, they are not well reflected in the findings and conditions to approve the project. The City-approved project includes 33,000 cubic yards of grading (cut) in order to construct the bridge abutments and parking lot on the coastal bluff face. LUP Policy 4.4.1-3 requires new development to minimize landform alteration, particularly bluffs, canyons, cliffs, and other significant resources. At the outset, the City’s staff report does not acknowledge the site is a coastal bluff let alone a significant coastal resource. 90 David J. Tanner Page 25 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Furthermore, the staff report does not justify how the proposed grading for the bridge abutments and parking lot minimizes landform alteration to the best extent feasible (Exhibit 4). The City should have analyzed alternative parking lot designs that minimize the total amount of landform alteration to the coastal bluff, particularly at the southern edge of the site adjacent to Coast Highway where large a retaining wall is proposed. The City should have analyzed alternative designs that minimized the height of retaining walls visible from public parks and coastal view roads. Such options could include a subterranean parking structure, minimizing disturbance to the bluff face and eliminating/minimizing the need for retaining walls or reducing the size of the parking structure among other options. The City should have analyzed design alternatives to the bridge such as obtaining additional parking on the west side of Superior Avenue or employing traffic calming measures to increase public safety on Superior Avenue, among other options. The City record does not contain any alternatives analysis for the parking structure, and the City’s staff report does not contain any discussion of mitigating the proposed landform alteration. This runs counter to the LUP Policy 4.4.1-3. Overall, the City- approved project did not adequately apply the LUP policies pertaining to visual resource protection and landform alteration. Therefore, there is not an adequate degree of factual and legal evidence to support the City’s decision to approve the local CDP as consistent with these policies. The City claims the project is an independent project. The facts in the public record does not support this assertion. The City states Phase 1 and Phase 2 are “independent projects”, that “Although these two projects are separate, they are immediately adjacent to one another” and “The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project. Because of the proximity of these two projects, they will need to be closely coordinated.” The City has stated continuously in print and in speech since 2018 Phase 2 has not been funded, is undefined and may never be build. While, the City can portray the Superior Bridge project and the WCH Bridge project as independent projects being administered separately, pursuant to CEQA, given the linkage between the Superior Bridge project and the WCH Bridge project, the City’s action constitutes piecemealing. CEQA requires the analysis to address the whole of the action (project). Piecemealing occurs when lead agency’s (city) “chop up” a project into smaller components so that it can turn a “blind eye” to reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the “whole” action. The California Supreme Court established scenarios in which a project could be found to constitute project piecemealing16. Under this test, an agency must analyze a future expansion or other action as part of the initial project "if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” The City should have analyzed the future expansion of the project to determine if the City’s analysis did or did not constituted piecemealing. There is no factual and legal evidence to in the public record to show the City considered if the project considered piecemealing. The Intersection of Superior Avenue and WCH is part of a larger longer-term project to improve the efficiency of Coast Highway within the Coastal Zone. In 2020, the City Council reviewed plans by its Public Works Department to improve the intersection of Old Newport Boulevard and WCH. The Public Works Department made it known it had been working with Caltrans on a land exchange to facilitate these improvements which would have widened Coast Highway within sight of coastal bluffs and within 300 feet of Newport bay. The City is currently evaluating two applications for development projects17 within the Mariners Mile. Both projects are adjacent to Coast Highway a designated coastal view road, and within 300 feet of coastal bluffs and Newport bay. Both projects will impact views of the coastal bluffs from Coast Highway. As a condition of approval for each project, the City requires dedication of land for the ultimate right-of-way of Coast Highway. Yet, the City Council’s stated policy is not to widen WCH within the Mariners Mile. The City should have conducted an analysis of the City’s cumulative circulation system impacts on sensitive coastal resources.   16 This California Supreme Court test was adopted pursuant to its findings in Laurel Heights Assn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988).  17 2510 WCH Mixed Use Project & the Newport Village Mixed Use Project 91 David J. Tanner Page 26 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 The Project does not conform to the following standards of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) or the public access policies of the Coastal Act:  The Project fails to “Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources”. (Section 21.10.020.B.)  The Project fails to “To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views.” (Section 21.10.020.G)  Fences, hedges, and walls shall not be allowed or allowed with a reduced height when necessary to protect coastal resources such as public coastal view (Section 21.30.040.A.1). The proposed Project fails to meet this requirement.  Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. (Section 21.30.040.C.1). The proposed Project fails to meet this requirement.  The Project is not sited and designed to: a. “protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas; and: b. “minimize visual impacts and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas”. (Section 21.30.060.C.1 & 3)  The Project is not a Government Facility and does not qualify for an Exception to Height Limits (Section 21.30.060.D.16)  The Project does not “ensures visibility across the corners of the intersecting streets”. (Section 21.30.130.A)  The Project fails to demonstrate “The provision of public access shall bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement and the project’s impact and shall be proportional to the impact.” (Section 21.30A.040.A)  The Project fails to demonstrate “There is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative.” (Section 21.30B.010.G.2)  The Project has not received an “Approval in Concept” from the Coastal Commission. (Section 21.52.015.1)  The Project does not “Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program” (Section 21.52.015.F.1)  The Project does not qualify for Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards (Section 21.52.090.A)  The Project does not qualify for a “Variance”. (Section 21.52.090.B.2)  The Project does not qualify for “Considerations”. (Section 21.52.090.C)  The Project does not meet the required “Findings”. (Section 21.52.090.D) 92 David J. Tanner Page 27 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 The following Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan Standards apply. (Unless noted, the LCP Standards below are copied from the LCP-IP. Applicable language has been highlighted. These LCP Standards extend through the end of Section 3 (page 31)) PART 1. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPLICABILITY 21.10.020 Purpose. The purposes of the Implementation Plan are to: A. Implement the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan and the California Coastal Act of 1976; B. Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources; C. Assure orderly, balanced use and conservation of resources within the coastal zone taking into account social and economic needs; D. Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners; E. Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other types of development on the coast; F. Encourage State and local cooperation in planning and development of mutually beneficial uses in the coastal zone; and G. To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views and access; and ensure that growth, development, and environmental management is conducted a manner consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Land Use Plan. (Ord. 2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016) PART 3. SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 21.30 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 21.30.010 Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that development is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan, complies with the standards of this chapter, produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. The standards of this chapter apply to all coastal zoning districts. These standards shall be considered in combination with the standards for each coastal zoning district in Part 2 (Coastal Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Coastal Zoning District Standards) and Part 4 of this Implementation Plan (Standards for Specific Land Uses). Where there may be a conflict, the standards that are most restrictive and/or most protective of coastal resources shall prevail. 21.30.040 Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls. This section provides standards for the provision of fences, hedges, walls, and retaining walls for development in all coastal zoning districts. 93 David J. Tanner Page 28 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 A. Maximum Height Allowed. 1. Fences, Hedges, and Walls. Maximum heights of fences, hedges, and walls are shown in Table 21.30- 1. Fences, hedges, and walls shall not be allowed or allowed with a reduced height when necessary to protect coastal resources such as public coastal view, public access, and sensitive habitat. 1. Retaining Walls. The maximum height of a retaining wall shall be eight feet measured from finished grade at the base of the wall, not including any required guardrails. A minimum horizontal separation equal to the height of the tallest retaining wall shall be provided between retaining walls, except that the required separation shall not be more than six feet. The above requirements shall not apply to retaining walls that are an integral part of principal structures. An increase in the height of a retaining wall may be requested in compliance with Chapter 21.52 (Coastal Development Review Procedures) 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. 21.30.060 Height Limits and Exceptions. A. This section establishes regulations for determining compliance with the maximum allowable height limits established for each coastal zoning district by Part 2 of this Implementation Plan (Coastal Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Coastal Zoning District Standards). C. Increase in Height Limit. 1. Procedure. The height limits established in Part 2 of this Implementation Plan (Coastal Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Coastal Zoning District Standards) may be increased within specified areas with approval of a coastal development permit when all applicable findings are met in compliance with subsection (C)(3) of this section (Required Findings). 3. Required Findings. The review authority may approve a coastal development permit to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height limit only after first making all of the following findings in addition to the findings required in Section 21.52.015(F): a. The project is sited and designed to protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas; and b. The project is sited and designed to minimize visual impacts and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas; and c. Where feasible, the project will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. D. Exceptions to Height Limits. In cases where the exception to a height limit requires the approval of a coastal development permit, the review authority may approve a coastal development permit to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height limit as described below only after first making all of the findings in subsection (C)(3) of this section, in addition to the findings required in Section 21.52.015(F). 16. Government Facilities. Structures owned, operated, or occupied by the City or other governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public may be allowed to exceed the height limit subject to the approval of a coastal development permit in compliance with Chapter 21.52 (Coastal 94 David J. Tanner Page 29 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Development Review Procedures) where the increase in height is necessary to accommodate design features required for the facility to function (e.g., lifeguard towers, tsunami warning sirens, architectural design features that accommodate emergency vehicles or essential equipment, etc.). (Ord. 2019-5 §§ 3, 4, 2019; Ord. 2016-19 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2016) Appellant Notes – Not part of the LCP: Similarly, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Title 20 defines a Government Facility as “Governmental facility (land use)” means a structure owned, operated, or occupied by the City or other governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public (e.g., City Hall, community recreation center, post office, library, etc.).”) The project does not meet the definition of a government facility either in the City Municipal Code or LCP and is not allowed under the LCP to exceed the height limit subject to the approval of a coastal development permit. The Project is a Public Works project as defined by the Coastal Act.18 21.30.130 Traffic Safety Visibility Area. A. Visibility at Corners of Intersections Required. Corner lots in all coastal zoning districts shall be developed in a manner that ensures visibility across the corners of the intersecting streets, alleys, and private driveways. B. Traffic Safety Visibility Area Described. The traffic safety visibility area shall be described as a triangular- shaped area on a corner lot formed by measuring the prescribed distance from the intersection of the front and street side property lines, an intersecting alley, or an intersecting driveway and connecting the lines diagonally across the property making a triangular area. See Figure 3-5. C. Area of Traffic Safety Visibility Area. The dimensions of a traffic safety visibility triangle shall be as follows and shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer: 1. Standard intersection line of sight requirements shall apply at the intersection of public or private two street rights-of-way and at the intersections of commercial driveways and streets; Chapter 21.30A PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION 21.30A.040 Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts. A. Relationship and Proportionality. The provision of public access shall bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement and the project’s impact and shall be proportional to the impact. B. Methodology. In determining a development’s impact on public access, the City shall evaluate, at a minimum, the factors listed below. Any access dedication required as a condition of approval shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record and findings shall explain how the adverse effects that have been identified will be alleviated or mitigated by the dedication. 1. Land Use. The project’s impact on use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation and other priority uses specified in California Public Resources Code Sections 30222 and 30223. 2. Demand for Access and Recreation. The project’s impact upon the use and capacity of the identified access and recreation opportunities, including the ocean, harbor, bay, channels, estuaries, salt marshes,   18 Public Works, Definition ‐ Public Resources Coode, Division 20, California Coastal Act [30000‐30900], Chapter 2.  Definitions [30114. (b)]  95 David J. Tanner Page 30 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 sloughs, beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs; the capacity of coastal access roads; public parking; and recreational support facilities and services. 3. Obstructions. Any aspects of the project that would block or impede public access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs, including placement of structures, private streets, shoreline protective structures, barriers, guardhouses, gates, fences, or signs. 4. Visual Access. The project’s impact on public access to public views to the ocean, harbor, bay, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, beaches, coastal bluffs, and other scenic coastal areas. 5. Vessel Launching, Berthing, and Storage. The project’s impact on vessel launching, berthing, and storage facilities and other facilities providing public access to the ocean, harbor, bay, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, and sloughs. 6. Shoreline Processes. The project’s impact upon shoreline conditions, including beach profile; the character, extent, accessibility and usability of the beach; erosion or accretion; character and sources of sand; wave and sand movement; and any other anticipated changes to shoreline processes that have the potential to adversely impact public access to and along the shoreline and to the harbor, bay, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, and coastal bluffs. 7. Other Impacts. Any other aspects of the project, which are likely to diminish the public’s use of the ocean, harbor, bay, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. (Ord. 2010-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016) Chapter 21.30B HABITAT PROTECTION 21.30B.010 Purpose. This chapter is intended to: A. Protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas against any significant disruption of habitat values. B. Maintain and, where feasible, restore the biological productivity and the overall quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes. C. Protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational, water quality, and habitat value. (Ord. 2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016) G. Required Findings. No development shall be allowed in an ESHA or ESHA buffer area unless the following findings are made: 1. The resource as identified will not be significantly degraded or disrupted by the proposed development and the development will be compatible with the continuance of the resource. 2. There is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative. 3. All feasible mitigation measures capable of reducing or eliminating project-related impacts have been adopted. (Ord. 2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016) 96 David J. Tanner Page 31 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 PART 5. PLANNING PERMIT PROCEDURES 21.50.025 Projects Bisected by Jurisdictional Boundaries. B. Projects Bisected by City and Coastal Commission Jurisdiction. Where a proposed development is located within both the Coastal Commission’s and City’s coastal development permit jurisdictions, coastal development permits are required by both the City and the Coastal Commission. Alternatively, if the applicant, the City and the Coastal Commission agree, the Coastal Commission can process a consolidated coastal development permit application pursuant to the procedures in Public Resources Code, Section 30601.3. 21.50.070 Environmental Review. A. LCP Review. After acceptance of a complete application, the development shall be reviewed in compliance with the applicable policies of the LCP. B. Investigation. Analysis of proposed development within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources shall include an analysis of the individual and cumulative impacts of the development on coastal resources, define the least environmentally damaging alternative, and recommend modifications or mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts on coastal resources. C. Environmental Documents. 1. Preparation by Qualified Specialist. All environmental documents, including surveys, assessments, reports and other technical studies, shall be prepared by a qualified resource specialist with technical expertise as appropriate for the environmental issues of concern. 2. Review of Documents. All environmental documents submitted as part of a development application shall be reviewed by a qualified City staff member, City-designated advisory committee, or consultant approved by, and under the supervision of, the City. Environmental documents prepared more than two years prior to the date of submittal shall be reviewed to determine if changes to the project and/or changes to the surrounding area of the project warrant additional environmental review in the form of an addendum, a supplemental environmental document, or a new environmental document. 3. Report. A qualified City staff member, advisory committee, or contracted employee shall prepare a written report with recommendations to the appropriate decision making official or body. 4. Recommendations. Written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions shall be included in any recommendation to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove proposed development within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or other coastal resources. Any recommendations of approval shall include an identification of the preferred project alternative and required modifications or mitigation measures necessary to ensure conformance with the Local Coastal Program. (Ord. 2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016) 21.52 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES 21.52.015 Coastal Development Permits. A. Coastal Development Permit Required. Any development in the coastal zone shall require a coastal development permit issued by the City pursuant to Chapter 21.50, or the Coastal Commission, unless exempt or excluded from coastal development permitting requirements. Development undertaken pursuant to a coastal development permit shall conform to the plans, specifications, terms and conditions of the permit. The requirements for obtaining a coastal development permit shall be in addition to requirements to obtain any other permits or approvals required by other articles of this title, other City ordinances or codes or from any state, 97 David J. Tanner Page 32 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 regional or local agency. If conflicts between this chapter and other city ordinances or codes arise, this chapter shall govern. B. Permit Jurisdiction. After the effective certification of the LCP and the Coastal Commission’s delegation of authority to the City, the City shall issue all coastal development permits for development not located within the Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction. 1. Coastal Development Permit Issued by the Coastal Commission. Developments on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands as described in Public Resources Code Section 30519(b) and in deferred certification areas designated by the certified Local Coastal Program require a permit or exemption issued by the Coastal Commission in accordance with the procedure as specified by the Coastal Act. Areas of Coastal Commission permit jurisdiction and deferred certification areas are generally depicted on the Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. a. Approval in Concept. All development in areas where the Coastal Commission retains coastal development permit authority shall require conceptual approval from the City prior to application to the Coastal Commission. An approval in concept indicates that the proposed development conforms in concept to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary actions, and therefore entitles the applicant to apply to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit. F. Findings and Decision. The review authority may approve or conditionally approve a coastal development permit application, only after first finding that the proposed development: 1. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program; 2. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone. 21.52.090 Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide relief from the development standards of this Implementation Plan when so doing is consistent with the purposes of the certified Local Coastal Program and will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. B. Applicability. Any development standard of this Implementation Plan may be modified or waived through the approval of a coastal development permit, except: allowed and prohibited uses; residential density; nonresidential floor area ratios; specific prohibitions (for example, prohibitions intended to protect coastal resources, prohibited barriers to public access, limits on the use of protective structures, prohibited materials, prohibited plant species, prohibited signs, etc.); or procedural requirements. 1. Modifications. Minor deviations for the following development standards may be permitted when practical difficulties associated with the property and the strict application of the Implementation Plan result in physical hardships: a. Height modifications from exceptions identified in Part 3 of this title (Site Planning and Development Standards). The following modifications are limited to not more than a ten (10) percent deviation from the standard being modified: i. Chimneys, rooftop architectural features, and vents in excess of the exception to the allowed height limits identified in Part 3 of this title (Site Planning and Development Standards); ii. Flag poles in excess of the exception to the allowed height limits; and iii. Heights of fences, hedges, or walls (except retaining walls). 98 David J. Tanner Page 33 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 b. Setback Modifications. The following modifications are limited to not more than a ten (10) percent deviation from the standard being modified: i. Encroachments in front, side, or rear setback areas while still maintaining the minimum clearances required by Section 21.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions). Exceptions include the following: (A) Modifications shall not be allowed for encroachments into alley setbacks; and (B) Modifications shall not be allowed for encroachments into bluff setback areas. ii. Structural appurtenances or projections that encroach into front, side, or rear setback areas. c. Sign Modifications. Modifications shall be allowed for an increase in allowed number and area of signs and an increase in allowed height modifications for pylon signs up to a maximum of twenty- four (24) feet, and up to a maximum of eight feet for monument signs. d. Retaining Wall Modifications. Modifications shall be allowed for an increase in the allowed height of retaining walls up to a maximum of ten (10) feet. e. Other Modifications. Except as otherwise provided, the following modifications are not limited in the amount of deviation from the standard being modified: i. Distances between structures located on the same lot; ii. Landscaping standards in compliance with Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping), except for subsection (B)(3); iii. Size or location of parking spaces, access to parking spaces, and landscaping within parking areas, provided the modification does not result in an adverse impact to public on-street parking spaces; iv. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for uses that have nonconforming parking; provided required parking for the additional square footage is provided and other requirements per Section 21.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking). 2. Variances. Waiver or modification of certain standards of this Implementation Plan may be permitted when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district. 3. Modifications and Waivers Authorized Elsewhere. This section is not applicable when a modification or waiver to a development standard is specifically authorized elsewhere in this Implementation Plan. C. Considerations. In reviewing a coastal development permit application for development requesting a modification or variance, the review authority shall consider the following: 1. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program to the maximum extent feasible; and 2. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal resources. D. Findings and Decision. The review authority may approve or conditionally approve a modification or waiver to a development standard of this Implementation Plan only after first making all of the following findings: 1. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Implementation Plan results in physical hardships; or 2. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property 99 David J. Tanner Page 34 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district; and 3. The modification or variance complies with the findings required to approve a coastal development permit in Section 21.52.015(F); 4. The modification or variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs; 5. The modification or variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas; 6. The modification or variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation, or wildlife species; and 7. The granting of the modification or variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict with, the purpose of this Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program. (Ord. 2019-5 § 6, 2019) Section 4. AN ADDENDUM TO THE PRIOR CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH 2019099074) IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 The City correctly determined there have been change to the project or substantial changes in circumstances or new information that warrant subsequent environmental analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has analyzed the changes to the project, potential substantial changes in circumstances and new information and determined an Addendum to the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate CEQA document for the project. CEQA Requirements Use of an Addendum Under CEQA, an addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or MND is needed if minor technical changes or modifications to the proposed project occur (CEQA Guidelines §15164). An addendum is appropriate only if these minor technical changes or modifications do not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The addendum need not be circulated for public review (CEQA Guidelines §15164[c]); however, an addendum is to be considered by the decision-making body prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines §15164[d]). Thresholds of Significance A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect that would normally be significant. Environmental standards (e.g., air or water quality standards) meeting certain requirements can be used as thresholds of significance. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15064.7. Thresholds of significance are used in both Initial Studies and EIRs to determine whether a proposed project’s impacts are significant. The CEQA Guidelines encourage Lead Agencies to voluntarily adopt thresholds of significance. Agency thresholds developed for general use must be adopted through a public review process and supported by substantial evidence. However, most Lead Agencies establish thresholds of significance on a project-by-project 100 David J. Tanner Page 35 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 basis, rather than formally adopting them in advance. In either event, Lead Agencies should explicitly disclose which thresholds they are utilizing and briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that project’s impacts are less than significant, particularly for greenhouse gas thresholds. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 361 P.3d 342 (2015). Also, the Lead Agency must still consider any substantial evidence indicating a project’s environmental effects may be significant notwithstanding compliance with the threshold. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15064(b)(2). Change in Circumstances & New Information  The discovery in January 2020 that the project is part of a larger project. The existence of Phase 2 was denied in November 2019 and not disclosed in the MND or the 2020 Addendum to the MND.  The fact the City had prepared preliminary design plans for Phase 2 and used these plans in grant applications prior to the approval of the 2019 MND and Coastal Development permit is new information withheld from the public. When the whole of the action is analyzed in a CEQA/NEPA document, the project will result in numerous significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.  The fact that the City received partial funding for Phase 2 in 2020 is new information. This information further validates the active status of Phase 2. When the whole of the action is analyzed in the CEQA/NEPA document, the project will result in numerous significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.  The fact that the project will result in removal of “Special Trees” protected by the City’s G-Series Policies was not disclosed in the MND or Addendum. This represents a significant change in circumstances. The removal of Special Trees is a significant unavoidable adverse impact.  The discovery in 2020 that a scenic easement exists on Sunset Ridge Park which prevents the construction all structures is new information. The project will construct a bridge abutment which connects to a bridge. This structure is inconsistent with this easement. This represents a significant land use and visual impact.  The discovery in 2020 that a land use restriction limiting the future use of the parking lot Assessor parcel to a parking lot is new information. The project will construct a bridge abutment which connects to a bridge. This use is inconsistent with this land use restriction. This represents a significant land use impact.  The fact the Project requires federal permitting was withheld from the public until it was discovered in 2020 as a result of a public information request. The federal environmental concerns were not identified in the MND or it’s Addendum. In addition, the existence of Phase 2 was denied by the City in information submitted to Caltrans in 2019-2020. Erroneous information resulted in Caltrans preparing a NEPA Categorical Exclusion for the project. Had Caltrans been informed about Phase 2 it is probable Caltrans would have concluded the project would not have qualified for a Categorical Exclusion and that Caltrans would have assumed the Lead agency role in preparing a combined NEPA/CEQA document consistent with Caltrans policy.  The public relied upon the City’s Staff report and Findings that the 2019 project Coastal Development Permit complied with the requirements of the LCP, and that all required analysis had been completed to support the required Findings. The discovery in 2020 that the 2019 project does not comply with many of the LLCP policies not listed in the City Staff report MND or Resolution for the Coastal Development Permit is new information. This new information shows the project is not consistent with numerous LCP policies and development standards. These inconsistencies have not been evaluated in the MND or its Addendum.  The City represented to the public the low level of usage at Sunset Ridge Park was due to the small size of the parking lot. The City said it was concerned about pedestrians and bicycles safety crossing Superior Avenue via the crosswalk and that a bridge was needed to increase public safety, thereby increasing park usage. The public relied on these representations. The discovery in 2020 that the capacity of the parking lot is not the cause of the alleged low-level use at Sunset Ridge Park is new information which questions the need for and intent of the project. This information exposes the true goal of the project, to widen the intersection of Superior Avenue and WCH, remove the sidewalks and construct pedestrian and bicycle bridges to improve the efficiency and capacity of this intersection. The true intent of the project will significantly impact the analysis required by CEQA/NEPA, as well as the analysis required by the LCP.  In 2020, the City initiated a General Plan Circulation Element update. The Circulation Element Update could result in City-wide significant adverse impacts including impacts to sensitive coastal resources. The 101 David J. Tanner Page 36 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 City acknowledges the project’s potential to result in significant adverse impacts and retained a consultant to prepare an EIR. The project’s CEQA document must consider the General Plan update and address it accordingly.  The City Council modified the scope of the project on August 25, 2020. These changes are not incorporated in the Addendum to the MND. This modification merges the Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects creating one project being constructed in two phases. The linkage has the potential for significant adverse unavoidable impacts to sensitive coastal resources. An EIR is being prepared for Phase 2.  In November 2019 the public was told the project did not meeting the LCP’s 100-foot wetland buffer setback from the Superior Avenue wetlands. The Staff report and MND informed the public this impact was not considered a significant land use impact because there would be a less than significant biological impact to the wetlands with mitigation, in satisfaction of the LCP land use buffer policy. This was wrong. The public relied upon the City to correctly interpret the LCP. The discovery in 2020 that the project does not comply with this LCP Policy represents a significant land use impact, unless special circumstances are demonstrated. The City/MND claimed special circumstances, but failed to provide the analysis in support of this claim, a requirement of the LCP.  In 2019 the City informed the public the project was consistent with all LCP policies and development standards and that the height of the bridge, bridge abutments and retaining walls were permitted by the LCP and therefore, the project did not represent a significant land use impact to coastal resources. The City also represented that the only views regulated by the LCP were views toward the ocean from public property. Because the City is responsible for implementing its certified LCP, the public relied on these representations. Upon independent review of the Coastal Act/LCP in 2020 the Coastal Act/LCP does not limit view direction. It is clear the project will result in significant adverse unavoidable visual impacts to coastal resources. The public was not told the City did not consider the site a coastal bluff; the City did not consider the site a sensitive coastal resource area; and the City had incorrectly classified the project as a Government Facility in order to qualify the project for height variances. It is clear the project has the potential to result in significant unavoidable adverse environmental visual impacts to coastal resources.  The public was told by the City in 2019 the scope of the MND was adequate to address the environmental concerns of the Coastal Development Permit. The public relied on this Finding. The City and public learned from the Coastal Commission in 2020 through language in an appeal of another City approved Coastal Development Permit that “the standard of review for this appeal is the certified LCP. It should also be noted that CEQA policies are not the standard of review for this appeal” This statement by the Coastal Commission represents a significant change in the scope of environmental analysis required to satisfy a Coastal Development Permit. The environmental analysis has the potential to result in numerous potentially significant adverse unavoidable impacts to coastal resources. Thresholds of Significance Response: The City must apply any City adopted Thresholds of Significance, including the CEQA Checklist Guidelines Appendix G questions and any other thresholds established in the General Plan, Municipal Code or LCP. In this case, thresholds are provided by the intent of the LCP, the governing document for this area which states “To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views …”. The Municipal Code incorporates the LCP which contains a Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. Development within the Coastal Zone is governed by the LCP. The LCP requires that all development be consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code and that the Land Use Policies and Implementation Plan standards of the LCP supersede the City General Plan and Municipal Code. The Coastal Commission has told Staff this, yet Staff has failed to take heed. In the case of The Garden Office and Parking Structure project where a similar staff analysis and Coastal Development was approved by the City, then appealed to the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Commission noted: “the standard of review for this appeal is the certified LCP. It should also be noted that CEQA policies are not the standard of review for this appeal.” Therefore, the 102 David J. Tanner Page 37 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 proposed project fails to comply with the land use policies and implementation standards of the LCP and fails to provide the environmental analysis required by the LCP (21.50.070 Environmental Review) in order to make the required Coastal Development Permit Findings. Even if the Addendum to the prior MND were to be utilized as the sole environmental document, which it should not, the City has failed to conduct the environmental analysis required by the LCP. The Coastal Development Permit should be denied. Fair Argument Standard The fair argument standard of review is a unique version of the substantial evidence standard applied to Negative Declaration decisions Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15064(f)(1); Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley, 343 P.3d 834, 853 (2015). Under the fair argument standard, if project opponents have substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant environmental effect, an EIR must be prepared, even if the Lead Agency’s substantial evidence indicates lack of significant environmental effect. See 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15064(a)(1). Under the more deferential traditional substantial evidence standard of review typically applied to EIR contents, a Lead Agency analysis will be upheld as long as it supported by substantial evidence, even if project opponents have substantial evidence that would lead to a different conclusion. Because of these different standards of review, applicants and Lead Agencies often default to preparing EIRs if there is any controversy or opposition to a proposed project, even if it would otherwise qualify for a Negative Declaration. Substantial evidence includes facts, fact-based assumptions, and expert opinion. It does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion. Public controversy about a project alone is not substantial evidence but may be used to require an EIR in marginal cases when substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact is unclear. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15064(f)(4), 15384. Substantial evidence includes facts, fact-based assumptions, and expert opinion. It does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion. Public controversy about a project alone is not substantial evidence but may be used to require an EIR in marginal cases when substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact is unclear. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15064(f)(4), 15384. ________ Fair Argument Response: A fair argument can be made the project will have a potentially significant impact on land use. The proposed Project requires variances for retaining wall height, the bridge height, bridge abutments abutment height all of which exceed LCP development Implementation Plan Development Standards. The proposed Project does not meet the requirement of Section 21.30.040.C which requires that all wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. The proposed Project encroaches upon and impacts the Superior Avenue Wetlands. The project will result in the potential for a significant impact to land use because the project is inconsistent with the City General Plan (example G-Series Policies), and Municipal Code/LCP - IP requirements. A fair argument can be made the project bridge, abutments, retaining walls, and landscape (trees) will have a significant adverse visual impact from public viewpoints including adjacent segments of West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, a designated “Coastal View Road”, Sunset View Park, a designated “Public View Point” and Superior Ridge Park, a designated “Public View Point”. The analysis in the CEQA Addendum:  Fails to address the whole of the project.  Fails to adequately address cumulative impacts.  Fails to identify the project’s inconsistency with the LCP. 103 David J. Tanner Page 38 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663  Fails to address the project’s failure to meet the 100’ buffer from the Superior Avenue Wetlands required by the LCP Implementation Plan and LCP Land Use Policy 4.1.1-5 which states: “Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to preclude new development within and minimize impacts to ESHAs.” and LCP Land Use Policy 4.1.1-17 which states: “In conjunction with new development, require that all preserved ESHA, buffers, and all mitigation areas, onsite and offsite, be conserved/dedicated.” This impact is identified in the CDP Resolution.  Fails to address the project’s visual impacts from: 1.) various public locations along Superior Avenue, a designated Coastal View Road toward the ocean; and 2.) various public location along PCH and along Balboa Blvd. looking inland to toward Superior Avenue and the coastal bluffs.  Fails to discuss the impact of proposed vegetation (trees) on views.  Fails to address the impact to “Special Trees” covered by the City’s G-Series Policies.  Fails to address the impact of increased pedestrian traffic crossing West Coast Highway generated by the increased parking capacity of the proposed parking lot. Expert Opinion The appellant, an individual, is the President of Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc., a Newport Beach based firm which provides CEQA services. The appellant is considered an expert in the field, having provided CEQA services for over 45 years. The appellant’s expert opinion is that an adequate CEQA analysis based on the current project description will conclude the proposed Project (Phase 1) will result in significant adverse Land Use and Visual impacts requiring the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. The appellant’s expert opinion is that an adequate CEQA analysis based on the complete and correct project description (Phase 1 & 2) will conclude the proposed Project will result in significant adverse Land Use, Visual, Public Safety and Transportation impacts requiring the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. (Note: an EIR is already in process for Phase 2 of the project). _________ Project Description/Piecemealing The project description must include the project objectives, project location, and project characteristics. The project description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15124). See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003(c) and Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & Cty. of S.F., 174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 363, 377–79 (Ct. App. 2014). The CEQA process is often required to start early in the development process, and consequently detailed project information is not always known. Therefore, if flexibility or project options must be incorporated into the project description, the EIR should ensure that such options are disclosed and fully considered in the environmental analysis. SOMCAN v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal. App. 5th 321 (Ct. App. 2019). The project description should focus upon the underlying physical changes, even where the project includes planning or regulatory amendments. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15378(d). The project description is also required to include a list of permits and approvals, to the extent known. The project description must also include a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements. See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 392 P.3d 455, 466–67 (2017). The statement of project objectives should be carefully crafted to help later define a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly achieve them and may contain an underlying fundamental purpose. In re Bay-Delta etc., 184 P.3d 709, 723–24 (2008). While applicants may submit a statement of their project objectives, the project description should ultimately reflect the Lead Agency’s goals and objectives. 104 David J. Tanner Page 39 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Applicants should also ensure that any supporting infrastructure improvements have been disclosed and analyzed that are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project. Project opponents sometimes assert that a singular project has been impermissibly split into several smaller projects (referred to as piecemealing). E. Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento, 209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774, 784–85 (Ct. App. 2016). The project description should therefore be sure to include any reasonably foreseeable development that is anticipated to occur as a result of the project as described in entitlement applications, or other materials or statements released by the project applicant (e.g., roadway widening, tunnels, sewer lift stations, new water sources, and other infrastructure, as well as future project phases). Integrating CEQA with Other Environmental Laws To promote efficiency and reduce redundant duplicative environmental reviews, Lead Agencies are required to integrate CEQA, to the extent feasible, with other federal, state, and local environmental review requirements pursuant to Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15124(d), including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and other environmental laws. NEPA - State and local agencies are encouraged to prepare joint CEQA/NEPA environmental documents. When CEQA and NEPA requirements differ, the most stringent requirement of the two laws should be followed. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15221, 15222. ________ Project Description/Piecemealing Response The true scope and objectives of the project are to make intersection improvements to Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway; to expand the existing parking lot at Superior Ave.; to increase usage of Sunset Ridge Park and in so doing, increase pedestrian and bicycle safety at the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. The City has secured federal grants for the construction of Phase 1 and local Measure M2 grants for the design of Phase 2. City staff is continuing to seek grant funding opportunities for the construction of Phase 2. Final design plans for Phase 1 (the proposed Project) have been prepared and are awaiting approval. The City has contracted for planning, design and CEQA services for Phase 2. The Project Description:  Fails to identify the true scope and objectives of the project  Fails to provide a complete project history of all phases of the project.  Fails to identify federal and state agency involvement and environmental review requirements.  Fails to adequately scope the analysis to incorporate the project changes to Phase 1 approved by the City Council on August 25, 2020.  Fails to identify the project requires a Variance for relief from LCP Development Standards (height limits)  Fails to describe project improvements adequately for the purpose analyzing General Plan, Municipal Code, LCP compliance and CEQA analysis The City is Guilty of Piecemealing The 2019 project and the proposed Project are part of a larger project, the West Coast Highway Widening and Bridge project (WCH Bridge project). The City is portraying these projects as independent projects being administered separately. Numerous documents exist linking these two projects prior to the approval of the 2019 project through August, 2020 (See Sections 5 & 6 below). On October 18, 2018 The City submitted an application for OCTA’s Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Category (Planning Phase). The application is titled “City of 105 David J. Tanner Page 40 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2)”. The Phase 2 project is clearly active in 2018. The 27-page application contains detailed exhibits (see Figure 10) and specific information describing the planned improvements. October 23, 2019 The City submitted an application for OCTA’s Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Category (Planning Phase). The application is titled “City of Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2)”. The Phase 2 project is clearly active in 2019. The 27-page application contains detailed exhibits (see Figure 10) and specific information describing the planned improvements. In addition, project phases are clearly stated in the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Through 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program and the entirety of the project is described on August 25, 2020 prior to the Zoning Administrators actions on the project. While the City can portray these projects as independent projects being administered separately, pursuant to CEQA, given the linkage between the Superior Bridge project and the WCH Bridge project, the City’s action constitutes piecemealing. CEQA requires the analysis to address the whole of the action (project). Piecemealing occurs when lead agency’s (city) “chop up” a project into smaller components so that it can turn a “blind eye” to reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the “whole” action. CEQA’s prohibition on “piecemealing” of environmental review is animated by a basic recognition that the “whole” of an action under review is greater than its individual parts viewed separately. (The same important insight also underlies CEQA’s requirement to analyze a project’s cumulative impacts.) Therefore, the City’s actions on both the 2019 project ant the proposed project raises significant new issues which significantly exceed the levels of impact identified in the previous MND or its Addendum. Section 5. THE CEQA ADDENDUM/MND FAILS TO ADDRESS WHOLE OF THE ACTION. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT The 2019 project and the proposed Project are part of a larger project, the West Coast Highway Widening and Bridge project (WCH Bridge project). The City is portraying these projects as “independent” projects being administered separately. Numerous documents exist linking these two projects prior to the approval of the 2019 project through August, 2020. Below are a few examples:  Fiscal Year 2014-5 Capital Improvement Program19 “Traffic Projects organized under Traffic include traffic signal system maintenance and improvements, neighborhood traffic management, pedestrian improvements and signage. Projects within this category approximate $5 million and major highlights include: Bike Lane Projects East Coast Highway Traffic Signal Rehabilitation Mariners Mile Street Configuration and Land Use Review Pedestrian Crossings and Improvements at Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Signal Modernization Traffic Signal Rehabilitation, Equipment Maintenance and Modeling Traffic Signage, Striping, and Parking Lot Improvements”   19 Fiscal Year 2014-5 Capital Improvement Program, pg. 46: file:///B:/City%20of%20Newport%20Beach%20- %20Matters%20-%20General%20Plan/Superior%20Bridge/FiscalYear201415CapitalImp%20(see%20pg%2046).pdf   106 David J. Tanner Page 41 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 “This project begins work on studying possible pedestrian overcrossings and intersection improvements at the intersection of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. Work will include concept development, coordination with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) PCH Corridor Study, coordination with Sunset Ridge and Sunset View park developments, possible grant funding application, and working with State agencies on any necessary permits.”  March 2018 quotes by City officials and consultants:20 City Councilman Brad Avery, now Mayor Brad Avery who represents District 2, which covers the intersection, announced the grant at the Feb. 27 Council meeting. “The hope is that, down the line, another pedestrian and bicycle bridge across PCH will also constructed, he added. It will more easily connect people and cyclists to the beach and Balboa Peninsula.” “More links to the coast is good,” Avery said. At the February meeting, Avery noted that there was a lot of work “behind the scenes” on the getting the grant. “City staff worked hard to get that grant”, he commented. “The bridge has been under consideration for a while,” Sommers said. “The concept has been around for at least a decade”, Petros said. Superior Avenue at PCH has long been known to be a critical intersection in the city, Petros said. Discussions about how traffic can be relieved there, what can be done and what cost began early on. When he was on Council, Petros started to seek meetings with OCTA, Orange County Supervisor for Newport Beach Michelle Steel, and other interested parties. During City Council’s “early look” at the 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program on Tuesday, the bridge was mentioned in the Lower Sunset View Park Concept/Overcrossings project. The total $5.7 million budget includes both crossings (over Superior and eventually another over PCH) and landings and some additional site work, Public Works Director Dave Webb explained.  October 2018 – On October 17, 2018 the City submitted an application for OCT’s Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Category (Planning Phase). The application is titled “City of Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2).” The Phase 2 project is clearly active in 2018. The 27-page application contains detailed exhibits and specific information describing the planned improvements.  October 2019 - October 23, 2019 The City submitted an application for OCTA’s Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Category (Planning Phase). City of Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2). The Phase 2 project clearly remains active in 2019. The 27-page application contains detailed exhibits and specific information describing the planned improvements.   20 Newport Beach Independent March 15, 2018: Grant Awarded to Construct Pedestrian, Bicycle Bridge - Newport Beach News  107 David J. Tanner Page 42 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663  Fiscal Year 2020-21 Through 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program21 “Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway Intersection Improvements This multi-year project involves conceptual plan development, environmental clearance, final design, permitting and construction efforts. Phase 1 improvements include a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot and extending upper Sunset View park. Phase 2 improvements include widening and re-aligning West Coast Highway and a second pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing West Coast Highway. City staff was successful in securing federal grants for the construction of Phase 1 and local Measure M2 grants for the design of Phase 2. City staff will continue to seek grant funding opportunities for the construction of Phase 2. Final construction documents are being prepared by consultants.”  August 21, 2020, The Week in Review22 “The City Council will receive an update on proposed improvements to West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue which includes widening of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and pedestrian bridges across both Superior Avenue and PCH. This project received a $1.2 million dollar grant from OCTA. Staff is requesting modifications to the original conceptual design on Superior to integrate and coordinate with the bridge structure crossing PCH. This item is also on the regular City Council agenda for additional funding and approval of the new conceptual design.”  Newport Beach City Council Staff Report August 25, 2020, Agenda Item #1223 The WCH Bridge Project is described in the August 25, 2020 staff report as follows: “The WCH Bridge project involves widening West Coast Highway to increase vehicular capacity and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway. With the completion of both projects, sidewalks and two crosswalks at this intersection can be eliminated as pedestrians will be able to use the two new bridges and ramps. Eliminating two crosswalks and moving the pedestrians from the street level to the bridges and ramps will significantly improve pedestrian access and safety. This will also greatly improve traffic signal operation and vehicular circulation by allowing more traffic signal green time for vehicles traveling through the intersection. The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project.” (Pg. 12-3) “At the time that the conceptual design for the Superior Avenue Bridge project was approved, staff was not actively working on the WCH Bridge project. A staircase from the West Coast Highway sidewalk to the top of the Superior Avenue bridge was proposed as part of the approved conceptual design. This staircase would eventually need to be removed to accommodate the widening and realignment of West Coast Highway. Since funding for the design of the WCH Bridge project is now available, staff recommends eliminating the temporary staircase from the Superior Avenue Bridge project. In the interim, the general public will be able to access the parking lot and Superior Avenue bridge via the existing sidewalks.” (Pg. 12-4)   21 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Through 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program, pg.71: file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/K5DE2ALX/ADOPTEDCIPFiscalYear202021 %20pg%2071.pdf 22 The Week in Review, August 21, 2020: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=67445 23 Newport Beach City Council Staff Report August 25, 2020, Agenda Item #12 https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/Web/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2564600&page=1&cr=1)  108 David J. Tanner Page 43 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 A detailed description of the WCH Widening and Bridge project’s work plan including anticipated design features and anticipated environmental (CEQA) analysis is contained in Attachments B and C (Amendments to Professional Service Agreements) and Attachment D (Concrete Arch Bridge Conceptual Design) to the Staff Report. Section 6. PROJECT HISTORY  2014 - Pedestrian Crossings and Improvements at Superior and Pacific Coast Highway have been identified in City Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) for many years. A quote from the 2014-15 CIP is provided below: Pedestrian Crossings and Improvements at Superior and Pacific Coast Highway “This project begins work on studying possible pedestrian overcrossings and intersection improvements at the intersection of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. Work will include concept development, coordination with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) PCH Corridor Study, coordination with Sunset Ridge and Sunset View park developments, possible grant funding application, and working with State agencies on any necessary permits.”  May 2015 – The City submits a grant application with Caltrans pursuant to the Active Transportation Program (ATP). The ATP is a competitive statewide grant program created under Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354). The main purpose of this program is to encourage and increase the use of non-motorized active modes of transportation such as walking, bicycling and to promote a healthy lifestyle to name a few. The application describes the project as the Superior Bridge only (no new parking lot).  May 2016 – The City submits an application for OCTA's Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program for Newport Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Project.  October 2018 – On October 17, 2018 the City submitted an application for OCT’s Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Category (Planning Phase). The application is titled “City of Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2).” The Phase 2 project is clearly active in 2018. The 27-page application contains detailed exhibits (see Figure 10) and specific information describing the planned improvements. The application justifies the project need in answering a ‘Reduced Traffic Congestion and Delay” question in part as follows: “Although the intersection LOS calculations only show a slight improvement with the implementation of this project, there is a significant improvement in terms of delay that motorists will experience due to the proposed removal of the crosswalk across West Coast Highway. Given the high ADT on West Coast Highway, this critical east-west vehicular movement is often times delayed by pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the highway. This intersection, especially in the opposing north-south direction experiences a high volume of pedestrians and bicyclist due to the proximity of Balboa Peninsula. The construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge will allow the elimination of the at-grade crosswalk, which will in turn add a significant amount of traffic signal time to the critical east-west vehicular movement, ultimately reducing delay” The City’s explanation, supported by technical analysis and engineered exhibits clearly shows the main benefit of the Project is to WCH east/west traffic flow through the removal of the north/south crosswalk. 109 David J. Tanner Page 44 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663  December 2018 – The City enters into Cooperative Agreement No. C-8-1898 between Orange County Transportation Authority and City of Newport Beach for The Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program Project Newport Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Project.  June 2019 – During this period there were numerous communications with Caltrans to determine who prepares the environmental documents. It is clear that Caltrans knew the project was phased. For example: “For the phase I bridge project over Superior, how much of the work is taking place in the Caltrans right of way, or is our r/w involved at all? I’m still trying to determine whether this would be appropriately handled as an oversight project (on the State highway system) or as a Local Assistance project (off the State highways). If the former, then Caltrans would be both the NEPA and CEQA lead, but if the latter, then the City would do its own CEQA, and Caltrans would approve only the NEPA doc.”24  October 2019 - October 23, 2019 The City submitted an application for OCTA’s Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Category (Planning Phase). The application is titled “City of Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2).” The Phase 2 project is clearly active in 2019. The 27-page application contains detailed exhibits and specific information describing the planned improvements.  November 2019 - At the November 19, 2020 City Council hearing the Phase 1 of the project was presented for Council consideration and approval in concept. Staff recommended approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). This was defined as a City Public Works Department initiated project. The City was identified as the Lead Agency for implementation of CEQA. At that hearing the Phase 1 project was presented to the public as the whole of the project, no mention of a Phase 2 project component. The 2019 project contained several controversial components including the grading/removal of a lookout point, creation of a dog park, expansion of the existing parking lot and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue. The Staff report stated “The primary goals of this project are to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to increase parking availability.” The project did not comply with the City Zoning Code or the City LCP Implementation Plan. Variances were required for the height of each of the 3 bridge alternative designs, bridge abutments and retaining walls to create the expansion of the parking lot. All of the potentially significant environmental impacts such as, the visual impact from the bridge or the visual impact to the change in land from site grading subject to CEQA were deemed to be less than significant as with the case for visual impacts, or potentially significant but with adoption of mitigation measures less than significant with the case of wetland impacts. The City Council took action at the November 19, 2019 approving in concept a modified version of the 2019 project presented to them. They voted to retain the lookout point, expand the Sunset View Park, eliminate the dog park and proceed with the detailed design of one of 3 bridge designs, the demolition of the existing metered surface parking lot construction of a new expanded metered surface parking lot. The City Council approved the draft MND for the project, adopted Findings in support of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and adopted Resolutions for the variances and CEQA document. In approving 2019 CDP the City found the 2019 project was consistent LCP Land Use Plan and all development standards contained in the LCP-Implementation Plan. The documents presented to the Council acknowledged a portion of the project area was outside the City LCP permit authority and subject to Coastal Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit   24 June 7, 2019 email from Charles Baker (Caltrans) to Andy Tran (City)   110 David J. Tanner Page 45 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Amendment (CDP 5-11-302). None of the documents or discussion at the Council hearing mentioned Phase 2 improvements to Pacific Coast Highway at Superior Avenue. As part of this agenda item the City Council approved, a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with Dokken Engineering for professional engineering services for the Superior Avenue Bridge project. The PSA scope of work involved preparation of construction documents for a new pedestrian bridge across Superior Avenue and a new larger parking lot. These PSAs were a part of the 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program.  January 2020 - With City Council adoption of Resolution 2020-4 on January 14, 2020, staff submitted a funding application (they had previously prepared) to OCTA under the CTFP for Phase 2, the WCH Bridge project. The funding application was approved.  August 2020 - On August 25, 2020 the City Council approved Amendments to Professional Services Agreements with both Chambers Group, Inc. and Dokken Engineering and changes to the conceptual design of the Superior Avenue pedestrian bridge structure. These Amendments “are needed to complete the environmental review and design services, respectively, for the WCH Bridge project. Staff is also recommending a revision to the approved conceptual design related to the Superior Avenue pedestrian bridge structure.” Staff explained the relationship between these roadway improvements as follows: “The proposed improvements for both projects involve improving the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Although these two projects are separate, they are immediately adjacent to one another. The Superior Avenue Bridge project involves constructing a new pedestrian bridge across Superior Avenue and a new larger parking lot. The new pedestrian bridge will improve access to Sunset Ridge Park and the new larger parking lot will provide additional parking for visitors to Sunset Ridge Park and the beach. The WCH Bridge project involves widening West Coast Highway to increase vehicular capacity and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway. With the completion of both projects, sidewalks and two crosswalks at this intersection can be eliminated as pedestrians will be able to use the two new bridges and ramps. Eliminating two crosswalks and moving the pedestrians from the street level to the bridges and ramps will significantly improve pedestrian access and safety. This will also greatly improve traffic signal operation and vehicular circulation by allowing more traffic signal green time for vehicles traveling through the intersection.” The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project. Because of the proximity of these two projects, they will need to be closely coordinated Staff explained funding for this project as follows: “The adopted FY 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program budget includes sufficient funding for the environmental and design services. The services will be expensed to the FFP Parks/Community Centers Account No. 56201-980000-15T09 and Measure M Competitive Account No. 1230050-980000-15T09 in the Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway Intersection Improvements project (15T09).” As of August 25, 2020, the City had secured federal grants for the construction of Phase 1 and local Measure M2 grants for the design of Phase 2. City staff is continuing to seek grant funding opportunities for the construction of Phase 2. Final design plans for Phase 1 (the proposed Project) have been prepared and are awaiting approval. The City has contracted for planning, design and CEQA services for Phase 2.  December 9, 2020 – On December 9, 2020 the City Civil Engineer submits a Section 4(f) De Minimis Memorandum to Caltrans District 12 - Division of Environmental Planning. 111 David J. Tanner Page 46 of 46 Supporting Information, Appeal (PA2019-014) 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 No information about this process has been provided to the public. Section 4(f) applies whenever a federal (USDOT) action involves the use of a publicly-owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land from a historic site. Such land may be used for Federal- aid highway projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative and all possible planning has been taken to avoid the use of a 4(f) property or to minimize harm to any 4(f) property affected by the project. Each project proposal must include a 4(f) avoidance alternative.  December 10, 2020 - On December 10, 2020 the City Zoning Administrator approved the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014), Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2019-002 and Resolution 2020-082. (the Phase 1 project) The Zoning Administrator’s Findings concluded the proposed Project conformed to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary actions; that the proposed Project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program and therefore entitles the City to apply to the Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit. (LCP Section 21.52.015.1)  December 28, 2020 - On December 28, 2020, a Public Records Request was filed by the Appellant with the City for information on this project. The requested information was received on 1-29-21.  January 2020 - On January 4, 2021 the Zoning Administrator’s approval(s) was appealed to the Planning Commission.25 - END -   25 These comments supplement the appeal application and prior comments submitted to the Zoning Administrator on December 9, 2020. (Note: No responses to the December 9th comment letter have been received from the Zoning Administrator or City Staff. However, staff has reached out and verbally explained the way the bridge height was calculated and the project’s anticipated effect on signal timing on West Coast Highway.) 112 Attachment No. PC 7 Staff Responses to Appellant Letter 113 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE114 Responses to Appeal Supplemental Information 1. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (Superior Avenue Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On August 25, 2020, City Council approved a revised single- span concrete bridge conceptual design rather than the original multi-span design. To remain consistent with CEQA requirements and due to this design change, the City prepared an Addendum to the MND to evaluate potential impacts of the change. As noted in the MND Addendum, no new or more significant impacts would occur as a result of the project changes, therefore, an Addendum was determined to be the appropriate document to analyze the minor change in bridge design and addition of the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project (“West Coast Highway Project” or “WCH Project”) as a potentially cumulative project. 2. Consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program certification, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) retains permit jurisdiction over existing coastal development permits (CDPs). Sunset Ridge Park has an existing CDP issued by the CCC. The bridge abutment within Sunset Ridge Park is therefore subject to review by the CCC. Portions of the project not located in Sunset Ridge Park are within the City’s permit jurisdiction. City staff previously consulted with CCC staff with regard to jurisdiction and CDP authority and received direction and concurrence that two CDPs are the appropriate entitlement path for the project. 3. CDPs are evaluated based on their own facts and circumstances against the polices and regulations of the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code. Approval of a CDP in a particular area such as West Coast Highway does not set a precedent or predispose decision makers to approve future projects along West Coast Highway. The previous decision to approve a CDP does not dictate approval of a future project because, when making quasi-judicial decisions, each project is unique and requires application of a different set of facts in order to make the appropriate findings. 4. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the proposed project, including the MND pursuant to CEQA. The Council’s action included waiving Zoning Code development standards and use permit requirements, consistent with NBMC Section 20.10.040 (Applicability of Zoning Code), which allows specific City-implemented projects to be exempted from the Zoning Code. 115 5. As detailed in facts of support of findings in the draft resolution, the proposed Superior Avenue Project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. 6. Refer to Response Nos. 1, 4, and 5. 7. The Superior Avenue Project does not involve any modifications to the existing vehicular travel lanes on West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. As stated by the City Traffic Engineer in an email to the appellant on September 26, 2019, “For the Superior Bridge project, the CEQA Transportation analysis was appropriate because there is no trip generation associated with the project.” Council Policy K- 3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act) which implements, in pertinent part, SB 743 requires a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for Land Use or Transportation Projects that meet basic screening requirements. In this case, the Project does not meet any of the screening criteria set forth in Section H.2.b but, more importantly, it would not meet any of the significance thresholds set forth in Section H.3.b since the creation of a pedestrian /bicycle bridge would not induce vehicle travel. Additionally, as noted in the MND Addendum, no new or more significant impacts would occur as a result of the project changes. Based upon the above, a VMT analysis is not required. 8. The Superior Avenue Project is an independent stand-alone project, not a component of a phased project. Under CEQA, the lead agency must consider the “whole of an action” when determining whether it will have significant environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15003, subd. (h), 15378, subd. (a).) This rule is designed to prevent an agency from “chopping a large project into many little ones” that may be individually insignificant but have cumulatively significant environmental effects. Breaking a single project into smaller parts and analyzing those parts separately is often referred to as “piecemealing” or “segmentation.” (See also, CEQA Guidelines, §§15165, 15168.) The California Supreme Court has adopted the following test for determining whether unlawful piecemealing has occurred. An agency must analyze a future expansion or other action as part of the initial project “if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21065 [defining “project”].) Absent these two circumstances, the two proposals are not the same “project” and the lead agency may analyze them separately. In this case, the Superior Avenue project is not in any way, a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the West Coast Highway project, or vice versa. They are completely independent with one project providing safe passage 116 of pedestrians and cyclists north and south with the other providing safe passage of pedestrians east and west. 9a. During the August 25, 2020, City Council meeting, staff recommended approval of Professional Services Agreement (PSA) amendments with Chambers Group and Dokken Engineering to complete environmental and engineering design services, respectively. These services were for the WCH Project. The City received grant funding for these services for the WCH Project on May 11, 2020; three months prior to the approval of these PSA amendments. Staff would not have made these recommendations to City Council if the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) grant funds were not available. The WCH Project does not involve any Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds. 9b. The grant funding for the design of the WCH Project is part of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Project O funding program. This funding program is further divided into 3 sub-categories: • Arterial Capacity Enhancements (ACE) • Intersection Capacity Enhancements (ICE) • Freeway Arterial/Streets Transitions (FAST) The City’s OCTA grant for the WCH Project is under the Project O ICE program since the project involves intersection enhancements and does not “increase roadway capacity” as indicated, which would be under the ACE sub-category. The Superior Avenue Project involves federal grant funding as part of the Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program (BCIP), which specifically involves bicycle mobility and safety (i.e. pedestrian/bicycle bridge) and does not involve any roadway capacity improvement 10. Refer to Response No. 9. 11. City staff submitted several grant funding applications for both the Superior Avenue Project and the WCH Project since 2015. Unfortunately, the City was unsuccessful with the earlier grant funding applications. On February 12, 2018, OCTA Board approved the BCIP federal grant funding for the construction of the Superior Avenue Project. With the approval of this grant funding, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Chambers Group to begin the environmental analysis for the Superior Avenue Project in April 2019. The Superior Avenue Project schedule is several years ahead of the WCH Project. As part of the OCTA funding application for the WCH Project, staff assumed that the Superior Avenue Project would be completed prior to the start of construction of the WCH Project. Accordingly, the description shown in the OCTA funding application reflects the completion dates? of both projects. The draft City 117 Resolution as well as the “detailed exhibits” were all required documents per the funding application guidelines. 12. Refer to Response No. 11. 13. In August 2020, the City publicly accepted the OCTA grant fund for the WCH Project. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) federal funding for the Superior Avenue Project was secured on February 12, 2018. Other than preparing materials for the funding applications, the WCH Project was not “active and on- going”. 14. Refer to Response No. 8. To further describe the differences between the Superior Avenue Project and the WCH Project, the West Coast Highway Project is not a “consequence” of the Superior Avenue Project. Each project serves its own independent utility and could move forward separate and independent of each other. More specifically, the decision in 2018 to fund, design and entitle the Superior Avenue Project was made regardless of when or if the West Coast Highway Project was ever funded, designed, entitled and built. In other words, each project is not reliant upon each other or a consequence of each other. In applying the second element of the test, no changes to the scope, nature or the environmental effects of the Superior Avenue Project would result as a consequence of the West Coast Highway Project. Refer also to Response No. 51. It should be noted that a component of the West Coast Highway Project contemplates removing two existing crosswalks (one across West Coast Highway and one across Superior Avenue). Again, removal of crosswalks is not being contemplated as a part of the Superior Avenue Project. The appellant has stated opposition to the proposed removal of the crosswalks and believes the possibility of crosswalk removal at Superior Avenue links the two projects together. While improving pedestrian/bicycle safety and improving traffic light signalization are goals of the West Coast Highway Project, it would be speculative at this time to assume the final project designs will include the removal of one or both of the crosswalks until the designs have been completed, fully analyzed and vetted with outside agencies such as CalTrans and California Coastal Commission. Given the appellant’s interest and opposition to both projects, as well as stated concerns about crosswalk removal from California Coastal Commission staff, it remains uncertain at this time if crosswalk removal will ultimately be a part of the final scope of work/design for the West Coast Highway project and is therefore not (emphasis added) a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Superior Avenue Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)(3), states “An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.” 118 15. The design of the WCH Project was not fully funded until the OCTA Board formally approved the City’s funding application on May 11, 2020. 16. Refer to Response No. 14. 17. The WCH Project does not involve any state or federal funding. Because of the existing CDP for Sunset Ridge Park and the fact the West Coast Highway is currently under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City will be coordinating permitting requirements with both the Coastal Commission and Caltrans. 18. Both a CEQA and a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document were completed for the Superior Avenue Project. A NEPA document was required due to the federal funding that was provided for the Project. Although Chambers Group drafted a proposal that included an option to prepare a joint CEQA/NEPA document, after coordination with Caltrans, it was determined that separate documents would be more appropriate. 19. The proposal prepared in response to the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP) proposed to prepare an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA), the findings of which will inform whether the Project proceeds with a Finding of No Significant Impact/Negative Declaration (FONSI/ND) or FONSI/Mitigated Negative Declaration (FONSI/MND). Therefore, the proposal prepared for the Superior Avenue Project anticipated the preparation of these potential documents. No predetermination was made, and if an EIR was determined to be the more appropriate document due to unmitigable impacts or due to levels of public controversy, the type of CEQA or NEPA documentation including a potential EIR or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would have been considered. As noted in the proposal, “Based on current preliminary Project information, this proposal assumes that all potentially significant impacts identified will be mitigable.” If impacts were not mitigable, a higher level of CEQA and/or NEPA documentation would have resulted in a contract amendment and a revision in scope. The preparation of a proposal does not predetermine which CEQA or NEPA document will be prepared, it simply provides a scope and cost for the agency to consider when evaluating proposals from multiple consulting firms. 20. Although joint CEQA/NEPA documents are permissible and sometimes preferred documents for projects that require both types of documentation, joint documents are certainly not required. In fact, if lead agencies operate on different timeframes, it is usually advantageous to use separate CEQA and NEPA documents. CEQA Guidelines Section 15222, which is referenced in the comment is simply guidance on preparing joint EIS/EIRs or MND/FONSIs under specific circumstances. In addition, the Caltrans reference is regarding the Caltrans Standard Environmental 119 Reference which provides guidance and formats for preparing Caltrans documents where Caltrans is a lead agency, including joint documents. As noted in the comment, the City and Chambers Group worked in close coordination with the Caltrans Local Assistance Program office on the NEPA documentation including determining the appropriate NEPA document and technical studies needed. 21. Staff has been coordinating with Caltrans since March 2019 to remove a small portion of the scenic easement in order to construct the west bridge abutment on the Sunset Ridge Park property. This scenic easement is shown in the 2006 Caltrans Director’s Deed, which is recorded with the Orange County Assessor’s Office. Caltrans is agreeable with the removal of a portion of the scenic easement for the construction of the west bridge abutment. The attached letter from Caltrans demonstrates their commitment and mutual understanding. 22. The appellant incorrectly states that a coastal development permit was approved by the City Council for the project in November 2019. In actuality, on November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the Superior Avenue Project, the MND, adopted an exemption from development standards as authorized in Section 20.40.040 of the NBMC, and approved a PSA with Dokken Engineering to proceed with the design. The Zoning Administrator approved the coastal development permit for the project, along with the MND Addendum, on December 10, 2020. 23. Refer to Response No. 14. 24. The NEPA process was concluded through Caltrans’ filing of the Categorical Exclusion Determination Form on January 13, 2020. The 2019 MND, which should be considered with the MND Addendum, does disclose Caltrans as the NEPA lead agency for the NEPA-related processes 25. The City, along with Chambers Group, worked with the Local Assistance Program office of Caltrans to process the NEPA documentation. The draft Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) was prepared very early in the environmental process and is intended to be considered as a checklist to determine what additional studies or analysis would be needed for the Superior Avenue Project. Caltrans based its NEPA determination and reporting requirements on the analysis completed for the Superior Avenue Project, which was the project under consideration and for which funding had been approved. 26. The project proposed in the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) is for the Superior Avenue Project and does not include the WCH Project. The PES was prepared in July 2019 and the OCTA grant for the WCH Project was secured on 120 May 11, 2020. The Superior Avenue Project is a stand-alone project and will be “designed in one phase with no future construction proposed.” 27. The Project site is located north of West Coast Highway and was initially determined to not be adjacent to streams, drivers, bays, inlets, lakes, and drainage sloughs. 28. As noted above, a PES is intended to be considered as a checklist to determine what additional studies or analysis would be needed for the Project. At the time the PES was written, the Project site had not been specifically evaluated for the presence of wetlands, which would have included a site-specific survey of soil types and plant species. 29. The PES document did note that the pedestrian and bicycle bridge could have the potential to cause visual impacts, which is why visual simulations were prepared for the Superior Avenue Project to further assess the level of impacts including interrupting views of the coastline or blocking views from scenic viewpoints. 30. The Superior Avenue Project “would occur within the City’s right-of-way and would not encroach on federal or state lands/” Also refer to Response No. 21 regarding the scenic easement. Refer to the attached Director’s Deeds for proof of ownership. 31. Comment noted, a CEQA MND and a NEPA Categorical Exclusion were determined to be the appropriate environmental documents for the Superior Avenue Project. As noted in Response No. 20, the NEPA determination was made through discussions with Caltrans, and in preparation of a PES. 32. As noted in the City’s LCP, a coastal bluff is “a bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. Many coastal bluffs consist of a gently sloping upper bluff and a steeper lower bluff or sea cliff. The term ‘coastal bluff’ refers to the entire slope between a marine terrace or upland area and the sea.” In addition, the City’s LCP defines Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas as “those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity.” As noted in the LCP, these areas could include special marine and land habitat areas, areas possessing significant recreational value, highly scenic areas, archaeological sites, and special communities, among others. The 2019 MND and subsequent MND Addendum did not identify the Superior Avenue Project area as a coastal bluff or a sensitive coastal resource area, as the nature of the Project site was already developed in nature and included fill material that was previously deposited at the site. Further, the Project is located outside of the bluff overlay, the area for which protections for bluff development are afforded. If portions of the Project site are determined to be 121 on a coastal bluff, that would not change the impact determinations made in the CEQA documents (2019 MND or 2020 MND Addendum). 33. This comment appears to imply that the goal of the Superior Avenue Project is to widen the West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue intersection, which is false. As noted in the 2019 MND, the objectives of the Superior Avenue 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.” (This portion of the Project was later revised to remove the dog park.) The project that the appellant mentions that includes the widening of the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway is a separate and distinct project (WCH Project) that has independent function and utility and was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the 2019 MND was prepared. 34. Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) states: “Governmental facility (land use) means a structure owned, operated, or occupied by the City of other governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public (e.g. City Hall, community recreation center, post office, library, etc.).” The proposed Superior Avenue Project meets this definition, and is a government facility. 35. Refer to Response No. 32. 36. Refer to Response Nos. 8 and 11. 37. The Superior Avenue Project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. Superior Avenue, is identified as a coastal view road. The bridge is designed to preserve the existing view lines and minimize the potential for visual obstruction. The proposed bridge does not block the public views of the coast from the higher elevations of either park. A visual impact analysis and aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the MND and Addendum, including visual simulations of the Superior Avenue Project as viewed from above (Superior Avenue, Sunset Ridge 122 Park, Sunset View Park) and below (West Coast Highway), and impacts were found to be less than significant. In addition, the Superior Avenue Project includes expanded view opportunities from the plaza and benches at the elevated parking lot, from the bridge itself, and from the expanded open space area of Sunset View Park. Land use and planning impacts were reviewed as a part of the MND and found to have no impact. The Superior Avenue Project will not physically divide an established community and would instead provide a needed connection between a parking lot and an existing park for bicycle and pedestrian users. This project will maintain current land uses and better support the existing recreational uses. 38. As noted in the 2019 MND, and in Appendix B-1 of the MND, the trees that are located in the existing parking lot are introduced and ornamental trees, and these trees will be replaced with new trees as well as drought-tolerant landscaping. New trees will be installed in accordance with the tree planting specifications and street tree designation list by the City of Newport Beach. There is one “Dedicated Special Tree” as identified in the City Council Policy G-1. Staff has been coordinating with the City Arborist to relocate or replant this one tree. The relocation of this Dedicated Special Tree will require approval from the City’s Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. 39. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the proposed Superior Avenue Project, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Council’s action included waiving Zoning Code development standards and use permit requirements, consistent with NBMC Section 20.10.040 (Applicability of Zoning Code), which allows specific City-implemented projects to be exempted from the Zoning Code. Therefore, no variance from the Zoning Code is required. The coastal development permit includes analysis and facts in support of findings for increased height of the bridge structure, consistent with NBMC Section 21.30.060.C (Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limit) and relief from retaining wall height development standards, consistent with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards). 40. One purpose of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan is to “Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources” (NBMC Section 21.10.020.B [Purpose and Applicability of the Implementation Plan – Purpose]). As detailed in the facts in support of findings in the draft resolution, the Superior Avenue Project conforms with all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program, and is therefore consistent with the purpose of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. 123 41. One purpose of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan is “To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views and access; and ensure that growth, development, and environmental management is conducted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Land Use Plan” (NBMC Section 21.10.020.G [Purpose and Applicability of the Implementation Plan – Purpose]). As detailed in the facts in support of findings in the draft resolution, the Superior Avenue Project conforms with all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program, and is therefore consistent with the purpose of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. 42. Staff’s findings, analysis and conclusions are provided in multiple Superior Avenue Project documents to inform the public and decision makers. 43. Consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program certification, the CCC retains permit jurisdiction over existing CDPs. Sunset Ridge Park has an existing CDP issued by the CCC. The bridge abutment within Sunset Ridge Park is therefore subject to review by the CCC. Portions of the project not located in Sunset Ridge Park are within the City’s permit jurisdiction. City staff previously consulted with CCC staff with regard to jurisdiction and CDP authority and received direction and concurrence that two CDPs are the appropriate entitlement path for the project. 44. This comment is related to the application pending with the Coastal Commission for the bridge abutment portion of the project that is subject to direct Coastal Development Permit Review by the Coastal Commission. The application pending with the Coastal Commission has been deemed incomplete and City staff will provide any documents requested by Coastal Commission staff including environmental documents to facilitate the CCC’s completeness review. 45. Comment noted. The 2019 MND and 2020 MND Addendum were not intended to be the sole standard of review for LCP compliance; however, the 2019 MND and 2020 MND Addendum did provide consistency analysis with both the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, including the land use policies, implementation standards, and environmental concerns specific to the City-certified LCP and Coastal Act, in specific issue areas, as appropriate. 46. Refer to Response No. 5. 47. The purpose of NBMC Chapter 21.30A (Public Access and Recreation) is to provide “standards for the preservation, dedication, and improvement of public access to and along the shoreline and coastal bluff tops, in conjunction with development in the coastal zone. The intent is to ensure that public rights of access to the shoreline are protected as guaranteed by the California Constitution, and 124 achieve the basic State goals of maximizing public access to the coast and public recreational opportunities, as set forth in the Coastal Act (Sections 30000 through 30900); to implement the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (Sections 30210 through 30255) and the applicable policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan; and where feasible, expanded and enhanced; to ensure public access to coastal bluff tops. The public access procedures and standards of this chapter shall be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public’s constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution” (NBMC Section 21.30A.010 [Public Access and Recreation - Purpose]). The intent of this chapter is to enhance and maximize public access; not to require justification of expanded public access. 48. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, states that “an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” This requirement for the preparation and analysis of alternatives is limited only to EIR preparation. Since the appropriate CEQA document for the Superior Avenue Project was determined to be a MND, a detailed alternatives analysis is not required. 49. Refer to Response No. 47. 50. Per Title 21, Section 21.30B.040.C 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.” 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 Superior Avenue Project. 125 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 environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). The adjacent habitat is very disturbed and dominated by ornamental landscape vegetation, non-native weeds, and bare ground. The Superior Avenue Project meets the two exceptions noted above. Although proposed construction activities will occur within 100 feet of both wetland areas, impacts to these wetlands will be prevented through the implementation of 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. Therefore, given the available information and analysis provided in the 2019 MND, 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 BIO-5. For the allowance of an increase in the maximum allowable height of the Superior Avenue Project components, the Single Span Concrete Arch bridge design will be 11 feet tall with a superstructure approximately 20 feet above asphalt surface. Per the requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan, and the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 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 Avenue and West Coast Highway while providing a safe access route for pedestrians between the parking lot and Sunset Ridge Park. 126 51. Cumulative impacts are considered in Section 4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance, for both the 2019 MND and 2020 MND Addendum. These documents identify future potential projects and the potential impacts that can be determined at the time of the document writing. CEQA prohibits the speculative analysis of future projects when details have not yet been determined. Therefore, the West Coast Highway Project was included in the cumulative analysis; however, since the design has not been finalized for this project, meaningful analysis could not be completed as it would be speculative in nature. Based on what was known at the time of writing the 2019 MND and 2020 MND Addendum, cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant. 52. Refer to Response No. 1. 53. The Caltrans statement noted was a comment sent in an email response to a draft PES that was provided early on in the NEPA process. During the NEPA analysis process and after submittal of the finalized PES, a Visual Impact Assessment Technical (VIA) Memo was provided to assess the visual impacts of the Superior Avenue Project. After coordination with Caltrans on the technical support analyses, Caltrans accepted the VIA Technical Memo. At the time of the Superior Avenue Project consideration, including the City Council Meeting, the only potential public issue was associated with the proposed dog park and the grading associated with it. During the City Council Meeting, it was decided to remove the dog park from the Project and provide an open space area that preserves as much of the existing topography as possible. The Caltrans NEPA document and associated technical studies have already been approved and filed, and since no new impacts would occur with the proposed Project changes noted in the MND Addendum, no new NEPA documentation is required. 54. City staff have reviewed and responded to all the alleged “LCP policy and development plan conflicts” submitted by the appellant. None of the alleged conflicts could be substantiated. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to “re-evaluate” the project, the appellant’s allegations and the City’s responses at the appeal hearing. 55. A coastal development permit application for the portions of the project that are within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction was submitted to the California Coastal Commission on November 5, 2020. The application was deemed incomplete on December 4, 2020. There is no variance application included with the coastal development permit application to the California Coastal Commission. 56. City staff supports the rights of all individuals to question and appeal decisions. 127 57. Comment noted. It is accurate that the coastal development permit is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. 58. The appellant’s recommendation is noted and will be conveyed to the Planning Commission. 59. The City acknowledges the appellant’s letter is part of the public record. 60. The City currently owns all real properties required for the Superior Avenue Project. The “Unidentified Property Ownership” as shown in Figure 3 was the former Superior Avenue alignment. Superior Avenue was realigned to its current location in 1982. This area was public right-of-way prior to the realignment. As part of the Superior Avenue Project, the City will adjust all lot lines to accurately depict ownership. Refer to the attached Director’s Deeds for proof of ownership. APNs 424-041-11 and 424-041-13 (the existing parking lot) will be redeveloped into a new larger parking lot to remain consistent with the Caltrans dedication and previous environmental mitigation requirements. The proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge will connect to the western edge of the parking lot which will enhance access to the parking lot and Sunset Ridge Park. 61. To the west of the Superior Avenue centerline is within the City’s public right-of- way. 62. Refer to Response No. 2. 63. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the proposed project, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Council’s action included waiving Zoning Code development standards and use permit requirements, consistent with NBMC Section 20.10.040 (Applicability of Zoning Code), which allows specific City-implemented projects to be exempted from the Zoning Code. City Council had an option to approve a dog park as a part of the project at the north end of the project site; however, the Council choose to eliminate the dog park option. Consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program certification, the CCC retains permit jurisdiction over existing CDPs. Sunset Ridge Park has an existing CDP issued by the CCC. The bridge abutment within Sunset Ridge Park is therefore subject to review by the CCC. Portions of the project not located in Sunset Ridge Park are within the City’s permit jurisdiction. City staff previously consulted with CCC staff with regard to jurisdiction and CDP authority and received direction and concurrence that two CDPs are the appropriate entitlement path for the project. A coastal 128 development permit application for the portions of the project that are within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction was submitted to the California Coastal Commission on November 5, 2020. 64. Refer to Response No. 55. 65. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the proposed project, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Council’s action included waiving Zoning Code development standards and use permit requirements, consistent with NBMC Section 20.10.040 (Applicability of Zoning Code), which allows specific City-implemented projects to be exempted from the Zoning Code. There was no variance requested. 66. The construction of a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge will improve safety and access as pedestrians will be able to use the bridge instead of the existing crosswalk. The proposed parking lot will have 130 parking spaces, which is 66 more spaces than the existing parking lot, which only has 64 parking spaces. The proposed larger parking lot will increase parking availability. 67. Refer to Response No. 47. 68. The City does not currently program Sunset Ridge Park to its capacity due to insufficient parking for organized sporting events. With the completion of the larger parking lot, the City will be able to better utilize the park for sporting events. Sunset Ridge Park is an active sports park with one baseball field and two soccer fields. During a typical weekend while organized sports is in season, 8 to 10 teams may be scheduled to use the fields. Assuming 30 participants and spectators per team, there can be 300 individuals at Sunset Ridge Park (not all at the same time) in one day. This estimate exceeds 16,000 visitors per year. 69. Visitors to Sunset Ridge Park as well as the nearby beach both use the existing parking lot. Sporting event participants will cross Superior Avenue to access Sunset Ridge Park while visitors to the beach will cross West Coast Highway to access the beach. 70. As indicated in the first sentence of the appellant’s comment, the City has received multiple complaints from the adjacent Newport Crest community regarding illegal parking by Sunset Ridge Park visitors. The Sunset Ridge Park EIR identified the need for 97 parking spaces for the park. Sunset Ridge Park was constructed without any on-site parking. Visitors to the park currently use the existing parking lot. This existing lot was constructed as a mitigation measure for the removal of on-street parking when West Coast Highway was widened in 1988. The proposed 129 larger parking lot will have 130 parking spaces, which is still less than what is identified in the Sunset Ridge Park EIR (97 + 64 = 161 total spaces). 71. The capacity shown in the City’s GIS reflects the capacity of the picnic area only and does not account for the active fields. The City’s GIS has been revised for clarification. 72. The comment suggests that the only users of the parking lot will be for beach access, which will increase pedestrian and bicycle traffic across West Coast Highway, and that park users will not use metered parking. The claims made in this comment are largely unsubstantiated. The objectives of the Superior Avenue 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. Since the pedestrian/bicycle bridge provides access from the expanded parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park, and since the parking lot expansion is intended to provide additional spaces for users of Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park, no additional traffic at the at-grade crosswalks of West Coast Highway is anticipated. Overall, the addition of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge would reduce hazards for pedestrians and bicycles that would have otherwise crossed at-grade across Superior Avenue. Refer to Response No. 70 regarding parking at adjacent Newport Crest private residential community and Response No. 68 regarding programming of sporting events. 73. As noted in Response No. 72, above, the objectives of the Superior Avenue Project were to provide safer access to Sunset Ridge Park. The claim that the “overwhelming majority of existing parking lot users use the parking lot to access the coastal side of WCH and back” is largely unsubstantiated. The Project objectives are to provide additional parking to serve both passive uses and organized sporting events at Sunset Ridge Park. The Project does not propose a change in the use of the parking lot. In addition, the claim that residents that currently walk to nearby businesses would instead drive due to the “inconvenience of the proposed stairs and ramps” is also largely unsubstantiated. The sidewalks and access routes that nearby residents currently use would remain mostly unchanged, except for the users of the current at-grade crosswalk at Superior Avenue who would instead be directed toward the pedestrian/bicycle bridge to 130 access the Sunset Ridge Park side of the street. This change in the ability for park users to better be able to access Sunset Ridge Park from the adjacent parking lot would not be expected to have a significant impact on how residents access nearby businesses. 74. Refer to Response No. 66. 75. The City notes the General Plan’s vision to reduce traffic citywide; in fact, the purpose of the Superior Avenue Project is intended to provide increased parking for users of Sunset Ridge Park so that organized sports and passive recreation can be accessed by nearby residents. The comment notes the widening and increasing the capacity of WCH through the construction of bridges; however, this is not the intended objective of the Superior Avenue Project. The comment appears to be referencing a future project that is currently under design and has not gone through an environmental review process, and this separate project should be considered separately from the Superior Avenue Project. 76. Refer to Response No. 11. Figure 10 was included with the WCH Project funding application. The legend at the bottom left shows that the Superior Avenue Project (shown in magenta) was not part of the proposed WCH Project (shown in blue). 77. Refer to Response No. 14. 78. The only design change to the Superior Avenue Project was the type of bridge structure. The previously approved conceptual design included a three-span concrete bridge. During the development of the final construction documents, the consultant suggested a single-span arch concrete bridge to avoid the need for mid- span supports. Staff agreed with this suggestion and presented it to City Council for approval on August 25, 2020. The location and height with the concrete arch bridge was within the bridge options that were evaluated as part of the MND. To remain consistent with CEQA requirements and due to this design change, the City prepared an Addendum to the MND to evaluate potential impacts of the change. The project description presented and attachments accurately reflect the proposed Superior Avenue Project. 79. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 80. During the August 25 2020, City Council meeting, City Council discussed the inclusion or deletion of the staircase from the bridge to the West Coast Highway sidewalk. Because of the uncertainty of the WCH Project, City Council recommended staff to include this staircase as part of the Superior Avenue Project. 131 81. Within an MND, cumulative impacts are generally identified in the Mandatory Findings of Significance section, where cumulative impacts are summarized. When adding future potential projects to the analysis, CEQA does not require any analysis that may be speculative in nature. As noted in CEQA Guidelines section 15145, “If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.” As noted in the MND Addendum, the West Coast Highway Project has not been designed yet, and only general information is known. Thus, the Addendum cumulative discussion notes potential impacts that may occur, but that the project details are not known at this time and will be analyzed in a future CEQA document. The statement in the excerpt is not intending to imply that there will be less than significant impacts associated with the future project, rather, that based on what is known at this time, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the Superior Avenue Project. As the comment notes, the proposal prepared to analyze the WCH Project included a proposed scope and cost to analyze the project in an EIR. This future EIR will analyze the impacts of the WCH Project. Since the details of the WCH Project are not known at this time, as indicated in the cumulative analysis for the MND Addendum, speculative analysis is prohibited by CEQA. The analysis included in the MND was intended to disclose the future project to the public and provides a general analysis of what is currently known, including the fact that the proposed bridge would not be expected to block views of the ocean. 82. As noted in the MND Addendum, the West Coast Highway Project has not been designed yet, and only general information is known. Thus, the Addendum cumulative discussion notes potential impacts that may occur, but that the project details are not known at this time and will be analyzed in a future CEQA document. 83. Refer to Response No. 14. Within an MND, cumulative impacts are generally identified in the Mandatory Findings of Significance section, where cumulative impacts are summarized. When adding future potential projects to the analysis, CEQA does not require any analysis that may be speculative in nature. As noted in CEQA Guidelines section 15145, “If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.” As noted in the MND Addendum, the West Coast Highway Project has not been designed yet, and only general information is known. Thus, the Addendum 132 cumulative discussion notes potential impacts that may occur, but that the project details are not known at this time and will be analyzed in a future CEQA document. 84. Please refer to Response No. 83. Additionally, no predeterminations have been made and the West Coast Highway Project is a separate project subject to its own independent review and CEQA analysis. 85. Due to the timing of grant funding, the environmental analysis for the Superior Avenue Project started in May 2019 when the City contracted services with Chambers Group. The MND for the Superior Avenue Project was adopted on November 19, 2019. Grant funding for the WCH Project was not available until May 11, 2020. The environmental analysis for the WCH Project has not yet begun as of February 2021. After receiving the grant funds for the WCH Project, Chambers Group prepared an MND Addendum for the Superior Avenue Project which included a discussion on the recently funded WCH Project. 86. The trees that are to be planted as part of the Superior Avenue Project will replace the ornamental trees that will be removed from the existing parking lot. The City’s Parks & Trees Division staff maintains the City's parks, landscape, medians, parkways, irrigation, pest mitigation and the City's urban forest. Since the ongoing maintenance of trees is already part of the City’s maintenance activities at the Project site, the replacement of the existing trees was found to not have a significant impact on the Project viewshed. The design team did consider the proposed trees as part of the visual analysis. Trees are only being proposed at lower elevations in order to not impact blue water views. The taller palm trees will be planted along West Coast Highway, which is at the lowest elevation of the project site; approximately 60 feet below the elevation of Sunset View Park. 87. The City’s “Retention, Removal, and Maintenance of City Trees” document defines “Special Trees” as “Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees, because they have historical significance, and/or contribute to, and give character to, a location or to an entire neighborhood.” There is one “Dedicated Special Tree” as identified in the City Council Policy G-1. Staff has been coordinating with the City Arborist to relocate or replant this one tree. The relocation of this Dedicated Special Tree will require approval from the City’s Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. The statement that all trees on the Project site are ornamental is in reference to the species of trees present, and is wholly accurate. Refer to Response No. 38. 88. CEQA Guidelines outline areas where analysis of aesthetics impacts should be evaluated including, whether the project would “have a substantial adverse effect 133 on a scenic vista,” “substantially damage scenic resources…within a state scenic highway,” “substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views,” and “create a new source of substantial light or glare.” The analysis contained in the 2019 MND and 2020 MND Addendum considered the City’s General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Local Coastal Program, when determining public viewpoints from which visual impacts should be assessed. These public viewpoints included the 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. In addition, the 2019 MND noted that while the proposed Superior Avenue Project will not affect a scenic vista as there are no designated scenic vistas in the City, coastal views are considered significant vistas. 89. Refer to Response Nos. 85 through 88. 90. The Superior Avenue Project requires a variance for relief from implementation development standards for the height of retaining walls, consistent with NBMC 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards), and facts in support of findings for the variance is included in the draft resolution. The project does not require a variance for height of the bridge structure. Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.30.060.C (Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limit), the height of nonresidential structures within the Shoreline Height Limit Area with flat roofs may be increased up to 35 feet with approval of a coastal development permit, including findings contained in NBMC Section 21.30.060.C (Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limit). The proposed bridge is less than 35 feet in height, and facts in support of required findings are included in the draft resolution. Further, NBMC Section 21.30.060.D (Height Limits and Exceptions – Exceptions to Height Limits) allows structures owned, operated, or occupied by the City or other governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public may be allowed to exceed the height limit subject to the approval of a coastal development permit in accordance with NBMC Chapter 21.52 (Coastal Development Review Procedures), where the increase in height is necessary to accommodate design features required for the facility to function (e.g., lifeguard towers, tsunami warning sirens, architectural design features that accommodate emergency vehicles or essential equipment, etc.). In this case, and as described in the draft resolution, the height of the bridge is necessary to provide adequate vertical clearance to Superior Avenue and public sidewalks, to provide a bridge with an ADA-compliant walking surface, and to provide necessary guardrails and projectile barriers. 134 91. As detailed in facts of support of Finding H in the draft resolution, the retaining wall height will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation, or wildlife species. 92. Waivers or modifications of certain standards of the City’s Implementation Plan are not uncommon. The granting of a waiver is not a special privilege as other property owners within the Coastal Zone are afforded the same opportunity to request and receive a waiver or modification. 93. Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.30B.040.C (Wetlands, Deepwater Areas, and Other Water Areas – Wetland Buffers), wetland buffers less than 100 feet may be allowed when it can be demonstrated that a 100-foot wide buffer is not possible due to site- specific constraints, and the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetlands given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and the type and intensity of the disturbance. There is no requirement to identify other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district who enjoy similar privileges, as the appellant alleges. As detailed in the MND and in the draft resolution, the Superior Avenue Project area is confined in area and size, and a 100-foot buffer around the wetland could not be accommodated without eliminating essential components of the project. Further, the wetlands are currently surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, including landscape maintenance, pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The wetlands are small in size (approximately 0.03 acre) and are isolated from any adjacent habitat having substantive ecological value as a resource. An analysis of potential impacts to the wetland is included in the MND, and specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Superior Avenue Project will have no detrimental effect on wetland coastal resources. 94. “Environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA)” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 30107.5 means an 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. In addition, Section 4.1.1 of the LCP states, “Wetland habitats with the City of Newport Beach that may meet the definition of ESHA include coastal brackish marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, southern hardpan vernal pools, freshwater seeps, and alkali meadows.” 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. 135 Even if the two wetland areas adjacent to the Superior Avenue Project site were to be considered ESHA, the 2019 MND document and associated appendices considered the individual and cumulative impacts of the development, and recommended mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts, as required by the LCP (Section 4.6-5). As the LCP states, “adjacent development must be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the ESHA and must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA” (Coastal Land Use Plan Section 4.1.1). Specifically, the MND included avoidance and minimization measures (e.g., protective fencing, signage, on-site monitoring, construction worker awareness) as well as mitigation measure MM BIO-5, which states, “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.” Although proposed construction activities will occur within the 100-foot buffer of the Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway wetlands, impacts to these wetlands will be prevented through the implementation of 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. Per the analysis completed by Chambers Group biologists, construction and/or restoration within the 100-foot buffer of the wetland areas would not cause a significant impact, as these activities would not change the hydrology of the site. The mitigation measures provided, including MM BIO-5, would reduce impacts to 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 MM BIO-5. 95. City staff concur this project can be appealed to the Coastal Commission 136 96. Refer to Response No. 5. 97. As noted, City staff have discussed the project with both the appellant and CCC staff. 98. As noted, upon review the CCC have multiple options as to how to proceed with the project. 99. This detailed document serves as City staff’s response to the appellant’s concerns submitted on February 10, 2021, and informs CCC staff should the project be appealed to the Coastal Commission as indicated in the comment. 100. As detailed in the draft resolution, MND, and Addendum, the Superior Avenue Project meets the goals of preserving, protecting and enhancing coastal resources and protecting and enhancing coastal views. 101. This comment is related to unrelated projects, not a part of the scope of work or related in any capacity to the Superior Avenue Project or under the purview of this appeal. 102. Comment noted. City staff welcomes input and coordination with residents and outside agencies. 103. Comment noted. NBMC Section 21.10.020.B states “Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal one environment and its natural and artificial resources” and NBMC Section 21.10.020.G states “To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views and access; and ensure that growth, development, and environmental management is conducted a manner consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Land Use Plan.” 104. Comment noted. Superior Avenue is a designated coastal view road. Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park are both public viewpoints. 105. As detailed in the draft resolution, MND, and Addendum, the Project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. The bridge is designed to preserve the view lines and minimize the potential for visual obstruction. The proposed bridge does not block the public views of the coast from the higher elevations of either park. A visual impact analysis and aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. In 137 addition, the Superior Avenue Project includes expanded view opportunities from the plaza and benches at the elevated parking lot and from the bridge itself. The MND includes visual simulations from six viewpoints, including views from higher elevations toward the coast (Superior Avenue) and views from lower elevations looking inland (West Coast Highway). Two of these visual simulations were updated in the Addendum to show the revised bridge design. 106. As detailed in the draft resolution, MND, and Addendum, the Project site is located adjacent to Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, both identified as coastal viewpoints by the Local Coastal Program maps. The bridge is designed to preserve the view lines and minimize the potential for visual obstruction. The proposed bridge does not block the public views of the coast from the higher elevations of either park. A visual impact analysis and aesthetics were reviewed as a part of the environmental review, and impacts were found to be less than significant. In addition, the Project includes expanded view opportunities from the plaza and benches at the elevated parking lot and from the bridge itself. The MND includes visual simulations from 6 viewpoints, including views from higher elevations toward the coast (Superior Avenue) and views from lower elevations looking inland (West Coast Highway). Two of these visual simulations were updated in the Addendum to show the revised bridge design. 107. Refer to Response No. 105. 108. The 2019 MND and 2020 MND Addendum were written to analyze the impacts of the Superior Avenue Project, and mitigation measures were provided to reduce any potentially significant impacts. The CEQA documents were written to disclose project impacts, not to qualify the Project for a Coastal Development Permit under the LCP. 109. Refer to Response No. 90. 110. Refer to Response No. 5. 111. Refer to Response No. 5. 112. The proposed larger parking lot with 130 spaces is still less than the 161 spaces needed as discussed in Response No. 70. The design maximizes parking spaces. The existing terrain of the project site is very steep with ground elevations ranging from 10 feet along West Coast Highway to 75 feet at Sunset View Park (65 feet difference in elevation). The proposed parking lot is relatively flat. Although these design constraints require extensive grading and retaining walls, the design team 138 is consciously balancing earthwork and the need for retaining walls to minimize construction cost. 113. Refer to Response No. 106. 114. Refer to Response No. 50. 115. Refer to Response No. 47. 116. Refer to Response No. 50. 117. Visual analysis was completed from multiple vantage points for this project. No significant impact to inland views of coastal bluffs was identified. In addition, the updated bridge design eliminates mid-span supports, further opening views both inland and to the coast. Please refer to Response No. 21 for further responses regarding the scenic easement which is actively being revised in cooperation with Caltrans. 118. Refer to Response Nos. 119 and 132. 119. During the early stages of conceptual design, staff did consider a two-story subterranean parking structure. This design would require more grading, retaining walls, waterproofing due to ground water, and a significant amount of soil export. In addition, the estimated cost for the subterranean parking structure was significantly more than the current design. Therefore, this alternative was ruled out in the early stages of the conceptual design. 120. Refer to Response No. 14. 121. In general, CEQA prohibits an agency from dividing up a project into two or more pieces, each of which may have minimal environmental impacts but altogether may have significant environmental impacts. In addition, the California Supreme Court (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California [1988]) has held that an EIR (or ND) must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Thus, if an activity or facility is necessary for the operation of a project, or necessary to achieve the project objectives, or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of approving the project, then it should be considered as part of the whole project. The Superior Avenue Project is a stand-alone project that has independent utility and could be constructed to meet the project objectives entirely on its own (without 139 any future projects). In addition, the West Coast Highway Project also has its own independent utility and would not require the Superior Avenue Project to be complete in order to be constructed. At the time that the 2019 MND was written, the West Coast Highway Project was not a reasonably foreseeable future project, as funding had not been approved. Without funding, the City would not move forward with the West Coast Highway Project. Additionally, as noted above, even without funding for and construction of the West Coast Highway Project, the Superior Avenue Project would continue forward. Once funding was approved for the West Coast Highway Project, the City did disclose this potential future project in the cumulative discussion of the MND Addendum in the event that construction of these two distinct projects overlap and to demonstrate that, based on information known at the time of the Addendum to the MND for the Superior Avenue Project, no significant cumulative impacts would occur. However, since only the funding had been approved and design had not yet been started, only limited details were known at the time of the MND Addendum drafting. 122. The Old Newport and West Coast Highway project is located over 3,000 feet away from the Superior Avenue Project. The City has been coordinating with Caltrans regarding this project since 2012. This project is unrelated to the Superior Avenue Project. 123. This comment is related to two unrelated private development projects which are approximately 1 mile east of Superior Avenue, not a part of the scope of work or related in any capacity to the Superior Avenue Project or under the purview of this appeal. 124. Refer to Response No. 40. 125. Refer to Response No. 106. 126. Refer to Response No. 91. 127. Refer to Response No. 50. 128. Refer to Response No. 106. 129. Refer to Response No. 90. 130. The proposed bridge is located approximately 70 feet behind the existing WCH sidewalk on the parking lot side and approxmimately 160 feet behind the existing 140 WCH sidewalk on the Sunset Ridge Park side. This setback ensures visibility across the corners of the intersecting streets. 131. Refer to Response No. 47. 132. Refer to Response No. 119. The design team also considered a tunnel underneath Superior Avenue in lieu of a bridge during the early stages of the conceptual design. This alternative was deemed not feasible due to the existing terrain on both sides of Superior Avenue. Public safety was also a concern for the tunnel alternative. 133. Consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program certification, the CCC retains permit jurisdiction over existing CDPs. Sunset Ridge Park has an existing CDP issued by the CCC. The bridge abutment within Sunset Ridge Park is therefore subject to review by the CCC. Portions of the project not located in Sunset Ridge Park are within the City’s permit jurisdiction. City Staff previously consulted with CCC staff with regard to jurisdiction and CDP authority and received direction and concurrence that two CDPs are the appropriate entitlement path for the project. A coastal development permit application for the portions of the project that are within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction was submitted to the California Coastal Commission on November 5, 2020. 134. Refer to Response No. 5. 135. Refer to Response Nos. 90 and 91. 136. Refer to Response Nos. 90 and 91. 137. Refer to Response Nos. 90 and 91. 138. Facts in support of all required findings are provided in the draft resolution. 139. Refer to Response No. 40. 140. Refer to Response No. 106. 141. Refer to Response No. 5. 142. Refer to Responses 90 and 91. 143. Refer to Response No. 50. 141 144. The project does not require a variance for height of the bridge structure. Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.30.060.C (Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limit), the height of nonresidential structures within the Shoreline Height Limit Area with flat roofs may be increased up to 35 feet with approval of a coastal development permit, including findings contained in NBMC 21.30.060.C (Height Limits and Exceptions – Increase in Height Limit). The proposed bridge is less than 35 feet in height, and facts in support of required findings are included in the draft resolution. Further, NBMC Section 21.30.060.D (Height Limits and Exceptions – Exceptions to Height Limits) allows structures owned, operated, or occupied by the City or other governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public may be allowed to exceed the height limit subject to the approval of a coastal development permit in accordance with Chapter 21.52. (Coastal Development Review Procedures) where the increase in height is necessary to accommodate design features required for the facility to function (e.g., lifeguard towers, tsunami warning sirens, architectural design features that accommodate emergency vehicles or essential equipment, etc.). In this case, and as described in the draft resolution, the height of the bridge is necessary to provide adequate vertical clearance to Superior Avenue and public sidewalks, to provide a bridge with an ADA- compliant walking surface, and to provide necessary guardrails and projectile barriers. 145. Refer to Response No. 144. 146. Refer to Response No. 144. 147. Refer to Response No. 130. The Superior Avenue Project is designed to meet all sight distance requirements in accordance with the State Highway Design Manual. 148. Refer to Response No. 47. 149. Refer to Response No. 47. 150. Refer to Response No. 47. 151. Refer to Response No. 106. 152. The development includes the demolition of an existing 64-space flat surface public parking lot and the construction of a new 130-space surface public parking lot. The result is a net gain of 66 parking spaces, thereby increasing public access to the coast by providing additional parking opportunities in the area. Further, the open space area of Sunset View Park will be expanded as a part of the project, 142 providing additional public space to passively recreate and additional coastal view opportunities. 153. Refer to Response Nos. 119 and 132. 154. Refer to Response No. 133. 155. Refer to Response No. 50. A noted within that response, mitigation is provided to reduce impacts to wetlands. 156. Comment noted. The analysis and conclusions have been noted in the 2019 MND and 2020 MND Addendum, and include discussion of potential impacts and mitigation measures for impacts to Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), wetlands, and coastal resources. 157. Refer to Response No. 5. 158. Refer to Response No. 63. 159. Refer to Response No. 63. 160. Refer to Response No. 5. 161. Refer to Response No. 91. 162. The project requires a variance for relief from implementation development standards for the height of retaining walls, consistent with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards), and facts in support of findings for the variance is included in the draft resolution. There is no application for a modification for retaining wall height. 163. The project requires a variance for relief from implementation development standards for the height of retaining walls, consistent with NBMC 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards), and facts in support of findings for the variance is included in the draft resolution. 164. The project requires a variance for relief from implementation development standards for the height of retaining walls, consistent with NBMC 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards), and facts in support of findings for the variance is included in the draft resolution. 143 164. Facts in support of findings and the considerations required by NBMC Section 21.52.090.C (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards – Considerations) are provided in the draft resolution. 165. Facts in support of all required findings are provided in the draft resolution. 166. Refer to Response No. 165. 167. Refer to Response No. 106. 168. Refer to Response No. 91. 169. Refer to Response No. 5. 170. Prior to securing grant funding for the WCH Project on May 11, 2020, the City did not proceed with the environmental analysis for this project as discussed in Response No. 8. The 2020 MND Addendum did include a discussion on the WCH Project on page 60. 171. As part of the OCTA grant application requirements for the WCH Project, the City prepared exhibits which show proposed improvements. These exhibits are not preliminary design plans, which will be developed during the conceptual design stage. 172. Refer to Response No. 14. 173. Refer to Response No. 38 174. Refer to Response No. 21 175. Refer to Response No. 60 176. The Superior Avenue Project-required NEPA documentation was not “withheld” from the public, as the comment alleges. Since the appropriate NEPA document was determined to be a Categorical Exclusion, a public review period was not required. As indicated by the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion, no “federal environmental concerns” were found to occur as a result of the Project, and CEQA does not require that NEPA documentation be included within the CEQA document. As noted in Response No. 121, the project the commenter notes as “Phase 2” is a distinct and separate project that will be analyzed in the future once it is designed. At the time the NEPA document and 2019 MND were prepared, the West Coast Highway Project did not have funding, and thus was not anticipated to be a project that would be occurring in the near future. 144 177. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the proposed project, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND includes analysis of Coastal Land Use Policies and findings of consistency with said policies. On August 25, 2020, City Council approved a revised single-span concrete bridge conceptual design rather than the original multi-span design. To remain consistent with CEQA requirements and due to this design change, the City prepared an Addendum to the MND to evaluate potential impacts of the change. As noted in the MND Addendum, no new or more significant impacts would occur as a result of the project changes. 178. The primary goals of the Superior Avenue Project are to improve safety and access to Sunset Ridge Park and to increase parking availability. Refer to Response Nos. 66 and 68. 179. The General Plan Circulation Element Update will include an evaluation of potential environmental impacts. The 2019 MND was approved and certified prior to the initiation of the General Plan Circulation Element Update, thus the MND was only required to analyze projects that were known at the time the document was written. The initiation of future projects does not necessitate the need to update CEQA documents on its own. 180. Refer to Response No. 1. 181. Refer to Response No. 50. 182. Refer to Response Nos 106, 117 and 144. 183. Refer to Response No. 5. 184. The MND includes analysis of Coastal Land Use Policies and findings of consistency with said policies. On August 25, 2020, City Council approved a revised single-span concrete bridge conceptual design rather than the original multi-span design. To remain consistent with CEQA requirements and due to this design change, the City prepared an Addendum to the MND to evaluate potential impacts of the change. As noted in the MND Addendum, no new or more significant impacts would occur as a result of the project changes. As detailed in facts of support of findings in the draft resolution, the proposed project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. 145 185. Comment noted, the fair argument standard applies to a CEQA challenge where there is substantial evidence in the records that supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and may require the preparation of an EIR. In Maacama Watershed Alliance v. County of Sonoma, 50 Cal. App. 5th 1007 (2019), the court found that unsubstantiated opinions from purported experts are not enough to require preparation of an EIR. To constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant impact, an expert opinion must amount to more than unsubstantiated speculation by explaining why a significant impact may occur. 186. Refer to Response No. 50. 187. Refer to Response Nos. 86 and 106. 188. Refer to Response No. 14. 189. Refer to Response No. 81 190. Refer to Response No. 184. 191. Refer to Response No. 50. 192. Refer to Response No. 106. 193. Refer to Response No. 86. 194. Refer to Response No. 38 195. Refer to Response No. 72 196. As enumerated multiple times in these responses, the WCH Project is a separate project (see Response No. 14). The appellant has alleged both projects are linked together and warrant a more comprehensive CEQA analysis (EIR) in contrast with the principles of CEQA. More specifically, the Courts have stated, “premature environmental analysis may be meaningless and financially wasteful” (citing Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 396). Further, the court of appeal recently held in Maacama Watershed Alliance v. County of Sonoma, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1007 (2019), the unsubstantiated opinions from purported experts are not enough to require preparation of an EIR. The appellant’s allegation that the City’s third party CEQA consultant’s work on the Addendum to the 2019 MND and subsequent certification by the Zoning Administrator are wrong is both unsubstantiated and of the appellant’s own opinion. 146 197. Refer to Response No. 1. 198. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 199. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 200. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 201. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 202. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 203. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 204. Comment noted. Joint CEQA/NEPA documents are not required by either the State or federal laws that govern environmental analysis. Due to funding deadlines, and coordination efforts required with Caltrans and their Local Assistance Program office, it was determined that separate CEQA and NEPA documents would be the most efficient path forward. 205. Refer to Response No. 178 206. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 207. The Superior Avenue Project and the WCH Project are separate independent projects. The City would proceed with the Superior Avenue Project, with or without the WCH Project. 208. The 2019 MND does identify the NEPA lead agency as Caltrans for the NEPA efforts 209. Refer to Response No. 1. 210. Refer to Response Nos. 90 and 91. 211. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 212. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 213. Refer to Response No. 11. The City’s grant funding application on October 18, 2018, for the WCH Project was not approved by OCTA. As a result, the City did not proceed with conceptual design and environmental analysis due to lack of funding. 147 214. Refer to Response No. 11. The City’s grant funding application on October 23, 2019, for the WCH Project was approved by OCTA on May 11, 2020. As a result of securing this grant fund, the City contracted with Dokken Engineering and Chambers Group on August 25, 2020, to begin the conceptual design and environmental analysis for the WCH Project. 215. Upon securing grant funds for the WCH Project on May 11, 2020, the City has been administering both projects simultaneously. This is reflected on the Fiscal Year 2020-21 through 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program. 216. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 217. Refer to Response Nos. 14 and 121. 218. Refer to Response No. 1. 219. Refer to Response No. 121. 220. City staff submitted several grant funding applications for both the Superior Avenue Project and the WCH Project since 2015. Exhibits of the proposed improvements were prepared as required by the application guidelines. Since the City was unsuccessful with these grant applications in 2015, conceptual design and environmental analysis for both of these projects did not commence. The 2014-15 Capital Improvement Program anticipated successfully securing these grant funds in order to start the conceptual design and environmental analysis. 221. This is a description of the work that would begin upon securing the necessary funds to complete the work. Grant funds were secured on February 12, 2018 for the Superior Avenue Project and May 11, 2020 for the WCH Project 222. The grant that was announced on March 2018 by Mayor Brad Avery was for the Superior Avenue Project. Mayor Brad Avery stated that “down the line, another pedestrian bridge across PCH will be constructed.” This statement recognized that the WCH Project is a separate project to be completed at a later date when grant funding becomes available. Council Member Petros and other council members recognized the need to improve this intersection and were assisting the City with potential grant funding for these improvements. 223. Refer to Response No. 213. 224. Refer to Response No. 214. 148 225. Refer to Response No. 215. 226. Upon approval of the OCTA grant funds for the WCH Project on May 11, 2020, staff recommended entering into PSA amendments with Chambers Group and Dokken Engineering to start the environmental analysis and conceptual design. City Council approved these PSA amendments on August 25, 2020. 227. Refer to Response No. 9. Because of the close proximity of the two projects and to avoid conflicts between projects, the design of the Superior Avenue Project, which is a couple of years ahead of the WCH Project, will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Project 228. During the August 25, 2020, City Council meeting, City Council directed staff to include the staircase with the Superior Avenue Project due to the uncertainty of the WCH Project. 229. The details in Attachments B and C are from the scope of services to be performed by Chambers Group and Dokken Engineering. These were attachments to the PSA amendments. 230. Refer to Response No. 220. 231. The 2015 grant application is under the Active Transportation Program (ATP). This grant would pay for a portion of the construction cost of the Superior Avenue bridge and does not cover any cost associated with the parking lot. The City was unsuccessful with this grant application, so the City would be responsible for the cost of the parking lot.. The City was initially unsuccessful with the May 2016 BCIP grant application. Due to the cancellation of projects by other local agencies, the City was awarded the grant funding for the Superior Avenue Project on February 12, 2018. 232. Refer to Response No. 213. One of the benefits of the WCH Project is the improvement of pedestrian access across WCH with the addition of the bridge. Because WCH is a State highway and the WCH Project will require a CDP, staff will be coordinate with and obtain approval from both Caltrans and the Coastal Commission. 233. The December 2018 Cooperative Agreement between the City and OCTA is required as part of the BCIP funding guidelines. 234. In June 2019, the City introduced the Superior Avenue Project to Caltrans Environmental Division. Caltrans was aware that the City is still seeking grant funding for the WCH Project during this time. 149 235. Refer to Response No. 214. 236. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the proposed project, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Council’s action included waiving Zoning Code development standards and use permit requirements, consistent with NBMC Section 20.10.040 (Applicability of Zoning Code), which allows specific City-implemented projects to be exempted from the Zoning Code. City Council had an option to approve a dog park as a part of the project at the north end of the project site; however, the Council choose to eliminate the dog park option. 237. On November 19, 2019, City Council approved the conceptual design for the proposed project, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Council’s action included waiving Zoning Code development standards and use permit requirements, consistent with NBMC Section 20.10.040 (Applicability of Zoning Code), which allows specific City-implemented projects to be exempted from the Zoning Code. Therefore, no variance from the Zoning Code is required. 238. Refer to Response No. 236. 239. Refer to Response No. 237. City’s Council’s action on November 19, 2019 did not include approval of a coastal development permit. 240. Refer to Response No. 14. Consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program certification, the CCC retains permit jurisdiction over existing CDPs. Sunset Ridge Park has an existing CDP issued by the CCC. The bridge abutment within Sunset Ridge Park is therefore subject to review by the CCC. Portions of the project not located in Sunset Ridge Park are within the City’s permit jurisdiction. City Staff previously consulted with CCC staff with regard to jurisdiction and CDP authority and received direction and concurrence that two CDPs are the appropriate entitlement path for the project. A coastal development permit application for the portions of the project that are within the California Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction was submitted to the California Coastal Commission on November 5, 2020. 241. During the November 19, 2019, City Council meeting, the PSA with Dokken Engineering only included professional engineering services for the Superior Avenue Project. At this time, the City had not officially received grant funding for 150 the WCH Project. Since the Superior Avenue Project is still currently in progress, this project is still shown in the 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program. 242. Resolution 2020-4 was required as part of the OCTA Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program (CTFP) funding guidelines 243. Refer to Response No. 214. Upon approval of these PSA amendments on August 25, 2020, staff may begin developing the conceptual design and environmental analysis for the WCH Project 244. A Section 4(f) De Minimus Memorandum was drafted to satisfy Caltrans requirements, and this document outlined the Project Purpose and Need, the Project Description, as well as Section 4(f) resources within the Project area. As noted in the Memorandum, Sunset Ridge Park is identified as a Section 4(f) resource. However, a de minimus impact finding was made since all three criteria for de minimus findings were satisfied: 1. The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f); 2. The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and 3. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of U.S. DOT's intent to make the de minimis impact determination based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). Also, as noted, in the Memorandum, under “Records of public involvement,” impacts to Section 4(f) resources is a federal process and must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The appropriate NEPA approval for this project is a categorical exclusion, which does not require public circulation. The project also requires compliance with CEQA. The CEQA document has already gone through the public review process thus the Section 4(f) de minimus will be circulated on its own to satisfy the public involvement process; and a Notice of Availability of de minimus Determination will be posted online at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/ceqa. Therefore, information regarding the Section 4(f) process was provided to the public. 151 245. On December 10, 2020, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing and approved the coastal development permit, including adoption of the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). During the meeting, two members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Staff and the Zoning Administrator considered the comments prior to the Zoning Administrator’s action to approve the application. 246. Comment noted, a public records request was submitted on December 28, 2020. 247. Comment noted, an appeal was filed on January 4, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: CalTrans Letter dated February 23, 2021 Director’s Deeds 152 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 - RIGHT OF WAY 1750 E. 4th Street, Suite 100 Santa Ana, CA 92705 PHONE (657) 328 - 6345 FAX (657) 328-6513 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Making Conservation a California Way of Life. February 23, 2021 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 To Whom it May Concern, This letter confirms that the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the current owner of property rights that comprise the existing Scenic Easement and will be providing the guidance and oversight for the city’s Project Certification. Caltrans recognizes the construction target date and any delays that may cause critical funding issues. Caltrans commits to joint efforts and a mutual understanding with the city of Newport Beach in processing the decertification request in a timely manner. If you have questions or need further information, please contact me at edward.francis@dot.ca.gov or (213) 897-3469. Sincerely, Edward Francis Office Chief Right of Way and Right of Way Engineering 153 Map No: E120010-15 RWPE: C. SMYTHE (01/04/01) Wrltteri:C& Check:DO RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WhEN RECORDED MAIL TO: State of California DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Caltrans - District 12 Office of Right of Way 3337Michelson Drive Suite CN380 Irvine, CA 92612-1699 Aun: RJW Excess Lands DIRECTOR'S DEED 7fl0%._it - r: o R E D coPY npared with Original Recorded ¡ii Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly,ClerkReCOrder 1111111 illiIIliuI 11111 II 11111 11111 l 11M 11111 liii ll III NO FEE 2006000813583 10:16am 12/05106 10633Db 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Space above this üne for Recorder's Use The STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Director of Transportation, does hereby grant to the all that real property in the City of Newport Beach County of Orange , State of California, described as: Parcel No. DO 040766-91-01 That portion of Loti of Tract No. 463 i» the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown per a map filed in Book 32, Pages 2 and 3 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county; that portion of Lot i of Tract No. 2250 as shown per a map filed in Book 104, Pages 6 and 7 of said Miscellaneous Maps; that portion of Melrose Mesa (Tract No. 15) as shown on a map filed in Book 9, Page 19 of said Miscellaneous Maps; that portion of Lot D of the Banning Tract, as shown on a map of said tract filed in the cse of Hancock Banning, et al. vs. Mary H. Banning for partition, and being Case No. 6385 npon the Register of Actions of Superior Conrt of Los Angeles County, California, bounded as follows: Bounded northeasterly by the northeasterly line of the lands described as Parcel 1 of State Parcel No. 40767 in a Grant Deed recorded February 14,1966 in Book 7839, Page 739 of Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California; MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TOLity of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Pagel ofS This office is exempt from filing fees under Government Code Section 6103 District county Route Post Number 12 Orange 1 19.7 DD 040766-01-01 City of Newport Beach 154 Bounded westerly by the westerly line of said Grant Deed, said westerly line also being described as a portion of the northerly prolongatiön of the westerly line of Annexation No. 55 to the City of Newport Beach dated September 19, 1963; Bounded southwesterly by the northeasterly line of "new" Pacific Coast Highway as described in a Director's Deed (State Parcel No. DD 040767-03-01) from the State of California to the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation, recorded May 6, 1993 as Instrument No. 93-0304178 of said Official Records; and bounded southerly and southeasterly by the center line of "new" Superior Avenue as described in a Director's Easement Deed (State Parcel No. DE 040766-1) from the State of California to the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation and charter city, recorded May 6, 1993 as Instrument No. 93- 0304175 of said Official Records. EXCEPTING THEREFROM those rights and interests previously excepted from that parcel of land described in the deed from A.E.S. Chaffey, et al., to the State of California (State Parcel No.40766), recorded January 7, 1966 in Book 7801, Page 108 of said Official Records. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM those rights and interests previously excepted from those parcels of land described in the deed from BEECO, LTD., to the State of California (State Parcel No. 40767), recorded February 14, 1966 in Book 7839, Page 739 of said Official Records. SUBJECT TO an easement for storm drain purposes, 35.00 feet wide; and an easement for sanitary sewer purposes, 30.00 feet wide, both as described in a Director's Deed (State Parcel No. DE 040767- 01-02) from the State of California to the Newport Crest Homeowners Association, a California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation, recorded September 11, 1990 as Instrument No. 90-479322 of said Official Records. There shall be no abutter's rights of access appurtenant to the above-described real property in and to the adjacent state highway over and across those portions of the northeasterly line of "new" Pacific Coast Highway hereinabove described in said deed recorded as Instrument No. 93-03041 78 of Official Records, said portions of the northeasterly line being further described as having a bearing and a distance of "North 54°21'52" West, 215.42 feet" and "North 53°13'07" West, 167.37 feet". Page 2 of 5 155 PARCEL 040766-3 RESERVING UNTO THE GRANTOR AN EASEMENT FOR SCENIC ViEW AND OPEN SPACE PURPOSES OVER THE AFOREMENTIONEI) PROPERTY, LYING SOUTHERLY OF TIlE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT TRE INTERSECTION OF TRE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 7817, PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 308, PAGES 33 AND 34 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN SAH) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORI)ER OF SAID COUNTY, WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 100.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; TRENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, S00°19'lO"W 505.12 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N71°14'04"E 254.46 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 263.60 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE S62°13'53"E 838.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "NEW" SUPERIOR AVE AS DESCRIBED IN A DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 6, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93- 03041 75 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SUPERIOR AVENUE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 6, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93-0304175 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS. GRANTEES USE OF SAID EASEMENT AREA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THOSE "PERMITTED" USES UNDER GRANTEE'S ZONING DESIGNATION OPEN SPACE - ACTIVE AS DEFINED UNDER TITLE 20 OF GRANTEES ZONING CODE AS IT EXISTED ON OCTOBER 12, 2006.ADDITIONALLY THE GRANTEE IS PROHIBITED FROM PLACING PERMANENT STRUCTURES OR PAVEMENT WITHIN DIE EASEMENT AREA, AND NO PARKING OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN 'l'uE EASEMENT AREA. GRANTEE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MAINTENANCE WITHIN THE EASEMENT AREA. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is a map entitled "Exhibit 'A'". This map is for informational purposes only and is subordinate in all respects to the above legal description. This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyor's Act Sigrn Date: iture: SCO E. ESTEP, PLS 7066 EXPIRATION: 12-31-2006 ci ..,.to Page 3 of 5 156 97.920 5F DO 040766-Ql-Ql iÇ&NEW' SUPERIOR AVE. PER 151.EB9%DE 040166-I304175 0.5. II ilII n:>STIM DRAIN ESMI. PER RISI. 40. 90-479322 O.R. SEWER ESMI. PER INST. NO. 90-419322 O.R. .704 Son ESS Rolo -NN NNN N NN N,N,' NOTE NELY LINE 'ta P.C.H.STATE flRCEL NO.00 O4O767-0301 PER INST. 8. 93O304I15 OS. THE SCEME VER ANO OPEN SPACE SOIJARE FOOTAGE DOES NOI INCLUDE TIlE EA MIHIN THE STORM DRAIN A SEWER EASE PER INST. WO. 90-479322. WIT LINE OF LOT 3TR TIlT. MII 308/33-34 CITY TRACT Nü I I I I STATE RETAINS ACCESS RIGHTS lEts LIE PALI5185E PIRCO. 80.48167P68 DX 7838, P0 III Di. STATE OF CALIFORNIA--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION--DISTRICT 12 PLAT ACCOMPANYiNG DIRECTOR'S DEED DD 040766-01-01 REF. MAP:E120010-15 SHEET OF 5 01ST tc0Ti RIE P.M. J,12 lORA I i I 1S7 MM 32/2'-3 NW'LY LIE RIVINES SUBDVN. PER 'M I/SB BEACH SCALE N.T.S. DRWN:SEE CHKD:GBG £WiTE: 11/18/04 ÍPM SCALENO EXH I BIT AH 157 APPROVED AS TEDRM.AD PROCED RE i'Q ArfO NEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION qq (Notary Public's signature in and for said County and State) Page 5 of 5 Subject to special assessments if any, restrictions, reservations, and easements of record. This conveyance is executed pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of Transportation by law and, in particular by the Streets and Highways Code. ANITNESS my hand and the seal of the Department of Transportation of the State of California, this ?121t day of K2p7Vi4tXt 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION $4&L )W/724/ Director of Transportation By A Fact PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTSTATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Sacramento On this the%t of C/75ée 2004 before ra9MU%M4 64"4ñh4 Name, Title of Officer-E.G., "Jane 06e, Notary Publicl personally appeared (Çê),e (Çcf L ../9,*'x' cyC Name of Signer ,%personally Irnown to nie U proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name Is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s executed the sante in his/O authorized capacity, añd that by hiss signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Comntslon# t596908 t I Notary Public - CoUlomb Los Angeles Counly [MyComm. Expkesjs 23,2 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the California Transportation Commission has authorized the Director of Transportationto execute the foregoing deed at its meeting regularly called and held on the 12th day of October2006, in the City ofSanta Rosa. Dated this 16th day of October2006. fio-e JÇH)( F. BARNA, JR., Executive QiçctorCACIFORNIATRANSPORTATIOÑtOMMISSION 158 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PURCHASE AND SALEREEMENT -REAL PROPERDDO40766-01-01 In this Agreement dated September 26, 2006 by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH hereinafter known as "BUYER" and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter known as "SELLER", the parties agree as follows: For the sum of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) and no cents, Buyer hereby agrees to purchase and Seller hereby agrees to sell the vacant and unimproved real property located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California, and legally described in Director's Deed # 040766-01-01 (hereinafter referred to as the "property"). Subject to the following conditions: I Buyer agrees to pay for the said real property to State the principal sum of Five MiHion Dollars ($5,000,000). A series of three payments shall be made to the State of California, Department of Transportation, and delivered to the State of California, Department of Transportation, Southern Right of Way Region, Excess Land Sales, 21073 Pathfinder Road, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Interest will begin on January 1, 2007. Principal and interest to be due and payable in annual installments as follows: Principal payment of $2 O million by December 31, 2006; Principal payment of $1 5 million plus interest of $142,500 by December31, 2007; and Principal payment of $1.5 million plus interest of $71,250 by December 31, 2008. Each annual installment shall be credited first on interest then due and the remainder on principal so credited. Buyer may make additional payments on the principal at any time before final installment, and interest shall thereupon cease upon said principal so credited. 1f Buyer should default in the payment of any annual installment, or any part thereof, when due as herein provided, and such default should continue for thirty (30) days after notice thereof in writing to Buyer, the whole of said purchase price shall at the option of the State become forthwith due and payable. If the Buyer shall default on any of the payments, title, at the option of the State, will revert back to the State. It is understood and agreed that the term of this agreement shall end on December 31, 2008 and the buyer shall make payment in full including principal and interest by that date. The Deed shall record after receiving CTC approval and the ist payment of $20 million, no later than December 31, 2006. II All sales made subject to the approval of the California Transportation Commission. In the event that the California Transportation Commission fails to approve this sale, all monies heretofore paid by the Buyer will be refunded without interest. The CTC meeting is October 12th,2006. III The Seller is willing to process this sale at no charge to the Buyer, except for the items set forth in paragraph IV below. Buyer, at his option, may open an escrow at its own expense. The Seller will pay no escrow fees. Page 1 of 3 159 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTS TRANSPORTATION PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT -REAL PROPERTY DD040766-Q1-01 Iv The Buyer agrees to pay any and all recording fees, documentary transfer tax and monumentation fees chargeable by the County Recorder. At a lateE date, the Seller will request the fees forwarded, and buyer shall submit to the seller upon demand. V The Buyer expressly understands that the right, title and interest in the property to be conveyed shall not exceed that vested in the State of California and that the Seller will furnish no policy of title insurance.If a policy of title insurance is desired, the Seller will obtain one, upon request, at the Buyer's expense. VI The property is being sold "as is" and is being conveyed subject to any special assessments, restrictions, reservations or easements of record and subject to any reservations or restrictions contained in the Director' s Deed. Buyer has read and understands other information the Seller has relative to these matters. VU In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney' s fees. The Buyer agrees that the title of the property being conveyed shall not pass until the Director's Deed has been recorded. The Buyer shall not take possession of the property until the director's Deed is recorded VIII Buyer shall defend, indemnify, and hold seller and seller' s elected and appointed officers agents and employees free and harmless from and against any and all liabilities, damages, claims, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, legal expenses and consultant's fees, and investigation and remediation costs) arising in whole or in part from the existence of hazardous substance; or hazardous substance conditions. This indemnity is intended to address that liability for which seller may be responsible arising solely out of its mere ownership of said real property. This provision shall survive transfer of title of the said real property and any rescission of the said transfer. "Hazardous Substance" shall mean any substance whose nature and / or quantity of existence, use, manufacture, disposal of effect, render it subject to federal, state or local regulation, investigation, remediation or removal as potentially injurious to public health or welfare, including the comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts as now in effect. "Hazardous Substance Condition" shall mean the existence on or under, said property of a hazardous substance that requires remediaEion and / or removal and / or to be otherwise mitigated pursuant to applicable law. Page 2 of 3 160 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN1 TRANSPORTATION PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT -REAL PROPERTY 01)040766-01--01 Ix This New Purchase Agreement supercedes and replaces any and all previous agreements of any kind. The terms and conditions of the above agreement are hereby accepted, subject to the approval of the California Transportation Commission. Please indicate exactly how the title should be vested: City of Newport Beach, California Buyer Dam: 11/16/06 MAYOR (Signature) DON WEBB (Print Name) Buyer:Date: (Signature) (Print Name) STATE 0F CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By:Date:G C. Paul LaMond, Acting Chief Excess Land, Southern Right of Way Region Page 3 of 3 161 I RESOLUTION 2006-89 A RESOLUTiON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SUNSET RIDGE PARK AND AGREEING TO TERMS AND CONDITiONS ASSOCIATED WITH A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMEÑT FOR THE PARK PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach and its residents have long envisioned the 15 acres of land at the comer of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway as a park, including both active and passive components, and WHEREAS, extensive dealings with the owner of the property,California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"), have occurred in the nearly thirty years since this property was declared surplus in 1976; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach was successful in sponsoring Senate BUI .124 (Johnson, 2001) which authorized the transfer of Sunset Ridge Parkto the California Department of Parks and Recreation from Caltrans for a purchase price of $1.3 million as long as the City enterad Into an Operating Agreement with State Parks to operate the land as a state park facUlty; and WHEREAS, further discussions with Governor Schwarzenegge? s administration, the State Department of General Services, members of the Legislature, and others, have led the City and Caltrans to propose a direct sale of the property to the City at a price of $5,000,000; and WHEREAS, the direct sale would be completed through a Purchase and Sale Agreement, a scenic easement, and deed restrictions that would provide that: s The $5 million be paid in three installments and at 4.75% interest; The property must be used as a park consistent with thè current Open Space- Active (OS-A) zoning; and The City agrees to a 197,920 square foot Scenic Easement that would allow only uses of the property that are consistent with the osa zoning in place as of the date of this Resolution with the exception of permanent structures and pavement in the Scenic Easement Area. WHEREAS, this Purchase and Sale Agreement requires the approval of the California Transportation Commission (CTC); now, therefore, be it: RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of. Newport Beach that it hereby: 1.Finds and declares that the Caltrans West Parcel (15.05 acres) shall be used by the City to develop Sunset Ridge Park and shall tise the Parcel solely for park purposes, consistent with OS-A zoning; and 162 AU E ST LAVONNE I-4ARKLESS City Clerk Authorizes the purchase of the Caltrans West Parcel from Caiträns at a price cil $5 million paid tri three installments at 4.75% interest; and Authorizes the placement of a Scenic Easement (or similarly-named easement) over 197,920 square feet of the parce!, within which all Open Space-Active (OS- A) uses that exist as of the date of this Resolution are permitted except for permanent structuis and pavement (the latter two uses are not permitted); and Authorizes the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach to execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement to this effect; and Authorizes the City Manager to execute any related documents that might accompany the Purchase and Sale Agreement in order to accomplish the sale of the property. ADOPTED this 26th Day of September, 2006. DON WEBB Mayor of Newport Beach 163 (Seal) City Clerk Newport Beach, California STATE 0F CAIIIFORNL& COUNTY OF ORANGE }88, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certiß' that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2006-89 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 26th day of September 2008 and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes;Curry, Seich, Rosausky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb Noes:None Absent:Nome Abstaist Nome ]}T WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed ny lame and affixed the official seal of said City this 27th day of September 2006. iv,,&írá&oa/ 164 Mayor Don Webb Mayor Pro Tern Steven Rosansky Council Members Keith D. Curry Leslie J. Daigle Richard A. Nichols Tod W. Ridgeway Edward D. Selich November 16,2006 California Department of Transportation 21073 Pathfinder Road, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Aun: Vincent Lundblad LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE - DO #040766-01-01 Dear Mr. Lundblad: The City of Newport Beach hereby accepts the property described in Director's Deed #040766-01-01 and agrees to the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement (attached to this letter). I have also enclosed a check for $2,000,000.00.This is the initial payment as prescribed by the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The City appreciates Caltrans' assistance and support of this important purchase. If you have any questions about these documents, please do not hesitate to contact us at 949-644-3000. DON WEBB Mayor of Newport Beach Attachments cc:Members of the Newport Beach City Council City Manager Homer Bludau Assistant City Manager Dave Kif Caltrans Director Will Kempton Ms. Simia Rhinehart, Caltrans City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 s www.city.newport-beach.ca.us (949) 644-3004 I RECEIVED CITY OF N4'Qfl EACH OFFICE OF TJYOR rr CRY CLERK CRY E nr 165 STATE OF CALIFORNIA S DEPARTMENTS TRANSPORTATION PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - REAL PROPERTY DD040766-Q1-01 In this Agreement dated September 26, 2006 by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH hereinafter known as "BUYER" and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT 0F TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter known as "SELLER", the parties agree as follows: For the sum of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) and no cents, Buyer hereby agrees to purchase and Seller hereby agrees to sell the vacant and unimproved real property located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California, and legally described in Director's Deed #040766-01-01 (hereinafter referred to as the "property"). Subject to the following conditions: I Buyer agrees to pay for the said real property to State the principal sum of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). A series of three payments shall be made to the State of California, DepartmSt of Transportation, and delivered to the State of California, Departmènt of Transportation, Southern Right of Way Region, Excess Land Sales, 21073 Pathfinder Road, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Interest will begin on January 1, 2007. Principal and interest to be due and payable in annual installments as follows: i.Principal payment of $2.0 million by December 31, 2006; Principal payment of $1.5 million plus interest of $142,500 by December 31, 2007; and Principal payment of $1.5 million plus interest of $71,250 by December 31, 2008. Each annual installment shall be credited first on interest then due and the remainder on principal so credited. Buyer may make additional payments on the principal at any time before final installment, and interest shall thereupon cease upon said principal so credited. If Buyer should default in the payment of any annua] installment, or any part thereof, when due as herein provided, and such default should continue for thirty (30) days after notice thereof in writing to Buyer, the whole of said purchase price shall at the option of the State become forthwith due and payable. If the Buyer shall default on any of the payments, title will revert back to the State. It is understood and agreed that the term of this agreement shall end on December 31, 2008 and the buyer shall make payment in full including principal and interest by that date. The Deed shall record after receiving CTC approval and the jst payment of $2.0 million. The State will not record the Deed until the first payment of $2.0 million has been received. II All sales made subject to the approval of the California Transportation Commission. In the event that the California Transportation Commission fails to approve this sale, all monies heretofore paid by the Buyer will be refunded without interest. Ill The Seller is willing to process this sale at no charge to the Buyer, except for the items set forth in paragraph IV below. Buyer, at his option, may open an escrow at its own expense. The Seller will pay no escrow fees. Pagel of 3 166 STATE OF CALiFORNIA S DEPARTMENT 5TRANSPORTATION PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - REAL PROPERTY DD040766-01-01 Iv The Buyer agrees to pay any and all recording fees, documentary transfer tax and monumentation fees chargeable by the County Recorder. At a later date the Seller will request the fees forwarded, and buyer shall submit to the seller upon demand. V The Buyer expressly understands that the right, title and interest in the property to be conveyed shall not exceed that vested in the State of California and that the Seller will furnish no policy of title insurance.If a policy of title insurance is desired, the Seller will obtain one, upon request, at the Buyer's expense. V' The property is being sold "as is" and is being conveyed subject to any special assessments, restrictions, reservations or easements of record and subject to any reservations or restrictions contained in the Director's Deed. Buyer has read and understands other information the Seller has relative to these matters. VII In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. The Buyer agrees that the title of the property being conveyed shall not pass until the Director's Deed has been recorded. The Buyer shall not take possession of the property until the director's Deed is recorded VIII BuyeT shall defend, indemnify, and hold seiler and seller's elected and appointed officers agents and employees free and harmless from and against any and all liabilities, damages, claims, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, legal expenses and consultant's fees, and investigation and remediation costs) arising in whole or in part from the existence of hazardous substance, or hazardous substance conditions. This indemnity is intended to address that liability for which seller may be responsible arising solely out of its mere ownership of said real property. This provision shall survive transfer of title of the said real property and any rescission of the said transfer. "Hazardous Substance" shall mean any substance whose nature and / or quantity of existence, use, manufacture, disposal of effect, render it subject to federal, state or local regulation, investigation, remediation or removal as potentially injurious to public health or welfare,including the comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts as now in effect. "Hazardous Substance Condition" shall mean the existence on or under, said property of a hazardous substance that requires remediation and / or removal and / or to be otherwise mitigated pursuant to applicable law. Page 2 of 3 167 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - REAL PROPERTY DD040766-01-01 Ix This New Purchase Agreement supercedes and replaces any and all previous agreements of any kind. The terms and conditions of the above agreement are hereby accepted, subject to the approval of the California Transportation Commission. Please indicate exactly how the title should be vested: City of Newport Beach, California Buyer: MAYOR Page 3 of 3 DON WEBB (Signature) (Print Name) Buyer:Date: (Signature) Date:11/16/06 (Print Name) STATE OF CALIFORMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION B y:Dare: C. Paul LaMond, Acting Chief Excess Land, Southern Right of Way Region 168 30E-502-A (FRONT) REV. 8 (10-05) WEBSTER J. GUILLORY ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR (714) 834-5031 PRELIMINARY CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP REPORT [To be completed by transferee [buyer] prior to transfer of subject property in accordance with section 480.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.] A Preliminwy Change of Ownership Report must be filed with each conveyance in the County Recorder's office for the county where the property is located; this particular form may be used in all 58 counties of California. THIS REPORT IS NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT SELLERrrRANSFEROR: CflI-lPoaa.jp Dcpr or ¶e oaç«rt.0 (ca'_'e-jt) BUYER/TRANSFEREE:tifl OÇ )iuJAr ßflc ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S):4-z,'i- oql-io2 *z't- aMI- o% PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION: C04,sq. oC 0e6a,Io2, 4. WÇc c.opaf tsaPr' MAIL TAX INFORMATION TO: Name b(tp Address 3;oo ÑC»J?qx SUJb, ÑØ.*)Lr ßflCA, cP' Phone Number (8 am-S p.m.) (u ) fl"-3bo-z. I RECORDERS USE ONLY NOTICE: A lien for property taxes applies to your property on January 1 of each year tor the taxes owing in the following fiscal year,July 1 through June 30. One-halt of these taxes is due November 1, and one-half is due February 1. The first installment becomes delinquent on December 10, and the second installment becomes delinquent on April10. Onetax bill is mailed before November 1 tothe ownerof record. You may be responsIble for the current or upcoming property taxes even If you do not receIve the tax bill. The property which you acquired may be subject to a supplemental assessment in an amount to be determined by the Orange County Assessor. For further information on your supplemental roll obligation, please call the Orange County Assessor at (714) 834-2941. PART 1k OTHER TRANSFER INFORMAT1ON Date of transfer if other than recording date (nrw'rUr.j *t type of transfer (p/ease check appropilate box): N Purchase D Foreclosure D Gift Trade or Exchange D Merger, Stock, or Partnership Acquisition 5 Contractof Sale - Date of Contract IL f16 06 D Inheritance - Date of Death D Other (p/ease expia,»): D Creation of Lease D Assignment of a Lease D Termination of a Lease D Sale/Leaseback D Date lease began D Original term in years (including written options) D Remaining term in years (including written options) Monthly Payment Remaining Term Was only a partial interest in the property transferred?Li Yes No If yes, indicate the percentage transferred * A002-213 (RIO/OS) PART I: TRANSFER INFORMATION (please answer a//questions) YES NO D A.Is this transfer solely between husband and wife (addition of a spouse, death of a spouse, divorce settlement, etc.)? D B.Is this transaction only a correction of the name(s) of the person(s) holding title to the property (tor example, a name change upon marriage)? Please explain D 3 C.Is this document recorded to create, terminate, or reconvey a lenders interest in the property?D N D.Is this transaction recorded only as a requirement for financing purposes or to create, terminate, or reconvey a security interest (e.g., cosigner)? Please explain D E.Is this document recorded to substitute a trustee of a trust, mortgage, or other similar document? D F.Did this transfer result in the creation of a joint tenancy in which the seller (transferor) remains as one of the ¡oint tenants? D G. Does this transfer return property to the person who created the ¡oint tenancy (original transferor)? l-l.Is this a transfer of property:D N 1. to a revocable trust that may be revoked by the transferor and is for the benefit of the D transferor D transferor's spouse?D N 2. to a trust that may be revoked by the Creator/Grantor who is also a joint tenant, and which names the other joint tenant(s) as beneficiaries when the Creator/Grantor dies?D N 3. to an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the D Creator/Grantor and/or EGrantor's spouse? D 4. to an irrevocable trust from which the property reverts to the Creator/Grantor within 12 years? D I.If this property is subject to a lease, is the remaining lease term 35 years or more including written options?D N * J.Is this a transfer between D parent(s) and child(ren)?Dar from grandparent(s) to grandchild(ren)?D N * K.Is this transaction to replace a rincipal residence by a person 55 years of age or older? Within the same county?Yes D NoD N * L.Is this transaction to replace a principal residence by a person who is severely disabled as defined by Revenue and Taxation Code section 69.5? Within the same county?D Yes D NoDM.Is this transfer solely between domestic partners currently registered with the California Secretary of State? 'If you checked yes to J, K or L, you may qualify for a property tax reassessment exclusion, which may result in lower taxes on your property. If you do not file a claim, your property will be reassessed. Please provìde any other information that will help the Assessor to understand the nature of the transfer, If the conveying document constitutes an exclusion from a change in ownership as defined in section 62 of the IRevenue and Taxation Code for any reason other than those listed above, set forth the specific exclusions claimed: Owe Pisase answer all questions in each section. If a question does not apply, indicate with "NIA." Sign and date at bottom of second page. 169 50E-502-A (BACK) REV. B (0-O5) P/ease answer; to the best ofyour knowledge, a / app//cable questions, Then sin and date. Ifa qu tian does not apply, iho9cate with 7V/A." PART III: PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS OF SALE A. CASH DOWN PAYMENT OR value of trade or exchange (excluding closing costs)Amount $ 2 000, tQo 8. FIRST DEED OF TRUST @ % interest for years. Pyn,ts./Mo 4 (Prin. & mt. only)Amount $ E FHA (Discount Points) E Fixed rate E New loan E Conventional E Variable rate E Assumed existing loan balance E VA (Discount Points) E All inclusive DT. (s Wrapped) E Bank or savings & loan E Cal-Vet E Loan carried by seller E Finance company Balloon payment E Yes E No Due Date Amount $ SECOND DEED OF TRUST @ % interest for years. Pymts./Wo.=$(Prin. & nt. only) Amount $ E Bank or savings & loan E Fixed rate E New loan E Loan carried by seller E Variable rate E Assumed existing loan balance Balloon payment E Yes E No Due Date Amount $ OTHER FINANCING: Is other financing involved not covered in (b) or (c) above?E Yes E No Amount $ S. uDO, 0cc Type 3,oOo @ 'CIÇ % interest for 2.years. PymtsiMo.=$(Prin. & lnt. only) E Bank or savings & loan Fixed rate E New loan E Loan carried by seller E Variable rate E Assumed existing loan balance Balloon payment E Yes No Due Date Amount $ WAS AN IMPROVEMENT BOND ASSUMED BY THE BUYER? E Yes No Outstanding Balance: Amount $ TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE (or acquisition pnce, if traded or exchanged; ,2ic/ude rea/estate commAs-s/on ffpaid) TOTAL ITEMS A THROUGH E PROPERTY PURCHASED D Through a broker Direct from seller E From a family member D Other (p/ease explain,): lt purchased through a broker, provide broker's name and phone number; Please explain any special terms, seller concessions, or financing and any other information that would help the Assessor understand the urchase 'rice and terms of sale:4t-w'a -t4'/)Ç°k ineJs. PART IV: PROPERTY INFORMATION A. TYPE OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED: E Single-family residence E Agricultural E Multiple-family residence (no. of units;E Co-op/Own-your-own D Commercial/Industrial E Condominium E Other (Description: i.e., timber, mineral, water rights etc. B. IS THIS PROPERTY INTENDED AS YOUR PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE?E Yes No lt yes, enter date of occupancy /20 or intended occupancy /20 (mont4)(dax'(year)(month)(oy)(year) C. IS PERSONAL PROPERTY INCLUDED IN PURCHASE PRICE (i.e., furniture, farm equipment, machinery, etc.) (other than a manufactured home subject to local property tax)?E Yes No If yes, enter the value of the personal property included in the purchase price $(A/tac/i/temized/istofpersona/proper/y.) D. ISA MANUFACTURED ROME INCLUDED IN PURCHASE PRICE? E Yes No If yes, how much of the purchase price is allocated to the manufactured home? $ Is the manufactured home subject to local property tax? E Yes E No What is the decal number? E. DOES THE PROPERTY PRODUCE INCOME?E Yes No If yes, is the income from: E Lease/Rent E Contract E Mineral rights E Other (please explafri,): F. WHAT WAS THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AT TRE TIME OF SALE? Good E Average E Fair E Poor Please explain the physical conditïon of the property and provide any other information (such as restrictions, etc.) that would assist the Assessor in determining the value of the property: n' OWNERSHIP TYPE (V) Proprietorship D Partnership D Corporation DOther CERTIFICATIO ton' E Timeshare E Manufactured Home Unimproved lot $COD, 00V ¡ certify that the foregoing is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and beliet This declaration is binding on each and every co-owner ancilar partner. (NOTE: The Assessor may contact you for addItional information.) Ifa document evidencing a change of ownership is presented to he recorder for recordation without the concurrent filing of a preliminary change of ownership report, the recorder may charge an addItional recording f ea of twenty dollars ($20). NAME OF NEW owNE4'coRponAm OFFICER//TITLE SIGNATURE EWOWN;RicO ;..y I A ..ASA DATEtl_l-te NAME OF EN Y (orpn»ted) (,tm of '0o,c %wc.#cJu-IPu2.o%A FEDERAL EMPLOYER ID NUMBER 95-600075l ADDRESS ('pedorpn»ted)' 33oD twPo4&,vb t (A qsç E-MAIL ADDRESS (OPTIONAL)DATE 11 Ko.*_ 170 TO THE ORDER 0E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 (949)644 3117 STATE OF CAL-DEPT OF TRA2SP'ORTATIO SO RIGHT OF WAYREGION-EXCESS ISAJC) 20173 PATHFINDER ROAD * loo DIAMOND BAR CA 917ES 2390 STATE OF CAL-DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORRANCE4 #023 CITY NATIONAL BANK 18111 Vonkarman Ave Irvine, California (949)223-4000 CHECK DATE 11/24/06 4xo gStei) ACCOUNT PURO)!. ORDER INVOICE NUMBER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 7015 C6100S15 DD0407660101 2,000,000.00 SUNSET RIDGE PARK PAY THE SIJM OF ***2000000* DOLLARS CENTS VOID AFTER 180 DAYS 'I'oo86s'.0 ':L220L6066': o2a.696a;s" t )íÇtK 4kO :OLC.RED EAFET? P1ÑTQciR4PN. ti-(IS 'ArE?r; f5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VENDOR NO.2390 CHECK N0 668654 AJVIOUNT 000,000 - 00* 1 6-1 606 1220 CHECK NO. 668664 171 OR_93-0304178 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE192 Attachment No. PC 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 193 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE194 SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT PROJECT MND ADDENDUM 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, CA 92707 October 2020 195 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 1.1 OVERVIEW/PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................. 4 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 5 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 5 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.1 Construction Activities/Equipment .................................................................................. 6 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ........................................................................... 11 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: .............................................................. 11 3.2 DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................ 11 SECTION 4.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ..................................................................... 12 4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................. 12 4.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................................... 16 4.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 18 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 21 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 30 4.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 32 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 32 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 36 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................................................... 37 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 40 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 43 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 44 4.13 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 45 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 47 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................... 47 4.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................... 49 4.17 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................... 50 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 51 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 53 4.20 WILDFIRE..................................................................................................................................... 55 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................. 56 SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 63 196 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 iii FIGURES Figure 2-1 - Project Site ................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-2– 2019 Project Bridge Design ........................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2-3– Updated Bridge Design .............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2-4 -- Bridge Rendering .................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4-1: Updated Bridge Design Ocean Viewpoint ................................................................................ 15 Figure 4-2: Temporary and Permanent Vegetation Impacts ...................................................................... 29 Figure 4-3: West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge Location ..................................................................... 61 Figure 4-4: West Coast Highway Bridge Viewshed ..................................................................................... 62 TABLES Table 4-1: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Policy Consistency: Aesthetics .......................................... 12 Table 4-2: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis – Water Quality Control .......... 42 197 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 4 SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW/PURPOSE This addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (2019 MND) (SCH 2019099074) analyzes potential environmental impacts that would result from changes to the original project description and cumulative conditions since certification of the 2019 MND. The 2019 MND for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project was certified by the City of Newport Beach (City) on November 19, 2019. Since the 2019 MND approval, the City has proposed minor design changes to the bridge. In addition, a future project is being considering in the same area that would be considered a cumulative project, which was not a known future project at the time of approval. 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS In order to satisfy the conditions set forth in §15162 through §15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has used Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Addendum Project (proposed Project or Addendum) to make the following determinations: Ø No substantial changes are proposed in the Addendum that require major revisions to the original Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by the City due to the involvement of significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Ø No substantial changes will occur with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed Project is undertaken, and no major revisions to the Final MND will be required; and Ø No substantial new information has been provided that would require a major revision to the Final MND. Based on the information incorporated and the changes associated with the proposed Project, there are no conditions that would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND pursuant to §15162 through §15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. 198 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 5 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Newport Beach (City), as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared this Initial Study (IS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the revisions to the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (proposed Project). The proposed Project involves several alterations to the approved pedestrian and bicycle bridge and parking lot located at the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway in Newport Beach, California. An MND was completed in November 2019 for the original project (2019 Project). The 2019 Project found that due to its location close to the coast, the area receives a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 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 2019 Project involved a new pedestrian/bicycle Steel Truss or Concrete Cast-in Place bridge approximately 260 feet long and 14 feet wide that crosses Superior Avenue, a new larger parking lot with approximately 128 parking spaces, a stair case from the bridge down to the corner of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, extension of upper Sunset View Park (open space), earthwork, grading, and retaining walls, landscape and irrigation improvements, and other amenities including a drop-off area, bicycle fix-it station, and a drinking water fountain. The 2019 Project also proposed a possible extension of an access road through the parking lot to connect to the Hoag Memorial Hospital property. The 2019 MND found that impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to less than significant impacts and all other impacts would be less than significant. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Project is located at the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway within the City of Newport Beach and is located approximately 1,000 feet from the coastline (Project site) as shown in Figure 2-1: Project Site. The 2019 Project is expected to start construction in mid-2021 and therefore, the site is in the same existing condition as it was prior to approval of the 2019 MND. This includes an existing City-owned parking lot with 64 metered parking stalls 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 West 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. 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 199 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 6 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. 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. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed changes to the 2019 Project, as shown in Figure 2-2: 2019 Project Bridge Design, would be minor and include an updated bridge design as shown in Figure 2-3: Updated Bridge Design. The bridge would be a single span concrete arch bridge that would be approximately 200 feet long and 18 feet wide as shown in Figure 2-4: Bridge Rendering. The height of the bridge will be approximately 20 feet above the asphalt surface, and the bridge structure, including the projectile barrier, is approximately 11 feet tall. In addition, the bridge will not require any mid-span piles to support the bridge. All other aspects of the 2019 Project including landscaping, the parking lot, and extension of upper Sunset View Park (for passive recreation) would remain the same. 2.3.1 Construction Activities/Equipment Construction of the proposed Project is scheduled to begin in mid-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 timing of work and construction equipment needed will remain the same as what was proposed in the 2019 MND. In addition the staging area, sidewalk closures, and excavation of soils would not change from what was analyzed in the 2019 MND. 200 ^^ Kern Los Angeles Riverside SanBernardino San Diego SantaBarbara Ventura Project Location M e x i c oM e x i c o1:24,000 1:5,000,000 Figure 2-1 Project Location Map Name: 21169 PLAN Fig 2-1 Location & Vicinity.MxdPrint Date: 9/26/2019, Author: pcarlos Project Location Project Location 0 150 30075 Feet ´ Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 7 Figure 2-1 - Project Site 201 Figure 2-22019 Project Bridge Design Name: 21169 PLAN Fig 2-2 2019 Project Bridge Design.MxdPrint Date: 8/26/2019, Author: pcarlos Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 8 Figure 2-2– 2019 Project Bridge Design 202 Figure 2-3Updated Bridge Design Name: 21169 PLAN Fig 2-3 Updated Bridge Design.MxdPrint Date: 9/28/2020, Author: pcarlos Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 9 Figure 2-3– Updated Bridge Design 203 Figure 2-4Updated Bridge Design Name: 21169 PLAN Fig 2-4 Bridge Rendering.MxdPrint Date: 8/13/2020, Author: pcarlos Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 10 Figure 2-4 -- Bridge Rendering 204 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21169 11 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklists on the following pages. For each of the potentially affected factors, mitigation measures are recommended that would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The mitigation measure recommended are the same as those included in the 2019 MND, as no new impacts would occur. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology /Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities /Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.2 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: The 2019 MND followed the 2019 CEQA Checklist thresholds. For purposes of analysis, the 2020 CEQA Checklist thresholds were utilized to evaluate the proposed Project. Analysis of the proposed Project indicates that no substantial changes are proposed in the Project that would require major revisions to the original Final MND. Based on the information incorporated and the changes associated with the proposed Project, there are no conditions that would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to §15162 through §15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. 205 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 12 21169 SECTION 4.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 4.1 AESTHETICS 1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). 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 in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND found that the installation of the bridge would be unlikely to cause obstructed views from any of the existing scenic viewpoints because of its height and location. Under the proposed Project, the type of bridge would be updated to a single span concrete arch bridge design. Similar to the 2019 Project, the bridge design would not obstruct the views of the ocean as shown in Figure 4-1: Updated Bridge Design Ocean Viewpoint. Under the proposed Project, the bridge would be approximately the same height, but the design would be approximately 120 square feet smaller than the approved 2019 Project. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Policy Consistency for aesthetics and shown in Table 4-1: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Policy Consistency: Aesthetics. Table 4-1: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Policy Consistency: Aesthetics Policy Consistency with Policy 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. 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. 206 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 13 21169 Policy Consistency with Policy General Plan NR 20.3: Public Views /Coastal Land Use 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 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 proposed pedestrian bridge would provide additional access to coastal views. As shown in Figure 4-1, the bridge does not obstruct views of the ocean for existing scenic viewpoints due to its height and location. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 would not impact harbor or coastal bluffs as none are in the area. 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. Consistent. The proposed Project would include the addition of a pedestrian bridge which would provide access to locations designed to contain viewing 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. Consistent. The proposed Project provides access to locations designed to contain viewing areas. The bridge would provide access to unobstructed views of the coastal areas. The landscaping will be maintained to not block coastal views. 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 32nd Street. Consistent. The Single Span Concrete Arch bridge design will be 11 feet tall with a superstructure approximately 20 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 207 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 14 21169 Policy Consistency with Policy 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 parking lot and Sunset Ridge Park. The installation of the bridge would provide additional unobstructed views of the coast; and the bridge would not 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. The 2019 MND found that the although Pacific Coast Highway is listed as an eligible scenic highway – not officially designated, the 2019 Project would not substantially damage scenic resources. The 2019 Project’s potential shade structure from the bridge was found to be 10 to 15 feet in height and would be designed to protect public coastal views. The bridge associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 40 to 80 feet less in length than the bridge associated with the 2019 Project, slightly wider than what was previously analyzed at 18 feet wide. In addition, the shade structure noted in the 2019 Project is no longer proposed. The height of the bridge at 11 feet in height is within the range (8 to 16 feet tall) that was analyzed for the 2019 MND. Therefore, the updates associated with the proposed Project would not introduce new impacts to scenic resources near or within a state scenic highway and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required and impacts would remain less than significant. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). 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 Project is in an urbanized area. The 2019 MND found that although the 2019 Project would alter the existing visual character, that impacts would be considered less than significant. The presence of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge would not conflict with existing zoning regulations for Parks and Recreation as Accessory Structures and Uses are allowed with a Minor Use Permit (City 2020, Chapter 20.26.020). As previously mentioned, the bridge associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 40 to 80 feet less in length and 2 feet greater in width than the bridge associated with the 2019 Project. Therefore, the updates associated with the proposed Project would not introduce new impacts to the visual character or quality of public views and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required and impacts would remain less than significant. 208 Figure 4-1 Updated Bridge DesignOcean Viewpoint Name: 21169 PLAN Fig 4-1 Updated Bridge Design Ocean Viewpoint.MxdPrint Date: 9/28/2020, Author: pcarlos Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 15 21169 Figure 4-1: Updated Bridge Design Ocean Viewpoint 209 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 16 21169 d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND noted that current light sources exist within the Project site and that construction and operation of the 2019 Project would add some new temporary and long term lighting sources. The 2019 MND also noted that the bridge may be a source of glare depending on the design, material, and color, but that impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, 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). The proposed Project would not add additional lighting or material that may result in glare that would be different from the 2019 Project and therefore, no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required and impacts would remain less than significant. 4.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES 2. 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 farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? 210 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 17 21169 (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(g))? (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? 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 2019 MND noted that the Project site would not involve the conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses because no such lands are located in the area. The proposed Project would occur in the existing footprint of the 2019 Project, which is located within a highly urban area of the City; no new areas have been newly designated as farmland. No major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required and there would be no impact. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The 2019 MND noted that the Project site is not located within an area zoned for agricultural lands and Williamson Act contracts do not occur on this property and therefore no impacts would occur. The proposed Project would occur within the existing footprint of the 2019 Project, and the Project would remain consistent with the current uses and zoning onsite. No new areas have been newly designated as farmland and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. c) Would the project 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(g))? No Impact. The 2019 MND concluded that the Project site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The proposed Project would remain consistent with the site uses and zoning. No new impacts would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As previously noted, the 2019 MND concluded that no forest land exists on the Proposed Project site. The proposed Project remains consistent to what was analyzed as the footprint would remain the same. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. 211 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 18 21169 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. The 2019 MND concluded that the proposed Project is not located on lands designated for agricultural or forest uses. The proposed Project remains consistent to what was analyzed as the footprint would remain the same. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. 4.3 AIR QUALITY 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed Project site is located in the City of Newport Beach 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. An air quality analysis was conducted for the 2019 Project. 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 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. 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 212 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 19 21169 with the AQMP.” 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 prepared for the 2019 Project, 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. The Project as proposed, would result in an updated design which includes a smaller footprint for the bridge which would ultimately result in less construction than the 2019 Project. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? The City of Newport Beach General Plan define the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The 2019 Project consisted of construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue and a new larger parking lot. The proposed Project includes minor modifications including a change in the design of the bridge. The majority of the 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 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 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. Impacts would continue to be less than significant and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. 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. The 2019 MND analyzed construction and operation related impacts related to air quality. The 2019 MND concluded that impacts during construction and operation 213 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 20 21169 of the 2019 Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would therefore result in less than significant impacts. The Project as proposed, would result in an updated design which includes a smaller footprint for the bridge which would ultimately result in less construction than the 2019 Project. Operation of the proposed Project would be identical to that of the 2019 Project. Impacts would continue to be less than significant and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. 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. As discussed above in (b), the local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions would be less than those of the 2019 Project. Less than significant criteria pollutant concentrations would occur during construction and operation of the proposed Project. 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 their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and 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, similar to the 2019 MND, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and no new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, 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. 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 214 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 21 21169 number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, 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? (c) 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? (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? A site survey and literature study were conducted for the 2019 Project in June 2019 in the form of a Biological Resources Technical Report and Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Additionally, a focused survey within areas determined to be suitable habitat for the California Gnatcatcher was completed. The results of these studies are further described below. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As previously mentioned, a Biological Resources Technical Report and Jurisdictional Delineation Report were previously prepared for the 2019 Project. 215 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 22 21169 Special Status Animal Species Occurrences The biological report prepared for the 2019 Project concluded that 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 (CAGN) 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, 2019. No individuals were observed within the 500-foot buffer during the last survey on August 29, 2019. 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 Project site. The habitat within the majority of the 500-foot buffer and the 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 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 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 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; this is the same area of impact identified in the 2019 MND. Due to the level of disturbance in the area of the proposed Project and the high level 216 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 23 21169 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 mitigation measures (MMs). The 2019 MND incorporated the following mitigation to ensure less than significant impacts: 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. MM BIO-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. Since the time of these surveys, the existing conditions on the Project site have not changed. The proposed Project would involve a similar amount of ground disturbance and would be within the footprint of the 2019 Project. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would also implement Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3, however, no new significant impacts would occur that were not previously analyzed. Although the size of the impact area is increased, Impacts to sensitive wildlife species and habitats would remain less than significant. 217 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 24 21169 Special Status Plant Species The biological report prepared for the 2019 Project concluded that 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. Because the proposed Project would be within the footprint of the 2019 Project, there are no 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 no new impacts would occur. The Project site contains 0.1 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, construction of the Project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to this planted vegetation as shown in Figure 4-2: Temporary and Permanent Vegetation Impacts. Permanent impacts would be limited to direct disturbance from the western bridge abutment and limited impacts would occur due to shading. Areas that are temporarily impacted during construction will be replanted once construction is complete. The 2019 Project calculated approximately 886 square feet (or 0.02 acre) of Restored Coastal Sage Scrub would be impacted due to the design of the bridge; however, based on design changes the proposed Project would impact 950 square feet (or 0.022 acre) of Restored Coastal Sage Scrub. The 2019 MND incorporated the following mitigation to ensure less than significant impacts: 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 218 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 25 21169 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. Although the proposed Project would result in slightly greater impacts than the 2019 Project, the impacts would still be mitigated to less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-4. Impacts would remain less than significant under the proposed Project; no new significant impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation. The biological report for the 2019 Project concluded that the Sunset Ridge 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. This corridor provides habitat for terrestrial wildlife as well as a way 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. Four sensitive vegetation communities were identified in the literature search as being present within 5 miles of the survey area (Chambers Group 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 new permanent or temporary impacts to these areas would occur. Critical habitat has been designated in areas of Newport Beach for the coastal California gnatcatcher and is located within the western portion of the survey area; however, the habitat within the 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 Project site is low quality. The areas surrounding Sunset Park and within the 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 219 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 26 21169 buffer area, for foraging only and nesting in the Newport Banning Ranch area, outside of the 500-foot buffer. In 2019, no CAGN were observed flying or foraging closer than 480 feet to the Project site. Additionally, the applicant would be required to comply the MBTA and therefore, no new 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 2019 Project, the Project site was found to not contain an ESHA. The proposed Project would occur within the same footprint of the 2019 Project and would operate with the same uses. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Policies. Implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4, would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant; no new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. c) 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 with Mitigation. The 2019 MND concluded that 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 Local Coastal Program (LCP) were identified both on and off the Project site. These were identified as the Superior Avenue Wetlands and the West Coast Highway Wetlands. The 2019 MND concluded that the Superior Avenue Wetland is outside the 100-foot buffer and are already surrounded by on-going disturbances. Additionally, 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. The bridge itself would not result in any adverse shading impacts and therefore impacts to the Superior Avenue Wetland, would not occur. The proposed Project would occur within the 2019 Project footprint and therefore no new impacts would occur. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project has been designed to avoid directly impacting the Commission wetlands located on the slope along West Coast Highway. 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.C of the City of Newport Beach LCP Implementation Plan. 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 220 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 27 21169 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 2019 MND incorporated the following mitigation to ensure less than significant impacts: 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. The proposed Project would involve a similar amount of ground disturbance and would be within the footprint of the 2019 Project. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would also implement Mitigation Measure MM BIO-5, however, no new significant impacts would occur that were not previously analyzed. Impacts to wetlands would remain less than significant; and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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? Less than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the results of the biological survey concluded that essential fish habitats are not present within the proposed Project. The survey concluded that 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 occur within the proposed Project, the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). 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 (Chambers Group 2019). 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would be required to follow the conditions of the MBTA. 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 221 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 28 21169 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 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 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. Additionally, as previously discussed, 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, no new significant impacts would occur and impacts would be less than significant regarding interfering with wildlife corridors. The proposed Project would not result in major revisions to the 2019 MND. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the 2019 Project, 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 ordinances. 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, no new impacts would occur. The proposed Project would not result in major revisions to the 2019 MND. 222 Figure 4-2 Temporary and PermanentVegetation Impacts Name: 21169 PLAN Fig 4-2 Temporary and Permanent Vegetation Impacts2.MxdPrint Date: 10/28/2020, Author: pcarlos Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 29 21169 Figure 4-2: Temporary and Permanent Vegetation Impacts 223 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 30 21169 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? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND noted that the Project site occurs within the Central/Coastal Subregion. Sunset Ridge Park and a portion of the northern area of the 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 prepared for the 2019 Project, 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 remain less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in major revisions to the 2019 MND. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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 outside of formal cemeteries? A records’ search, field study, and archaeological survey were conducted for the 2019 Project. The results of these studies concluded that none of the previously recorded resources are within the study area, 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. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. Review of the Project area for the 2019 Project failed to identify any previously recorded historical resources potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The proposed Project would be located in the same footprint of the 2019 Project and therefore no new impacts would occur and no revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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. The 2019 MND concluded that although no resources were found on the site and the likelihood of encountering previously unrecorded resources is low, cultural materials may be encountered during construction. It is the City of Newport Beach and 224 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 31 21169 Caltrans policy that work will stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. In addition, the 2019 MND incorporated the following mitigation to ensure less than significant impacts: 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.). The proposed Project would involve a similar amount of ground disturbance and would be in the same footprint as the 2019 Project. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would also implement Mitigation Measure MM CUL-1, however, no new impacts would occur that were not previously analyzed. Impacts would remain less than significant, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The 2019 MND concluded that although the 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, resources that are buried may be encountered during grading. The 2019 MND incorporated the following mitigation to ensure less than significant impacts: 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. The proposed Project would involve a similar amount of ground disturbance and would be within the footprint of the 2019 Project. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would also implement Mitigation Measure MM CUL-2, however, no new impacts would occur that were not previously analyzed. Impacts would remain less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in major revisions to the 2019 MND. 225 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 32 21169 4.6 ENERGY 6. ENERGY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND found that energy usage during construction and operation of the 2019 Project would be minimal and impacts would be less than significant. Construction of the proposed Project would be similar to that of the 2019 Project and electricity, natural gas, and petroleum fuels would be considered minimal. Operation of the proposed Project would be the same as the 2019 Project and similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would be required to 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. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24, which regulates the amount of energy consumed by new development. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new impacts and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 226 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 33 21169 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (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-B 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 of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? a) Would the project 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. Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND noted that the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; however, the Project site is located within the Newport- Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone located approximately 700 feet northwest. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project will provide structural plans to the City to indicated that the Project will meet the seismic design parameters within the 2019 California Building Code and policies outlines in the Safety Element in the General Plan. No new impacts would occur, and no revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. As noted above, similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project is subject to potential ground shaking due to nearby faults. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed 227 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 34 21169 Project would implement grading and erosion control plans, comply with the NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirements, and include BMPs to minimize soil erosion. The proposed Project involves minor design changes to the previously approved bridge. Therefore the proposed Project would be consistent with the general plan and Coastal Land Use Plan for Seismic Hazards. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND noted that the proposed Project is not located within a liquefaction zone. The proposed Project is entirely within the 2019 Project footprint and therefore, no new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. iv) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project site is entirely within the 2019 Project site, meaning there are several areas within the proposed Project site designated to be prone to landslides. Similar to the 2019 Project, the bridge would not be located within a landslide or liquefaction zone, however portions of the parking lot would be 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 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. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any new, significant impacts associated with landslides and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Soils within the Proposed Project site are classified as sandy loam, fine sandy loam, and gravelly coarse sand (USDA 2019). Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would 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) and would comply with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan for erosion minimization. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in new, significant impacts associated with soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 2019 MND concluded that the Project site is not located in an area identified to have the potential for liquefaction and not located within a seismic hazard zone. However, similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan policies for seismic strengthening by complying with applicable seismic design parameters. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result new, significant impacts associated with 228 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 35 21169 landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. In addition, no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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. Expansive soils are certain types of clay soils that expand when saturated and shrink when dried. The 2019 MND concluded that with compliance with Section 3104 of the California Building Code for Pedestrian Walkways and Tunnels and the General Plan Goal S4 to minimize the potential risk to life or property for both construction of the pedestrian bridge and parking lot impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would also develop a bridge for pedestrian and bicycle uses with a slightly different design. However, the proposed Project would also comply with Section 3104 of the CBC and the General Plan Goal S4 and therefore no new impacts would occur. In addition, no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 activities include minor design changes to the 2019 Project. The Proposed Project, consistent with the 2019 Project, would not involve activities that would require the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The 2019 MND concluded that although no fossils or archaeological resources were found on the site, the Project site contains an above average potential for paleontological resources. The Project site is located within the footprint of the 2019 Project. The 2019 MND incorporated the following mitigation to ensure less than significant impacts: MM PALEO-1: All project-related ground disturbance that could potentially 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. 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 229 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 36 21169 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 re-posited 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.). The proposed Project would involve a similar amount of ground disturbance and would be within the footprint of the 2019 Project. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would also implement Mitigation Measures MM PALEO-1 through MM PALEO-5 and MM CUL-1, however, no new impacts would occur that were not previously analyzed. Impacts would remain less than significant, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? 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. The 2019 MND concluded that the 2019 Project would generate emissions that would be far below the AB 32 SCAQMD threshold. The Project as proposed, would result in an updated design for the bridge which would ultimately result in less construction than the 2019 Project. The Proposed Project would not increase impacts beyond those analyzed in the 2019 230 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 37 21169 MND. Less than significant impacts would result, and no major changes to the 2019 MND would be required. b) 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 2019 MND concluded that the 2019 Project would generate emissions that would be far below the AB 32 SCAQMD threshold, and the AB 1397 and SB 32 thresholds and therefore would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Project as proposed, would result in an updated design which includes a smaller footprint for the bridge which would ultimately result in less construction than the 2019 Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not introduce new, significant impacts in addition to those analyzed in the 2019 MND, so no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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 and 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 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 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? 231 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 38 21169 a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the 2019 Project, the construction of the proposed Project would result in the temporary transport and storage of hazardous materials. During construction, the proposed Project would 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 and parking lot, 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. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to significantly increase the risk of the release of hazardous materials beyond risks analyzed in the 2019 MND, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 2019 Project which concluded construction activities may result in some potential release of contaminants during ground disturbing activities. In addition, the 2019 MND incorporated the following mitigation to ensure less than significant impacts: 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. The proposed Project would involve a similar amount of ground disturbance and would be within the footprint of the 2019 Project. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would also implement Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1, however, no new impacts would occur that were not previously analyzed. Impacts would remain less than significant, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 2019 MND noted that 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 232 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 39 21169 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 that was prepared for the 2019 Project concluded that none of the nearby hazardous sites were located on or near the Project site. The proposed Project would be located within the same footprint as the 2019 Project. An updated review of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker online database and Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database (where applicable) were conducted and no new sites were identified. Therefore, no new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 2019 MND concluded that the nearest airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 4.5 miles north from the proposed Project site and the nearest private heliport is located at Hoag Memorial Hospital approximately 0.5 miles northeast from the proposed Project site. The proposed Project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. The proposed Project would be located within the same footprint as the 2019 Project and therefore, no new impacts would occur. In addition, no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 2019 MND concluded that 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). Similar to the 2019 Project, Superior Avenue has the potential to be temporarily closed at night to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge’s superstructure. 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. No new impacts would occur and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The 2019 MND noted that the Project site is located in a low/no susceptibility area for wildfire hazards and would not construct any habitable structures. The proposed Project would be located within the same footprint as the 2019 Project and would also not construct any habitable structures. Therefore, no new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 233 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 40 21169 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site; 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 stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (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? 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 Impact. The proposed Project site is located entirely within the site analyzed in the 2019 MND, which is an urbanized area. Similar to the 2019 Project, 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. The proposed Project would comply with the policies identified in the Local Coastal Implementation Plan for water quality control (City of Newport Beach 2017b). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new significant impacts compared to the 2019 Project, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 234 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 41 21169 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. The 2019 MND concluded that the depth of excavation would not reach groundwater levels and therefore it would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The proposed Project would not require excavation depths deeper than what was previously analyzed and therefore the Proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND noted that the Project would not involve the alteration or blockage of the existing concrete culverts. Similar to the 2019 Project, 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 also implement BMPs provided in the Orange County Stormwater Program to control pollutant discharges from construction sites. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flood on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project, during construction, areas within the Project site would be compacted and the drainage patterns would be altered and operation of the Project would introduce impervious surfaces which would in turn result in increased runoff. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would be 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. The footprint of the Project would be very similar but slightly less than the approved 2019 Project, as the bridge is slightly shorter and would not require a support in Superior Avenue. Therefore no new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND concluded that the Project’s construction and operational activities would introduce impervious surfaces and increase runoff to the area, however compliance with the General Plan’s goals and policies to minimize runoff would reduce impacts to less than significant. The proposed Project would also comply with the General Plan as shown in Table 4- 235 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 42 21169 2: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis – Water Quality Control. 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. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. Table 4-2: General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis – Water Quality Control Policy Consistency with Policy 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 HB8.5). Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with the NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirements to minimize or control surface runoff. 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) 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. 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) Consistent. Once developed, the proposed parking lot would be maintained and cleaned to minimize waste and contamination that could result in the degradation of water quality. 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 and sited to minimize impacts to public views of the water and coastal bluffs 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 will comply with the General Plan policies to minimize contamination and degradation of water quality, and minimize or control surface runoff with the implementation of site specific BMPs. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND followed the 2019 CEQA Guidelines Checklist which did not previously include this threshold. However, as previously mentioned, the proposed Project would not involve the alteration or blockage of the existing concrete culverts. Additionally, the proposed Project would develop a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plans which would identify site specific BMPs that would manage and control surface runoff, and minimize flooding. Impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 236 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 43 21169 d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the 2019 Project, the Project site is located approximately 1,000 feet northeast from the Pacific Ocean which has a low probability, but high-risk tsunami events. The proposed Project would not introduce new structures that could expose people to a tsunami or seiche. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project may result in the release of pollutants due to flooding during construction. 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. Tsunami and seiche zones have not changed since the 2019 Project. The proposed Project introduces no new risks of pollutants releasing from the Project site due to floods, tsunami, or seiche; and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the 2019 Project, 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. Thus, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable water quality or groundwater management plans. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING 11. LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The 2019 MND noted the proposed Project would 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. The Project as proposed would result in minor changes to the 2019 Project that would also not physically divide an established community. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 237 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 44 21169 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 majority of the proposed Project site is designated as Parks and Recreation (PR) in the General Plan and is zoned Parks and Recreation (PR). The 2019 MND concluded that the uses associated with the 2019 Project would be consistent with the applicable plans including zoning and the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Project as proposed would result in minor changes to the 2019 Project, which includes the change of the bridge design. No component of the Proposed Project, once operational, would have the potential to conflict with adjacent land uses. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? 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 Project site is within the same site as the 2019 Project, which is mapped within 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). Similar to the 2019 Project, 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. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a new impact associated with mineral resource availability, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. 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. As noted above in item 4.12 a), the Project site is mapped within MRZ-3; however, no mineral resource extraction or other mining operations currently occur within or adjacent to the Project site. Similar to the 2019 Project, no mining or mineral extracting activities are proposed. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 238 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 45 21169 4.13 NOISE 13. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? A noise analysis was completed for the 2019 Project, which outlined potential noise levels associated with 2019 Project construction and operational activities. The Project site is the same as was analyzed in the previously approved 2019 MND. The construction and operational activities associated with the proposed Project are substantially similar to those analyzed in the 2019 MND and are not anticipated to significantly increase previous noise results. 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. 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would consist of construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue and a new larger parking lot. The construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to begin in mid-2021 and would be completed in 14 to 18 months. The phases of construction (demolition, grading, construction) would occur in the same manner as proposed in the 2019 Project. In addition, the construction activities would occur during the same timeframes as the 2019 Project. 239 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 46 21169 The noise analysis for construction of the 2019 Project concluded that construction impacts would be less than significant. The Project as proposed, would result in an updated design which includes a revision to the bridge design which would ultimately result in less construction than the 2019 Project. Accordingly, no new impacts would occur and impacts would be less than significant. Analysis of the 2019 Project concluded that operations-related onsite noise impacts to the nearby homes would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed Project would be the same as the 2019 Project and therefore no new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. No known sources of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise were associated with the operation of 2019 Project; therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to result in operational impacts associated with groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Construction equipment used during Project site excavation has the greatest potential to generate vibrations that would affect local residential land uses. Construction equipment would include loaded trucks, excavators, dozers, and loaders. Based on the modeling results from the noise study prepared for the 2019 Project, vibration levels from construction equipment would generate vibration levels would be 0.081 PPV at the nearest residence. Since the proposed Project construction activities are expected to be substantially similar to the 2019 Project construction activities, no new groundborne noise impacts would be introduced, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 is located within the footprint of the 2019 Project. The 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. Therefore no new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 240 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 47 21169 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 2019 MND concluded that the 2019 Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and therefore, no impacts would occur. The proposed Project would be substantially similar to the 2019 Project and would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. As such, no new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The 2019 MND concluded that because the 2019 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 impacts would occur. The proposed Project would be substantially similar to the 2019 Project and would not displace a substantial number of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES 15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? 241 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 48 21169 ii) Police Protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND concluded that the 2019 Project would not result in increased populations that would require additional public services, as the new bridge and associated facilities would serve the existing population. The 2019 Project did not include any activities that would require the modification of the Lido Fire Station or other fire stations. The proposed Project includes minor alterations to the 2019 Project including revisions to the design of the bridge. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project may 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. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection services or a need for new or physically altered fire protection services Consequently, no new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. ii) Police Protection? No Impact. The 2019 MND found that the 2019 Project would not result in increased populations that would require additional public services, nor would it impact the nearest police station and therefore no impact would occur. The proposed Project includes minor alterations to the 2019 Project including revisions to the design of the bridge. The proposed Project would also not result in increased populations that would require additional services or impact the nearest police station. Consequently, no new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. iii) Schools? No Impact. The 2019 MND noted that the 2019 Project would not result in an increase to population and therefore, no impacts would occur. The proposed Project includes minor alterations to the 2019 Project including revisions to the design of the bridge. The proposed Project would also not result in increased populations that would result in an increase to the population. Consequently, no new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. iv) Parks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes minor alterations to the 2019 Project which included the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge and an asphalt parking lot. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would not alter Sunset Ridge Park except for temporary construction activities near the southeast portion of the park. These construction activities would be 242 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 49 21169 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would not result in the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. v) Other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND concluded that although the Hoag Child Center building is located relatively near the site, that the 2019 Project would not result in increased populations that would require an increase in hospital services and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project includes minor alterations to the 2019 Project including revisions to the design of the bridge. The proposed Project would also not result in increased populations that would result in an increase to the population. Consequently, no new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 4.16 RECREATION 16. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? 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 includes minor alterations to the 2019 Project which included the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge and an asphalt parking lot. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would not alter Sunset Ridge Park except for temporary construction activities near the southeast portion of the park. These 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would not result in the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that physical deterioration 243 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 50 21169 would occur or be accelerated. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 does not include the construction or operation of any additional recreational facilities beyond those analyzed in the 2019 MND. No new impacts would occur and impacts would remain less than significant. 4.17 TRANSPORTATION 17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (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? a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND concluded that the 2019 Project would provide an additional bicycle and pedestrian path to Sunset Ridge Park without significantly modifying existing roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes. Similar to the 2019 Project, 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 to specify any potential reroutes, speed limits, etc. Therefore, no new impacts would occur, and implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts. No major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The 2019 MND noted that 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 2019 Project is not a land use project and 244 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 51 21169 would not involve changes to the existing land uses and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would result in minor changes to the 2019 Project, is not a land use project, and would not involve changes to the existing land uses. Therefore, no new impacts would occur, and implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts. No major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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. The 2019 MND concluded that 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). The pedestrian bridge would provide access which would increase pedestrian safety. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would be built above the vertical clearance of 14 feet as identified in the California Vehicle Code (Caltrans). Therefore, no new impacts would occur, and implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts. No major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is within the 2019 Project footprint. Similar to the 2019 Project, Superior Avenue has the potential to be closed at night, to accommodate the installation of the proposed bridge’s superstructure, all other roads in the vicinity would remain open. Superior Avenue, is 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 access would be maintained during construction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not increase or introduce new impact associated with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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), or 245 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 52 21169 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (b) 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. a) Would the project be 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 No Impact. The 2019 MND concluded that there were no historic or prehistoric resources identified or occur on the site. The proposed Project would be within the footprint of the 2019 Project and therefore would also not contain historic or prehistoric resource. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. b) 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less than Significant with Mitigation. The 2019 Project conducted the AB 52 consultation on June 27, 2019. Of the two tribes contacted, one responded. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation 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., Gabrieleño 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. The proposed Project would involve a similar amount of ground disturbance and would be within the footprint of the 2019 Project. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would also implement Mitigation Measure MM TCR-1, however, no new impacts would occur that were not previously 246 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 53 21169 analyzed. Impacts would remain less than significant, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 19. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? a) Would the project 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? No Impact. The 2019 MND concluded the Project would not require relocation or construction of new utilities for wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. The proposed Project would result in the same uses as the 2019 Project and there are no proposed structures or facilities, including commercial and residential properties that would require new utility connections. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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. The 2019 MND concluded that water for the Project will be provided by the City, and the City has acknowledged that there is adequate water supply to support the Project. Similar to the 2019 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 247 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 54 21169 operation and maintenance. Additionally, 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 which will utilize recycled water. No new impacts on water supply would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 2019 MND concluded that the Project would not involve the construction of residential, commercial, or industrial buildings that would require a significant need in wastewater treatment. The proposed Project would develop the same uses as the 2019 Project and would also not result in a need for significant wastewater treatment. Furthermore, the proposed Project would comply with the General Plan goals and policies in water conservation and recycled water use during development. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 2019 MND noted that the construction of the Project would generate solid waste including scrap lumber, concrete, residual waste, packaging material, plastics, etc. The proposed Project would also result in waste generation from construction. Operation of the proposed Project would not involve in an increase in population within the proposed Project area and would not result in an increase in waste generation. Under the General Plan, the Orange County landfills will have adequate capacity to operate until 2035. To ensure optimal diversion of solid waste generated, the proposed Project would recycle, or salvage solid waste generated to minimize disposal into landfills. Compliance and incorporation of the City’s guidelines in waste reduction and recycling goals would result in no new impacts when compared to the 2019 Project. No major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes? Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the 2019 Project, all activities associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project, 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. No new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 248 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 55 21169 4.20 WILDFIRE 20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Substantially 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 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 landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? 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? 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 2019 MND noted that the Project site is located in an area of low/no susceptibility to wildfire (City of Newport Beach 2006) and 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. The 2019 Project would not impair an emergency access route or an emergency response plan. The proposed Project is within the same footprint as the 2019 Project and would provide the same uses and layout. Therefore, no new impacts would occur, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND will be required. 249 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 56 21169 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (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? 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 with Mitigation. Similar to the 2019 Project, the proposed Project would construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge and a parking lot. 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 Project site. Although impacts would be slightly less than those of the approved Project due to the slightly reduced footprint, similar to the 2019 Project, 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 from the 2019 MND would also apply to the proposed Project and 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 250 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 57 21169 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. • MM BIO-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. 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 251 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 58 21169 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 BIO-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. The proposed Project would also require grading and excavation that may result in the discovery of previously unidentified artifacts related to California history or prehistory. Implementation of the following mitigation measures from the 2019 MND would also apply to the proposed Project and would result in less than significant impact to cultural resources and paleontological resources. • 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.). • 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 potentially 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 252 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 59 21169 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 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 TCR -1: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence that a Native American monitor (i.e., Gabrieleño 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. With implementation of the above mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological, cultural, and paleontological resources, impacts will remain less than significant and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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 2019 MND analyzed several cumulative projects including the following: 253 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 60 21169 • Project No: 18L11: 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. The 2019 MND concluded that in combination with other planned and pending development in the area, development of the proposed Project would have less than significant cumulative impacts. Since the time of Project approval, the City has received funding for an additional project which could be considered a cumulative project. This project includes widening West Coast Highway and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway to provide access from the parking lot across West Coast Highway as shown in Figure 4-3: West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge Location. As shown in Figure 4-4: West Coast Highway Bridge Rendering, this second bridge is not anticipated to block views of the ocean. However, it is unknown at this time when this Project would be constructed. Similar to other cumulative projects, this project would be considered a discretionary action that would trigger CEQA and it would be required to undergo project specific environmental review similar to the proposed Project, prior to construction. Impacts would be less than significant, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required. 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. Similar to the 2019 Project, 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. 254 Figure 4-3West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge Location Name: 21169 PLAN Fig 4-3 West Coast Highway Bridge Location.MxdPrint Date: 9/28/2020, Author: pcarlos Proposed Project Bridge (Approximate Location) Future West Coast Highway Bridge (Approximate Location) ´ Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 61 21169 Figure 4-3: West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge Location 255 Figure 4-4 West Coast HighwayBridge Rendering Name: 21169 PLAN Fig 4-4 West Coast Highway Bridge Rendering.MxdPrint Date: 9/28/2020, Author: pcarlos Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 62 21169 Figure 4-4: West Coast Highway Bridge Viewshed 256 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 63 21169 SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2019 Data Viewer. DOC Maps. Accessed August 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/dataviewer/ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2018 Height & Low Clearances, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/legal-truck- access/height#:~:text=Height%20%26%20Low%20Clearances- ,Height%20%26%20Low%20Clearances,a%20height%20of%2014%20feet.&text=No%20 vehicle%20or%20load%20shall,of%2014%20feet%2C%203%20inches, accessed August 2020. 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 lan_2006_Complete.pdf 2017a Coastal Land Use Plan. Available online at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/LCP/Internet%20PDFs//CLUP_Cover%20and%2 0Table%20of%20Contents.pdf 2017b Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. Available online at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/html/pdfs/NewportBeach21.pdf 2019a Newport Beach Municipal Code. Accessed at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/ 2019b Municipal Operations – Parks and Trees website. Available online at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/public-works/municipal- operations/parks-trees-20371 2020 Zoning Code Department of Conservation (DOC) 1981 Generalized Aggregate Resource Classification Map. Orange County – Temescal Valley and Adjacent Production. California Division of Mines and Geology. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 257 Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project MND Addendum Newport Beach, California Chambers Group, Inc. 64 21169 2019 EnviroStor. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Accessed August 2020. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov 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 August 2020. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/o cpermit/2014/Draft_R8-2014-0002.pdf United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2019 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Accessed August 2020. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2019 Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report. Information for Planning and Conservation. Accessed at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ and generated on June 3, 2019. 2019 Revised List of Migratory Birds; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 10. Federal Register 78 (212): 65844-65864. Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/11/01/2013-26061/general-provisions- revised-list-of-migratory-birds, accessed August 2020. 258 Attachment No. PC 9 Chambers Group Memorandum 259 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE260 Memorandum (21169) Page 1 of 5 Project: Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot, City of Newport Beach Date: February 24, 2021 RE: CEQA Adequacy of MND Addendum Background A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process was undertaken for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project; and a MND was originally drafted and circulated for public review in September 2019. After responding to public review comments received from agencies and members of the public, a Final MND along with a conceptual design was taken to City Council and was approved in November 2019. The approved conceptual design included a 3-span concrete bridge structure with two concrete piles. During the development of the final construction documents in early 2020, the City’s engineering consultant proposed a modified bridge structure, which was a slightly different than the conceptual design, that was analyzed in the 2019 MND. The modified bridge structure involves a single-span concrete arch bridge that would eliminate the need for the two concrete piles. Although the conceptual design met all design guidelines, the City recognized the safety benefits of not constructing the two concrete piles. The height of the proposed single-span concrete arch bridge remains unchanged as a result of the design change. In May 2020, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) approved a grant for a future project that includes widening the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue and a pedestrian bridge over West Coast Highway. Out of an abundance of caution, the City determined that a MND Addendum would be the appropriate document that would provide information on the updated bridge design and include the information known to date about the potential future cumulative project of the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge project. Since CEQA is a public disclosure law, the City wanted to be able to provide the public with the information that was known at that time. In response to the information contained in the appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Development Permit as well as the MND Addendum, the following summaries on the CEQA approach are provided: CEQA project analysis vs. Piecemealing In general, CEQA prohibits an agency from dividing up a project into two or more pieces, each of which may have minimal environmental impacts but altogether may have significant environmental impacts. In addition, the California Supreme Court (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California (1988) has held that an EIR (or ND) must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Thus, if an activity or facility is necessary for the operation of a project, or necessary to achieve the project objectives, or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of approving the project, then it should be considered as part of the whole project. The Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project is a stand-alone project that has independent utility and could be constructed to meet the project objectives entirely on its own (without 261 Memorandum (21169) Page 2 of 5 any future projects). In addition, the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project also has its own independent utility and would not require the completion of the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project to be complete in order to be constructed. At the time that the 2019 MND was written, the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project was not a reasonably foreseeable future project, as funding had not been approved. Without funding, the City would not move forward with the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project. Additionally, as noted above, even without funding for and construction of the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project, the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project would continue forward. Once funding was approved for that project, the City did disclose this potential future project in the cumulative discussion of the MND Addendum in the event that construction of these two distinct projects overlap and to demonstrate that, based on information known at the time of the Addendum to the MND for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian/ Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project, no significant cumulative impacts would occur. However, since only the funding had been approved and design had not yet been started, only limited details were known at the time of the MND Addendum drafting. Cumulative Impacts in an MND Within an MND, cumulative impacts are generally identified in the Mandatory Findings of Significance section, where cumulative impacts are summarized. When adding future potential projects to the analysis, CEQA does not require any analysis that may be speculative in nature. As noted in CEQA Guidelines section 15145, “If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.” As noted in the MND Addendum, the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project has not been designed yet, and only general information is known. Thus, the Addendum cumulative discussion notes potential impacts that may occur, but that the project details are not known at this time and will be analyzed in a future CEQA document. Use of Addendum for Project Changes As noted in the CEQA Guidelines section 15164 (b), “An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” As noted in the MND Addendum, no new or more significant impacts would occur as a result of the project changes. In addition, no new mitigation measures were determined to be needed as a result of the project changes. Therefore, an Addendum was determined to be the appropriate document to analyze the minor change in bridge design and addition of the West Coast Highway Intersection Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project as a potentially cumulative project. Use of Visual Simulations in the Addendum The original 2019 MND included analysis from six distinct viewpoints including: Viewpoint 1: a view of Superior Avenue facing south, from the southern portion of Sunset Ridge Park along an accessible public 262 Memorandum (21169) Page 3 of 5 walking path; Viewpoint 2: a view facing east of West Coast Highway from the western side of West Coast Highway, west of Superior Avenue and facing toward the southern portion of Sunset Ridge Park; Viewpoint 3: a view of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue facing north, and adjacent to the western corner of Balboa Boulevard and West Coast Highway; Viewpoint 4: a view along West Coast Highway facing northwest towards Sunset Ridge Park; Viewpoint 5: a view along Superior Avenue facing south and downhill towards the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue from the northern sidewalk; and Viewpoint 6: a view along Superior Avenue facing south and downhill towards the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue from the southern sidewalk. In the Addendum, Figure 4-1 provides a view of the updated bridge design from Viewpoint 1, to show that with the updated bridge design, no new aesthetics impacts would occur. In addition, the MND Addendum cumulative section included Figure 4-3 which showed the approximate anticipated location of the future West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge and Figure 4-4 which displayed an approximation of where the West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge would be located within the existing viewshed. Since the West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge design has not been completed, a more detailed simulation could not be provided at that time, nor has the design been completed since the writing of the Addendum. Any additional details would be speculative; however the information provided is representative of the expected massing diagram of the future project. As noted above, CEQA does not require an analysis of speculative impacts, thus the MND Addendum’s purpose was to provide the public with the information known at this time without speculating on impacts that would not be known until design of the West Coast Highway Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Project is completed. Although fewer viewpoints were shown in the MND Addendum, as noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (d), “The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.” Therefore, the MND Addendum is considered as a part of the previous MND documentation, where all visual simulations are provided. The view provided in the MND Addendum was the most representative of the cumulative impacts if both projects were to be constructed. Potential Wetlands Impacts The proposed Project site was assessed for the presence of wetlands, riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, and drainage features. Chambers Group conducted a field survey delineation for the Project in August 2019 to determine the identification and mapping of wetlands within and immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site that may be subject to potential federal, state, and/or California Coastal Commission (Commission) jurisdiction. Per the 2019 MND and 2020 MND Addendum (Section 4.4.2 (c)), 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 that is under the jurisdiction of the Commission. No wetlands subject to California Fish and Game Code or the Clean Water Act are present within or adjacent to the Project. The Superior Avenue wetland area is approximately 115 feet from its closest point to the proposed bridge structure boundary and is approximately 0.15-acre in size. The bridge structure itself it outside of the 100-foot buffer of the Superior Avenue wetlands, although construction activities will occur within the buffer. Further, the existing wetlands are already surrounded by a variety of on-going disturbances, primarily attributed to recreational and maintenance 263 Memorandum (21169) Page 4 of 5 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. In addition, the West Coast Highway wetland (approximately 1,090 square feet, or 0.025 acre) is adjacent to the proposed Project site and exhibits sufficient hydrology to establish a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation and/or the formation of hydric soils. This wetland is situated on a moderately steep slope facing West Coast Highway near the southeast corner of the proposed Project site The proposed Project has been designed to avoid direct impacts to the wetlands located on the slope along West Coast Highway 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.C 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 and Superior Avenue. 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. “Environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA)” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 30107.5 means an 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. In addition, Section 4.1.1 of the LCP states that, “Wetland habitats with the City of Newport Beach that may meet the definition of ESHA include coastal brackish marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, southern hardpan vernal pools, freshwater seeps, and alkali meadows.” Since the wetlands, both along Superior Avenue and along 264 Memorandum (21169) Page 5 of 5 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. Even if the two wetland areas adjacent to the Project site were to be considered ESHA, the 2019 MND document and associated appendices considered the individual and cumulative impacts of the development, and recommended mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts, as required by the LCP (section 4.6-5). As the LCP states (section 4.1.1), “adjacent development must be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the ESHA and must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA” Specifically, the MND included avoidance and minimization measures (e.g., protective fencing, signage, on-site monitoring, construction worker awareness) as well as mitigation measure MM BIO-5, which states, “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.” Although proposed construction activities will occur within the 100-foot buffer of the Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway wetlands, impacts to these wetlands will be prevented through the implementation of 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. Per the analysis completed by Chambers Group biologists, construction and/or restoration within the 100-foot buffer of the wetlands areas would not cause a significant impact, as these activities would not change the hydrology of the site. The mitigation measures provided, including MM BIO-5, would reduce impacts to 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 MM BIO-5. 265 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE266 Attachment No. PC 10 Public Comments 267 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE268 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 1 of 16 December 9, 2020 Mr. Jaime Murillo, Zoning Administrator City of Newport Beach Subject: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 Variance from development standards for excess bridge abutment height and bridge height Addendum ND2019-002 to Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH 2019099074 Mr. Murillo, The following comments are submitted following review of the Staff Report and attachments for the above project. Let me start by saying circumstances have changed significantly since the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (prior project) was approved in 2019. Most importantly, the public has learned of the true objective behind the project. That objective being the plan to widen West Coast Highway at Superior Avenue. An objective not disclosed to the public or discussed in the prior project’s Staff Report, Project Findings or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation. Given the new information about the prior project’s objective, the proposed Superior Avenue bridge component must be severed from the prior project’s approvals and Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH 2019099074 (MND). The proposed Project while sharing similarities to the prior project, is a “new” project and must be evaluated as such. Staff is relying in part on the prior MND for compliance with CEQA. To address the changes in circumstances, Staff prepared a CEQA Initial Study and is proposing an Addendum (ND2019-002) to the MND prepared for the prior project. Like the MND prepared for the prior project, the proposed Addendum fails to address the proposed Project’s primary object and intent. The proposed Addendum fails to consider changes in circumstances since the approval of the prior project. If the CEQA Initial Study for the proposed Project had considered the proposed Project’s object and changes in circumstances, the Initial Study would have concluded the proposed Project has the potential to result significant adverse impacts on the environment and determined an Environmental Impact Report is the correct document in satisfaction of the CEQA. Importantly, a review of the proposed Project plans indicates the height of the proposed bridge exceeds the height Variance allowed by the Municipal Code and Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Therefore, the design of the proposed Project must be re-evaluated. It is recommended the City take the following actions:  Remedy the deficiencies identified herein prior to action on the proposed Project.  The Item be continued to a future date.  The bridge component of the prior project’s entitlements (Coastal Development Permit and its MND) be severed/invalidated from the prior approval. The bridge approval is based on false pretenses. 269 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 2 of 16  The existing Coastal Development Permit application filed with the Coastal Commission for the prior project be withdrawn. The application is based on false pretenses.  The Section 4(f) De Minimis Memorandum the City submitted to Caltrans be withdrawn or amended. The Memorandum contains statements not in the public record. Specific comments on the proposed Project are provided below. 1. Changes in Circumstances: In order to adequately scope the analysis, any changes in circumstances occurring since the approval of the prior project in 2019 must be identified. Changes in circumstances we have identified include but are not limited to the following:  The clarification by City Staff of the intent/objective of the prior project;  The linkage of the prior project/proposed Project to the West Coast Highway Widening and Pedestrian Bridge (“WCH Bridge”) project;  The effects of Covid-19 on the Sunset Ridge Park;  The changing definition of what constitutes a safe street and a smart street and its relationship to the General Plan Vision Statement;  The expansion of the Sunset View Park and inclusion of the scenic view point;  The prior project’s deletion of the proposed dog park and it impact on site grading and landform alteration;  The construction of the OCC Maritime Training Center Project bridge; and  The Coastal Development Permit application submittal by the City for the prior project and pending Commission action; and  The revised design of the proposed bridge and its abutments over Superior Avenue. All changes in circumstances must be identified and fully evaluated by Project documentation. 2. Required Entitlements: Based on the site location and project description, City Staff has identified the proposed Project requires the following discretionary actions:  Approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CD2020-143)  Certification of an Addendum to a previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND2019- 002) The Project Description, Staff Report, CEQA Addendum and public notices fail to identify the need for a Variance to the development standards contained in the City Municipal Code/LCP. Fortunately, the need for a Variance is clearly stated multiple times in the draft Resolution for the Project. The term “Variance” is a legally defined term which represents an important entitlement. The requirement for a Variance means the City has determined the proposed Project is inconsistent with the City Municipal Code and City LCP. The wording used in Project documentation is confusing and misleading and has the effect of downplaying the significance of the proposed Project’s inconsistency with the Municipal Code/LCP. The wording does not clearly explain the magnitude of the Variances. The wording describes the Variances as a request to be excused from site development standards, intentionally downplaying the significance to the public. 270 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 3 of 16 3. Project Description:  The Project Description and/or Existing Setting fails to explain what component of 2019 project remain in effect, if any. For example: How has the boundary of the Sunset View Park changed? How did the deletion of the proposed Dog Park change proposed grading?  The wording in the Project Description is confusing and miss-leading, particularly when describing existing development standards and the extent the proposed Project is inconsistent with these standards. For example: The Addendum states “The Single Span Concrete Arch bridge design will be 11 feet tall with a superstructure approximately 20 feet above asphalt surface.” (Staff Report pg. 35). However, the height Variance being requested is 29 feet. The Project plans show the bridge height at approximately 44 feet (Staff Report pages 139 & 141). Answers to the simplest questions are confusing and misleading. Examples: What is the total height of the proposed bridge abutment? It takes a significant effort to determine the proposed abutment(s) is 25 feet not including any required guardrails. The magnitude of this change (17 feet plus the height of any guardrails) is not explained in plain language understandable to the lay person. The same confusion exists for the height of the proposed bridge. What is the maximum allowable abutment height? The maximum height standard is 8 feet (not including any required guardrails). What is the maximum height of the proposed bridge? The proposed maximum bridge height is not stated. The Project plans (Staff Report, pg. 148 “Top Arch Geometric” and pg. 149 “Barrier Geometrics”) identify the maximum height to the top of the bridge’s concrete arch is ±40.36 feet. Add to this the height of the safety railing (a stainless-steel mesh barrier of 3’ 6” (Staff Report, pg. 141)) provides a total bridge height of 43.96 feet (rounded to 44 feet). This height is approximately 15 feet higher than the maximum height of 29 feet (excluding safety railing) stated throughout the Staff Report and Addendum to the MND. The draft Resolution states the height is 30 feet (Staff report pg. 14). What is the maximum allowable height? The property is located within the Shoreline Height Limit Area, where the base height limit for nonresidential structures is 26 feet. The height may be increased up to a maximum of 32 feet with a flat roof with approval of a Coastal Development Permit. If the maximum bridge height is beyond 32 feet the project is not eligible for a Coastal Development Permit. The Municipal Code stipulates the height shall be measured as the vertical distance from the established grade of the pad to the highest part of the structure, including any protective guard rails and parapet walls. 1   1 Newport Beach Zoning Code, Title 20, Section 20.30.060 – Height Limits and Exceptions  271 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 4 of 16 What is the established grade of the pad to the highest part of the structure, including any protective guard rails and parapet walls? Project documentation fails to identify the established grade elevation of the pad. In this case, the established grade of the pad should be the lowest point of the pad. The pad for the proposed stairway from West Coast Highway to the bridge is the lowest established pad elevation for the proposed Project. Does the proposed Project qualify for the height Variance? The Project plans (Staff Report, page 148) identify the maximum bridge height to the top of the concrete arch is approximately 40.36 feet. This height does not include the safety railing (± 3’6”). The total height is 43.96 feet (rounded to 44 feet). If the maximum bridge height is beyond 32 feet the project is not eligible for a Coastal Development Permit. Therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit. Utilizing the calculations contained in the Staff Report, the proposed bridge height is “29 feet for the bridge structure” (staff report pg. 3). Adding the height of the proposed safety railings (a stainless-steel mesh barrier of 3’ 6” (Staff Report, pg. 141)) required by the Newport Beach Zoning Code (see footnote #1) provides a total bridge height of 32’6”. If the maximum bridge height is beyond 32 feet the project is not eligible for a Coastal Development Permit. Therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit. The same confusing and miss-leading language is used repeatedly throughout the Project documentation. This confusing and miss-leading language includes the discussion of other irrelevant standards which do not apply to the proposed Project. this language distracts, confuses and downplays the significance of the proposed Project’s impact to the public. (One example being the base height limit for nonresidential structures with sloped roofs. This standard does not apply to the proposed Project, but this language is used throughout (Staff Report pg. 3 and throughout).  Project Plans fail to provide a map identifying the project Accessor Parcel Numbers referenced in the draft Resolution, and a map showing the City vs. Coastal Commission jurisdictional areas which would be very helpful in explaining the permitting requirements.  The Project Description fails to identify Project grading; the Project’s development footprint; provide a complete project site plan; or even an accurate aerial photo with the project site plan overlaid on the aerial.  The Project description fails to identify what elements of the 2019 project are approved and their effect on the proposed Project.  The Updated Bridge Design (Exhibit 2-3) fails to show the stairway from West Coast Highway to the parking lot shown on the detailed plans (Staff Report, pg. 131). The Project Description fails   B.  2. Height measurement. Height shall be measured as the vertical distance from the established grade of the pad to  the highest part of the structure, including any protective guard rails and parapet walls. Structures with slopping  roofs shall be measured to the highest peak of the roof. Structures with flat roofs shall be measured to the top of  the roof, guard rail, or parapet wall. The established grade of the pad shall be determined by one of the methods  identified in Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment).  272 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 5 of 16 to mention this stairway, let alone that it is not ADA compliant. (Maybe it is because it will be removed by the WCH Bridge project!)  The written Project Description (and therefore, the project analysis) is inconsistent with Project plans.  The Project Description fails to fully describe the primary objective/intent of the proposed Project. The primary objective/intent of the proposed Project is identified in a 12-9-2019 Section 4(f) De Minimis Memorandum submitted to Caltrans by the City. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/pln/CEQA_REVIEW/Newport%20Superior%20Bridge_4f%2 0De%20Minimus%20Memo_12.9.19_for%20review.pdf In addition to providing additional project details, this Memorandum states the purpose of the bridge is: “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.”. It also states: “To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at-grade crosswalk to the bridge.” The Project’s intent to eliminate the need to cross Superior Avenue via the existing at-grade crosswalk and to reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at-grade crosswalk to the bridge (eliminating the at-grade crosswalk) is not disclosed in the Staff report, proposed CEQA Addendum or draft Resolution for the proposed Project. The Project objective/intent was not disclosed in the documentation for the original bridge project heard by the City Council in 2019 including the MND. Importantly, the Section 4(f) De Minimis Memorandum allows Caltrans to move forward with its permitting for the widening of West Cost Highway at Superior Avenue. The Section 4(f) De Minimis Memorandum the City submitted to Caltrans must be withdrawn or amended. The Memorandum contains statements not in the public record for the 2019 project. Caltrans will use these statements to advance their permitting efforts.  The Project Description fails to identify the proposed Project’s linkage to the WCH Bridge project. The proposed Project’s linkage to the Superior Avenue Bridge project and the WCH Bridge project is established by the following documents: August 25, 2020 Staff Report - The Project Description in the August 25, 2020 Staff Report links the Superior Avenue Bridge project to the WCH Bridge project (the linkage is the removal of the at-grade crosswalk and coordinated design) but claims they are independent projects. August 25, 2020 Staff Report states: “The WCH Bridge project involves widening West Coast Highway to increase vehicular capacity and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway. With the completion of both projects, sidewalks and two crosswalks at this intersection can be eliminated as pedestrians will be able to use the two new bridges and ramps. Eliminating two crosswalks and 273 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 6 of 16 moving the pedestrians from the street level to the bridges and ramps will significantly improve pedestrian access and safety. This will also greatly improve traffic signal operation and vehicular circulation by allowing more traffic signal green time for vehicles traveling through the intersection. The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project.” (emphasis added) The WCH Bridge project will remove both existing at-grade crosswalks at Superior and PCH, forcing the public to use the bridges in the name of public safety. However, this intersection has not been identified as a public safety hazard in the City’s General Plan. Nor are bridge crossings identified in the General Plan/LCP. The WCH Bridge project will also widen PCH and reconfigure the travel lanes at this intersection. The result will be added capacity on West Coast Highway in the vicinity of Superior Avenue. Traffic signal phasing will be adjusted as a result of the elimination of pedestrian wait times. An EIR has been required by the City for the WCH Bridge project. 12-9-2019 Section 4(f) De Minimis Memorandum submitted to Caltrans by the City – The Memorandum links Superior Avenue Bridge project to the WCH Bridge project. the Memorandum states: “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.”. It also states: “To reduce traffic signal wait times by shifting pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the at-grade crosswalk to the bridge.” 4. Existing Setting:  Sunset Ridge Park - The intended use of Sunset Ridge Park is for the benefit of the public during limited daytime hours with the majority of users coming from the surrounding neighborhoods. Sunset Ridge Park is not intended to be an active recreational park. It does not have flat regulation sized sports fields. The park is currently used as a practice field by non-professional soccer teams; people wishing to exercise; walk their pets; and do nothing in a tranquil setting. The primary means of getting to and from the park is by foot or non-motorized vehicle. Few users drive motor vehicles to the park. Those that do, park in the existing pay public parking lot across the street (the parking lot proposed for expansion). The effect of Covid-19 has resulted in a significant increase in use of Sunset Ridge Park. During the 2019 public hearings for the original project, the City stated the park was underutilized and that (unidentified) youth sports teams had expressed interest in using the park if they had a bridge connecting the park to the parking lot across the street. Hence, the justification for the bridge. This seemed odd at the time. Residents asked why would the City spend millions of dollars on a bridge that few people would use? The existing soccer teams that regularly use the park are not dissuaded by the lack of a bridge. The only time youth teams could use the park would be when they are not in school, which is during weekend mornings when the soccer teams use the park and during the summer. However, during the summer, the pay parking lot is full of people using the beach. The answer in the minds of residents at the time was that Newport Beach was a wealthy City. If the City wanted to build a safer bridge crossing, it could afford to do so. 274 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 7 of 16 We now know why the City wanted to spend millions of dollars on a bridge that few people would use. The Superior Bridge is part of a larger project. Thanks to City staff’s clarification of the primary objective/intent for the Superior Avenue bridge and the announcement of the WCH Bridge project, we now know what the public was told was not true. The City’s primary objective was and remains to widen and increase the capacity West Coast Highway at Superior Avenue. In order to do this, they need to eliminate the existing at-grade crosswalks at Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. To accommodate pedestrian traffic, they need to construct bridges across Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. This Project will force pedestrians to access the park and parking lot to cross Superior Avenue and access the parking lot and a yet to be determined location on the south side of West Coast Highway to cross West Coast Highway via bridges. It is alarming the City knew the prior project’s primary objective and chose not to inform the public and continues to withhold this information. However, despite what people say, the written documents speak for themselves!  The City must explain why there is a Coastal Development Permit application pending before the Coastal Commission for the 2019 project bridge design? Public notices are currently posted at the Sunset Ridge Park for a Coastal Development Permit. The public notice describes the proposed development as “a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing Superior Avenue”. The description of the proposed development does not limit the project to only that portion of the project to be constructed on Sunset Ridge Park. The City submitted the pending Coastal Development Permit for the 2019 project design to take advantage of its permitting opportunities, to expedite the permitting process prior to the mainstream public awareness of the WCH Bridge project. The Coastal Development Permit will help the City and Caltrans obtain the necessary permits to construct the project. Once the Coastal Development Permit is issued, it will be much easier to amend the permit to reflect any design modification resulting from the proposed Project. The Coastal Development Permit process would be much easier, particularly, if the Coastal Commission was not aware of the actual Project intent; the proposed Project’s linkage to the WCH Bridge project; and that the proposed height Variance exceeds the maximum height allowed by a Coastal Development Permit. Did the City just forget to inform the public and the Coastal Commission of their plan? I don’t think so! On 12-7-2020 the City contact person for the proposed Project was contacted by phone. The contact person said the proposed Project will not change the design of the project on the west side of Superior Avenue and that a separate Coastal Development Permit issues by the Coastal Commission is required for the Sunset Ridge Park component of the Project. The Staff Report attempts to explain this permitting requirement. However, we find it confusing and difficult if not impossible for the lay person to understand. The contact person believed the prior project discussed the removal of the at-grade crosswalk at Superior Avenue; that the prior project and proposed Project are not linked to the WCH Bridge project; that the proposed project qualified for the requested height Variance(s) and therefore, supported Staff’s conclusions including the use of an Addendum to the MND for the proposed Project. The contact person said if there were comments on the proposed Project, to submit comments in writing and they would be considered. 275 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 8 of 16 5. CEQA Addendum to MND (SCH 2019099074):  The City’s proposed action to approve an Addendum to the MND constitutes piecemealing. Given the linkage between the Superior Bridge project and the WCH Bridge project, the City’s action constitutes piecemealing. CEQA require the analysis to address the whole of the action (project). Piecemealing occurs when lead agency’s (city) “chop up” a project into smaller components so that it can turn a “blind eye” to reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the “whole” action. CEQA’s prohibition on “piecemealing” of environmental review is animated by a basic recognition that the “whole” of an action under review is greater than its individual parts viewed separately. (The same important insight also underlies CEQA’s requirement to analyze a project’s cumulative impacts.) By acknowledging the proposed Project’s linkage to the WCH Bridge project the potential for significant adverse impacts exist. No other determination is possible following the City’s determination that the WCH Bridge project has the potential for one or more potentially significant impacts by determining an EIR is required. Therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for an Addendum to the MND. Should the City continue to claim despite the evidence, there is no linkage between the proposed Project and the WCH Bride project (they are separate and independent projects), then the WCH Bridge project “would be considered a cumulative project” as stated in the CEQA Addendum (pg. 26). In this case, the City Zoning Administrator does not have sufficient information at this time to determine that the “variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources…” because the environmental review for the WCH Bridge project is on-going. This determination is required by draft Resolution Finding “H”.  The proposed Addendum fails to adequately address Cumulative impacts The Addendum (pg. 26) states: “1.1 OVERVIEW/PURPOSE This addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (2019 MND) (SCH 2019099074) analyzes potential environmental impacts that would result from changes to the original project description and cumulative conditions since certification of the 2019 MND. The 2019 MND for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project was certified by the City of Newport Beach (City) on November 19, 2019. Since the 2019 MND approval, the City has proposed minor design changes to the bridge. In addition, a future project is being considering in the same area that would be considered a cumulative project, which was not a known future project at the time of approval.” (emphasis added) The Addendum fails to adequately describe the connection of the future project to the proposed Project; analyze the future project’s potential significant impacts; or analyze the cumulative effects. It is clear based on the information contained herein, the proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts. It is clear by the City’s action requiring an EIR for the future project that it has the potential for significant adverse impacts. Another reason why the proposed Project does not qualify for an Addendum to the MND. 276 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 9 of 16 The CEQA Addendum contains the following statement and conclusion (Staff Report pg. 26): “1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS In order to satisfy the conditions set forth in §15162 through §15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has used Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Addendum Project (proposed Project or Addendum) to make the following determinations: Ø No substantial changes are proposed in the Addendum that require major revisions to the original Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by the City due to the involvement of significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Ø No substantial changes will occur with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed Project is undertaken, and no major revisions to the Final MND will be required; and Ø No substantial new information has been provided that would require a major revision to the Final MND. Based on the information incorporated and the changes associated with the proposed Project, there are no conditions that would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND pursuant to §15162 through §15164 of the CEQA Guidelines.” Note: If this intersection is considered a public safety hazard then many other intersections along West Coast Highway in Newport Beach would also be considered a public safety hazard and similar bridge crossing projects would be required!  The Addendum fails to analyze the changes in circumstances that have occurred since the 2019 MND was certified; acknowledge the new information about the true objective/intent of the proposed Project; or identify and evaluate the changes to the design and height of the bridge which when analyzed, will result is the potential for significant adverse impacts, including impacts to coastal resources. o The City approved a similar bridge crossing for the OCC Maritime Training Center Project. That bridge is nearing completion. The CEQA analysis OCC Maritime Training Center Project determined based on artists renderings that the visual/aesthetic impact from construction of the bridge would be less than significant. Now that the public can see the actual bridge (a change in circumstances from an artist’s rendering), it is clear, the bridge is an eyesore and represents a significant adverse Aesthetic/Visual impact. The bridge does not enhance or protect coastal resources. The Addendum for the proposed Project fails to take into consideration this change in circumstances. Had the Addendum taken this into consideration the current opinions of Newport Beach residents, the Addendum would have concluded the proposed Project has the potential to result in a significant adverse visual impact. The City cannot deny the proposed bridge will obstruct views of the coastal bluff on both sides of Superior Avenue as seen from West Coast Highway and obstruct views of coastal resources from the lookout point at Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park, each represents a potentially significant impact to coastal resources. The significance of the visual impact should be based on a public survey, not Staff’s opinion based on their objective which is to widen West Coast Highway at Superior Avenue. 277 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 10 of 16 The proposed bridge will not enhance or protect coastal resources. The bridge will negatively impact public access to coastal resources through removal of the at-grade crosswalk and result in increased safety hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists who will find the bridge inconvenient or infeasible to use and cross Superior Avenue illegally. These facts cannot be overlooked in the proposed Addendum or when making draft Resolution Findings E, F, G, H, I, J and L. The proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit or the use of an Addendum to the MND. o Sunset View Park View Impact. The 2019 MND found that the installation of the bridge would be unlikely to cause obstructed views from any of the existing scenic viewpoints because of its height and location. Under the proposed Project, the type of bridge would be updated to a single span concrete arch bridge design. As a part of the prior project the Sunset View Park was expanded to include the open space knoll (View point) and open space slopes. The proposed Addendum fails to evaluate the proposed Project’s impact on the enlarged Sunset View Park. The view point and slopes are now a public Park. The proposed Project will grade coastal bluffs which are to be protected by the City LCP. The proposed Project will enlarge the existing parking lot which can be seen from the lookout point. These impacts were not evaluated by the prior MND and will negatively impact public views from the public look-out point within Sunset View Park. These impacts will be significant, adverse and unavoidable. The proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit or the use of an Addendum to the MND. o The proposed Project’s bridge plans indicate the height of the proposed bridge is significantly higher than analyzed in the proposed Addendum or the MND. The increased height of the bridge will result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts from public vantage points along West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park. The OCC Maritime Training Center Project bridge is an additional tool not previously available that should be considered in evaluating the potential visual impact of the proposed Project. We recommend that the Addendum conduct a public poll (something not done for the previous MND) to determine the percentage of residents who feel the proposed Project could result in a potentially significant adverse impact. It is clear from our point of view and every other resident we have spoken with that the proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit or the use of an Addendum to the MND. o The proposed Project will eliminate an existing public access path to coastal resources. The public now knows the proposed Project includes the elimination of the at-grade crosswalk at Superior Avenue, forcing pedestrians and cyclists to use the proposed Superior Avenue Bridge crossing. This was not a part of the prior project and was not analyzed in the MND. The public was led to believe the proposed bridge over Superior Avenue was in addition to the existing at- grade crosswalk. The Addendum fails to address this potentially significant adverse impact to coastal resources. The Staff report and draft Resolution also fail to address this potentially significant adverse impact to coastal resources. 278 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 11 of 16 The proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit or the use of an Addendum to the MND. o Addendum Table 4.1 – The Addendum fails to provide a direct answer to the majority of questions. For example, how is the proposed Project is going to: Enhance significant scenic and visual resources; Protect and enhance public views; Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone; 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; Maintain the 35-foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone. We believe the 35’ limit stated in Table 4.1 is incorrect and that the development standards contained in the LCP (32’) take precedence. The proposed Project does not comply with these policies which is why there are no direct answers! The proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit or the use of an Addendum to the MND. o Hazards – The proposed Superior Avenue bridge will result in an increased public safety hazard. Bicycles will not use the proposed Superior Avenue bridge to cross West Coast Highway as intended. Pedestrians will not want to climb to the top of Sunset Ridge Park or the proposed parking lot to use the proposed Superior Avenue bridge. Pedestrians will want to continue to use the at-grade crosswalk. By forcing pedestrians and bicyclists to use the proposed Superior Avenue bridge, the City will be encouraging pedestrians and bicyclists to illegally cross Superior Avenue. Forcing the public to use the bridge as designed represents a significant adverse public safety/health risk. The proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit or the use of an Addendum to the MND. o Land Use and Planning – The following language summarizes the land use and planning analysis contained in the 2019 MND and the conclusion of the proposed Addendum. The Addendum (pg. 64) states: “The 2019 MND noted the proposed Project would 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. The Project as proposed would result in minor changes to the 2019 Project that would also not physically divide an established community. No new impacts would occur and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required.” The Addendum (pg. 71) states: “The 2019 MND concluded that the 2019 Project would provide an additional bicycle and pedestrian path to Sunset Ridge Park without significantly modifying existing roadways, transit, or bicycle lanes.” (emphasis added) 279 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 12 of 16 Note, there is no mention of the removal of the at-grade crosswalk at Superior Avenue. The above statement correctly summarizes the 2019 project which was analyzed by the MND and presented to the public. We now know the proposed Project will eliminate a public access way within the coastal zone (the at-grade crosswalk at Superior Avenue). Removal of the at-grade crosswalk at Superior Avenue conflicts with the land use policies within the City LCP. The proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for an Addendum to the MND. o Transportation – The proposed Project will increase safety hazards. Bicycles will not use the proposed Superior Avenue bridge to cross West Coast Highway. The proposed expansion of the existing parking lot with an increased number of parking spaces will attract more people wishing to enjoy coastal resources. As a result, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will increase. Increasing the capacity and efficiency of West Coast Highway through widening, construction of bridges; removal of at-grade crosswalks; and adjustment of traffic signal phasing will encourage additional drivers to use West Coast Highway increasing VMT. The City must focus less on how quickly vehicles can move along West Coast Highway, which will create more congestion, and instead think about how streets can be accessible to every user, particularly in these changing times. This is particularly important in within the Coastal Zone when many millions of tourists access the City's coastal resources annually. The City should shift its thinking for the future of West Coast Highway, a scenic route, to be consistent with the General Plan Vision Statement by reducing speeds, enhancing safety and providing access for all forms of motorized vehicles. The City should upgrade its transportation system to smart digital technologies which will have the added benefit of reduce the City’s carbon footprint. The proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for an Addendum to the MND. 6. Cumulative Projects The 2019 MND acknowledged the following cumulative projects: o Project No: 18L11: West Coast Highway Median Landscaping o PA2008-047: Old Newport GPA Project: 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard o 15R19: Old Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway Widening The 2019 MND concluded that in combination with other planned and pending development in the area, development of the proposed Project would have less than significant cumulative impacts.  The Staff Report and Draft Resolution for the proposed Project do not acknowledge any cumulative projects! The two references below contained in the proposed CEQA Addendum are the only places in the public record where the WCH Bridge project, a cumulative project is mentioned. Importantly, the cumulative project is not considered in draft Resolution Finding H (Staff Report pg. 14). 280 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 13 of 16 Reference #1 - The proposed Addendum to the 2019 Mitigated Negative Declaration states: “1.1 OVERVIEW/PURPOSE This addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project (2019 MND) (SCH 2019099074) analyzes potential environmental impacts that would result from changes to the original project description and cumulative conditions since certification of the 2019 MND. The 2019 MND for the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge and Parking Lot Project was certified by the City of Newport Beach (City) on November 19, 2019. Since the 2019 MND approval, the City has proposed minor design changes to the bridge. In addition, a future project is being considering in the same area that would be considered a cumulative project, which was not a known future project at the time of approval.” (emphasis added. Source: Staff Report, Addendum to 2019 MND, pg. 26) Reference #2 - While not identified or analyzed in the body of the Addendum, this “future” project is identified in the proposed Addendum’s Mandatory Findings of Significance section as follows: Since the time of Project approval, the City has received funding for an additional project which could be considered a cumulative project. This project includes widening West Coast Highway and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway to provide access from the parking lot across West Coast Highway as shown in Figure 4-2: West Coast Highway Pedestrian Bridge Location.” (emphasis added) “As shown in Figure 4-3: West Coast Highway Bridge Rendering, this second bridge is not anticipated to block views of the ocean. However, it is unknown at this time when this Project would be constructed. Similar to other cumulative projects, this project would be considered a discretionary action that would trigger CEQA and it would be require“d to undergo project specific environmental review similar to the proposed Project, prior to construction. Impacts would be less than significant, and no major revisions to the 2019 MND would be required.” (emphasis added) The WCH Bridge project has been defined elsewhere by the City as follows2: “The WCH Bridge project involves widening West Coast Highway to increase vehicular capacity and constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Coast Highway. With the completion of both projects, sidewalks and two crosswalks at this intersection can be eliminated as pedestrians will be able to use the two new bridges and ramps. Eliminating two crosswalks and moving the pedestrians from the street level to the bridges and ramps will significantly improve pedestrian access and safety. This will also greatly improve traffic signal operation and vehicular circulation by allowing more traffic signal green time for vehicles traveling through the intersection. The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project.” (emphasis added) The WCH Bridge project description in the Addendum is incomplete and inconsistent with the description provided to the City Council. The project description fails to identify key elements, including: the removal of the at-grade crosswalks across West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue; the extent of widening of West Coast Highway; the adjustment of signal phasing allowed   2 (source: Newport Beach City Council Staff Report August 25, 2020, Agenda Item #12 https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/Web/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2564600&page=1&cr=1)   281 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 14 of 16 by the removal of the pedestrian at-grade crossings; the WCH Bridge project’s impact on traffic; and the design of the WCH Bridge project on the proposed Project’s design (one example being the stairway from West Coast Highway to the parking lot). The project description fails to disclose that an EIR has been required for the WCH Bridge project. Furthermore, Addendum Exhibits 4-2 & 4-3 fail to show the removal of the at-grade crosswalks at Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway, further misleading the public. Because “The design of the Superior Avenue Bridge project will account for the proposed improvements of the WCH Bridge project”, the design of these two projects is obviously linked. The City determined the WCH Bridge project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the conclusion in the proposed Addendum that “impacts would be less than significant cannot be made and is incorrect. A conclusion cannot be made until the completion of the CEQA documentation for the WCH Bridge project. Because these two projects are linked neither project can be approved until CEQA documentation is completed for the whole of the action (project). The WCH Bridge project is obviously known to the City now. It was known to the City at the time the CEQA Addendum was being prepared; it was known to the City prior to the time City staff was authorized to prepare the funding application to the Orange County Transportation Authority under the Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program for the WCH Bridge project (application submittal date:1-24-2020) and it was known to the City on 12-9-2019 when the Section 4(f) De Minimis Memorandum submitted to Caltrans by the City. 7. Coastal Development Permit draft Resolution and its Findings: The draft Resolution is based on the Project Description, CEQA documentation and Project plans. Any deficiencies in the Project Description and/or CEQA documentation is reflected in the draft Resolution. Numerous deficiencies in the Project Description and proposed CEQA Addendum have been identified. The draft Resolution is therefore, deficient. Below are a few examples: Statement of Facts - The Statement of Facts is confusing to put it mildly. The Statement of Facts fails to clearly identify the why separate Coastal Development Permits are required for the east and west portions of the Project when the whole Project lies within the coastal zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit.  The City Zoning Administrator cannot make Finding H until the impact from cumulative projects on coastal resources is known. The cumulative project (WCH Bridge project) identified in the Addendum to the 2019 MND is undergoing CEQA analysis. (A CEAQA Initial Study has been completed. The Initial Study determined the WCH Bridge project could have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been required). The EIR has not been completed. Therefore, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the Project complies with draft Resolution Finding H. Therefore, the Coastal Development Permit cannot be approved at this time. 282 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 15 of 16 The draft Resolution Finding H is reproduced below: “Finding: H. The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation, or wildlife species. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project site currently contains a surface parking lot, developed landscaping, a dirt mound, and some undeveloped open space. An analysis of potential impacts to biological resources is included in the MND, and specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will have no detrimental effect on coastal resources.”  The Zoning Administrator cannot deny the proposed bridge will adversely obstruct views of the coastal bluff on either side of Superior Avenue as seen from West Coast Highway and obstruct views from the lookout point at Sunset View Park, each represent a potentially significant impact to coastal resources and will negatively impact public access to coastal resources. These facts cannot be overlooked when making Findings E, F, G, H, I, J and L. The proposed Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Coastal Development Permit or the use of an Addendum to the MND. 8. Public Notice/Public Information:  The Public Notice for this hearing is deficient. The Public Notice does not adequately describe the scope/intent of the Project. Because of this deficiency, the public is lead to believe the scope of the project is significantly less impactful than the actual Project.  The Public has not been given the opportunity to review the MND. The proposed Addendum references the 2009 MND. There is no link or mention where the public can review the MND in the Staff Report. 9. City Relationship with the California Coastal Commission: Implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP). In approving an LCP, development permit authority is delegated to the appropriate local government. In authorizing coastal development permits, the local government must make the finding that the development conforms to the certified LCP. The Coastal Commission expects the local governments to conduct themselves in a forthright and transparent manner in compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act when exercising its permit authority vested by the certified LCP. The City has had a number of instances where its decisions have been appealed and overturned by the California Coastal Commission. This has not helped the City’s reputation in the eyes of its residents or Coastal Commission staff. 283 David Tanner - Comments on the Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Page 16 of 16 Should the City elect to approve the proposed Project as proposed, please be aware of the potential for an appeal to the Coastal Commission. We recommend all responses to public concerns be made as if they are being made directly to the Coastal Commission. Please ensure these comments are included in the project administrative record Thank you, David Tanner 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 284 Attachment No. PC 11 Project Plans 285 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE286 GENERAL NOTES ABBREVIATIONS SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TITLE SHEET SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE JAMES M. HOULIHAN, P.E., DEPUTY PWD / CITY ENGINEER PROJECT NO. 15T09 DAVID A. WEBB, P.E., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND PARKING LOT 100 SUPERIOR AVE F W O CALITYCIOFNEW N IAR AHCRTORPW B EAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 SITE MAP T-1 1 BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 287 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND, KEY MAP AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 T-2 GENERAL NOTES: KEYMAP REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: DOCUMENTATION: GRADING FILL/CUTS (CONTINUED):()ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL (CONTINUED):() GRADING FILL/CUTS: EROSION CONTROL: ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL: STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION GENERAL NOTES: “” “” SP-1GR-1SS-1UT-11 SP-2SSPPPGR-2GRGRSD-1SD-DSS-2S22-22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222UT-2T-2 SP-3SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS3SSPPPPP-3P-3GR-3GGRRRGGGGGR33R3--33SD-22SSSSSDDSD2SS-3SS--3333SSS3-3333-333UT-3UUUUTTTTUTT-3T-3T-3UTUUTTTTUT-U 33-3-3T-3 2 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 288 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SURVEY CONTROL AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 T-3 SURVEY CONTROL PLAN SCALE: 1" = 80' SUPERIOR AVENUESUPERIOR A V E N U E SUPERIOR A V E N U E WES T C O A S T H I G H W A Y Y HW HI AS WES T C 3 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 289 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 XS-1 TYPICAL SECTION: WEST COAST HIGHWAY AND PLAZA SECTION C-C NO SCALE TYPICAL SECTION: SUPERIOR AVE AND PLAZA SECTION A-A NO SCALE TYPICAL SECTION: WEST COAST HIGHWAY AND PLAZA SECTION B-B NO SCALE 4 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 290 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 XS-2 TYPICAL SECTION: EAST PARKING LOT SECTION E-E NO SCALE TYPICAL SECTION: DRIVEWAY SECTION D-D NO SCALE 5 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 291 SP-1SSSSSSSSSSSPP1PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSPSSSSPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSPPPPPPPSPSPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSPSPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSPPPPPPSSSSPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS11P-111111111111111111111PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP SP-2PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSP-2PPPPPPSSSSP-2SP-2SP-2SP-2SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSPSPSPSPSSPSPSPSPSPSPSPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP2PPPP222222222222222222222222SP-2SSSSSSSSSSSPPPPPP2SP-2PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSPPPPPPPP2SPPPPPPP-2SP-2SPSPSPSPP-2PP-2P-22222SPSPSPSPSPSPSPSSSS2PSPSSP-2P2 SP-3SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS-333P-3SP-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSPSPSPSPSPSPSPSP-3SSSSSSSSSSSSPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSPSPPPPPPPPPPPPSPP-33P-333SPSSPSSSSSSSSSSPPPPSPPPPPPPPSPPPPPPPPP3PPSSP-P 3-PS 3-P R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SP-2SP-1 KEYMAP WEST COAS T H I G H W A Y W SUPERIOR AVENUEENERSUNSET RIDGE PARK "S" LINES" L E" NOTES: CONSTRUCT 1.5' CURB OPENINGPER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET CONSTRUCT 3' CURB TRANSITION PER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER CNB STD-180-L CONSTRUCT TYPE A PCC CURB AND GUTTER PER CNB STD-182-L CONSTRUCT TYPE A PCC CURB AND GUTTER (MOD)PER DETAIL ON SHEET SP-3 CONSTRUCT TYPE B PCC CURB PER CNB STD-182-L CONSTRUCT TYPE B PCC CURB (MOD) PER DETAIL ON SHEET SP-3 CONSTRUCT THICKENED SIDEWALK EDGE TREATMENTSEE BIOFILTRATION BMP DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT4" AC 5" CMB PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PROPOSED VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVEMENT9" PCC6" CMB PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE 4" PCC PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE CURB DATA SEE SHEET SP-4 NORTHING AND EASTING COORDINATESSEE SHEET SP-4 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 6 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 292 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SP-1MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SP-3SP-2 NOTES: CONSTRUCT 1.5' CURB OPENINGPER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET CONSTRUCT 3' CURB TRANSITION PER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER CNB STD-180-L CONSTRUCT TYPE A PCC CURB AND GUTTER PER CNB STD-182-L CONSTRUCT TYPE A PCC CURB AND GUTTER (MOD)PER DETAIL ON SHEET SP-3 CONSTRUCT TYPE B PCC CURB PER CNB STD-182-L CONSTRUCT TYPE B PCC CURB (MOD) PER DETAIL ON SHEET SP-3 CONSTRUCT THICKENED SIDEWALK EDGE TREATMENTSEE BIOFILTRATION BMP DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS WEST COAST HIGHWAY SUPERIOR A V E N U E VRRPS UEEEUEUEN KEYMAP NOT TO SCALE 'DRWYRWY' YY' Y' LY' LLILLINLILININNINNENENEENEEEINNNNNEENEEDDDD'DD''''D'DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'DD'D'''''''D'D'''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'D'DDDDD'''DDDDDD'''''''''''''''D'D''''DDD'''''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'D'D'D'DDD'''D'D'D'D'D'D'DDD'''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' CONCRETE CURB TRANSITION TYPE B PCC CURB PER CNB STD-182-L-ANO SCALE CONCRETE CURB OPENING TYPE B PCC CURB PER CNB STD-182-L-A NO SCALE "S" L I N E E LINNE LININNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNINN "S YLEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT4" AC 5" CMB PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PROPOSED VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVEMENT9" PCC6" CMB PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE 4" PCC PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE CURB DATA SEE SHEET SP-4 NORTHING AND EASTING COORDINATESSEE SHEET SP-4 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 7 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 293 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SP-2SP-3 KEYMAP WEST COA S T H I G H W A Y SUPE RI O R A V E N U E NU AVORES HOAG HOSPITAL 4' PCC CROSS GUTTER DETAIL SEE CNB STD-182-L FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILNO SCALE TYPE B PCC CURB (MOD)() SEE CNB STD-182-L FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILNO SCALE TYPE A PCC CURB AND GUTTER (MOD)() SEE CNB STD-182-L FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL NO SCALE NOTES: CONSTRUCT 1.5' CURB OPENINGPER DETAIL ON SHEET SP-2 CONSTRUCT 3' CURB TRANSITION PER DETAIL ON SHEET SP-2 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER CNB STD-180-L CONSTRUCT TYPE A PCC CURB AND GUTTER PER CNB STD-182-L CONSTRUCT TYPE A PCC CURB AND GUTTER (MOD)PER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET CONSTRUCT TYPE B PCC CURB PER CNB STD-182-L CONSTRUCT TYPE B PCC CURB (MOD) PER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET CONSTRUCT THICKENED SIDEWALK EDGE TREATMENTSEE BIOFILTRATION BMP DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT4" AC 5" CMB PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PROPOSED VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVEMENT9" PCC6" CMB PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE 4" PCC PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE CURB DATA SEE SHEET SP-4 NORTHING AND EASTING COORDINATESSEE SHEET SP-4 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 8 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 294 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 SP-4 9 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 295 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 CD-1 SUPERIOR AVE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL: CURB RAMPS CASE H AND CROSS GUTTER PER CNB STD-181-L-B AND STD-185-L SCALE: 1" = 5'"DRWY" LINEDRECONSTRUCTION DETAIL: CURB RAMP CASE H PER CNB SD STD -181-L-B SCALE: 1" = 5' CONSTRUCTION DETAIL: CURB RAMP CASE C PER CNB STD-181-L-A SCALE: 1" = 5' 10 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 296 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 CD-2 CONSTRUCTION DETAIL: DRIVEWAY SCALE: 1" = 5' 11 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 297 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE GRADING PLAN AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 KEYMAP SUNSET RIDGE PARKS GR-1 "S" LINENEEE SUPERIOR AVENUENRPROFILE: S LINEEPROFILE: S LINEE 12 LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE PROPOSED TEMPORARY HIGH VISIBILITY FENCEWITH TEMPORARY SILT FENCE PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T65 PARKING LOT GRADE BREAK GRADING LIMIT DRAINAGE FLOW PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 298 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE GRADING PLAN AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET GR-1MATCH LINE SEE SHEET GR-3GR-2 KEYMAP WEST COAST HIGHWAYHH SUPERIOR A V E N U E N ERS RA 'DRWY ' L INEDDD' "S" L I N E NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNINN "S E LINNE LINI 13 LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE PROPOSED TEMPORARY HIGH VISIBILITY FENCEWITH TEMPORARY SILT FENCE PER CALTRANSSTD. PLAN NO. T65 PARKING LOT GRADE BREAK GRADING LIMIT DRAINAGE FLOW PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 299 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE GRADING PLAN AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET GR-2GRAPHIC SCALE1 INCH = 20 FEET GR-3 WEST COA S T H I G H W A Y SUPE RI O R A V E N U E NU AVORES KEYMAP NOT TO SCALE 14 LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE PROPOSED TEMPORARY HIGH VISIBILITY FENCEWITH TEMPORARY SILT FENCE PER CALTRANSSTD. PLAN NO. T65 PARKING LOT GRADE BREAK GRADING LIMIT DRAINAGE FLOW PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 300 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-8020-6 EC-1 KEYMAP NOT TO SCALE LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION(TYPE 6B) PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T64 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 3B) MOD PER DETAIL ON SHEET ECD-1 HYDROMULCH TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION NOTES MATCH LINE SEE SHEET EC-2WEST COAS T H I G H W A Y W SUPERIOR AVENUEENERSUNSET RIDGE PARKK "S" LINES" L E" NOTES: INSTALL TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 6B) PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T64 INSTALL TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 3B) MOD PER DETAIL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY HYDROMULCH UNTIL FINAL EROSION CONTROL/PLANTING IS APPLIED INSTALL TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T51 POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES In order to meet the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) program for construction, construction contractors shall install and maintain appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's), as shown in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, on all construction projects. BMPs shall be installed in accordance with industry recommended standards, and / or in accordance with any General Construction Permit issued by the state for the project to prevent any discharges from the project site or into any storm drain facilities. All sediments, construction materials, debris and wastes, and other pollutants must be retained on site and may not be transported from the site via sheet flow, swales, area drains, natural drainage courses, wind, or vehicle tracking. Under direction of the Engineer of Record, erosion and / or sediment control devices shall be modified as needed as the project progresses to ensure effectiveness. DRY SEASON REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED BMPsBMP Detail(s) A. Wind erosion BMPs (dust control) shall be implemented. WE-1 B.Sediment control BMPs shall be installed and maintainedat all operational storm drain inlets internal to the project.WE-1 SE-10 WM-8, WM-9 NS-1, NS-3, NS-12 C. BMPs to control off-site sediment tracking shall be implemented and maintained. D. Appropriate waste management and materials pollution control BMPs shall be implemented to prevent the contamination of stormwater by wastes and construction materials E. Appropriate non-stormwater BMPs shall be implemented to prevent the contamination of stormwater from construction activities EC-1F. Deployment of permanent erosion control BMPs (physical or vegetation) shall commence as soon as practical on slopes that are completed for any portion of the site. Standby BMP materials shall not be relied upon to prevent erosion of slopes that have been completed. WET SEASON REQUIREMENTSIN ADDITION TO DRY SEASON REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED BMPsBMP Detail(s) A. Sediment control BMPs shall be implemented at the site perimeter, at all operational storm drain inlets and at all non-active slopes, to provide sufficient protection for storms likely to occur during the rainy season. SE-6, SE-10 B. Adequate physical or vegetation erosion control BMPs(temporary or permanent) shall be installed andestablished for all completed slopes prior to the start ofthe rainy season. These BMPs must be maintainedthroughout the rainy season. If a selected BMP fails, itmust be repaired and improved, or replaced with an acceptable alternate as soon as it is safe to do so. The failure of a BMP may indicate that the BMP, as installed, was not adequate for the circumstances in which it was used. Repairs or replacements must result in a more robust BMP, or additional BMPs should be installed to provide adequate protection. EC-5 EC-1 SE-6, SE-7, SE-10 C. The amount of exposed soil allowed at one time shall not exceed that which can be adequately protected by deploying the referenced standby erosion control andsediment control BMPs prior to a predicted rainstorm. D. A disturbed area that is not completed but that is not being actively graded (non-active area) shall be fully protected from erosion with the referenced temporary and/or permanent BMPs (erosion and sediment control). The ability to deploy standby BMP materials is not sufficient in these areas. Erosion and sediment control BMPs must actually be deployed. This includes all buildings, pads, unfinished roads and slopes. E.Sufficient materials needed to install referenced standby erosion and sediment control BMPs necessary to completely protect the exposed portions of the site from erosion and to to prevent sediment discharges shall be stored on site. Areas that have already been protected from erosion using permanent physical stabilization or established vegetation stabilization BMPs are not considered "exposed" for purposes of this requirement. SE-6, SE-7, SE-10 NOTE 1: There shall be a "weather triggered" action plan and the ability to deploystandby sediment control BMPs as needed to completely protect the exposedportions of the site within 48 hours of a predicted storm event (a predicted stormevent is defined as a forecasted 50% chance of rain). NOTE 2: Sufficient materials needed to install the standby sediment control BMP (at the site perimeter, site slopes and operational inlets within the site) necessary to prevent sediment discharges from exposed portions of the site shall be stored on site. Areas that have already been protected from erosion using physical stabilization or established vegetation stabilization BMPs as described in item F above are not considered "exposed" for purposes of this requirement. I hereby certify that I have read and understand the requirements in the Construction Runoff Guidance Manual and that the erosion control plans and BMPs shown hereon are in compliance with these requirements. Signed by: RCE/ PE Number: C52187 In case of emergency, the responsible person to be contacted shall be: Name: Title: Company: 24-Hr Phone No.: 15 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 301 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET EC-3EC-2 WEST COAST HIGHWAYAYASTW SUPERIO R A V E N U E ENAOPE EEE SU UEEAVAERI KEYMAP NOT TO SCALE 'DRWY ' L INE INEDDDD'DD''''D'DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'DD'D'''''''D'D'''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'D'DDDDD'''DDDDDD'''''''''''''''D'D''''DDD'''''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'D'D'D'DDD'''D'D'D'D'D'D'DDD'''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YDRWWYWWYWYWYWYWYW"S" L I N E E LINNE LINIMATCH LINE SEE SHEET EC-116 NOTES: INSTALL TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 6B) PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T64 INSTALL TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 3B) MOD PER DETAIL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY HYDROMULCH UNTIL FINAL EROSION CONTROL/PLANTING IS APPLIED INSTALL TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T51 LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION(TYPE 6B) PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T64 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 3B) MOD PER DETAIL ON SHEET ECD-1 HYDROMULCH TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION NOTES PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 302 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET EC-2EC-3 KEYMAP WEST COA S T H I G H W A Y SUPE RI O R A V E N U E ORER SU UE VE HOAG HOSPITAL 17 NOTES: INSTALL TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 6B) PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T64 INSTALL TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 3B) MOD PER DETAIL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY HYDROMULCH UNTIL FINAL EROSION CONTROL/PLANTING IS APPLIED INSTALL TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T51 LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION(TYPE 6B) PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. T64 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 3B) MOD PER DETAIL ON SHEET ECD-1 HYDROMULCH TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION NOTES PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 303 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT EROSION CONTROL DETAILS C-8020-6 ECD-1 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION (TYPE 3B MOD)() NO SCALE 18 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 304 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE STORM DRAIN PLAN AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SD-2SD-1 WEST COAST HIGHWAYT SUPERIO R A V E N U E ENAOPE EEE SU UEEAVAERI KEYMAP NOT TO SCALEWY' L INE INEYY'DRWYDDDD'DD''''D'DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'DD'D'''''''D'D'''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'D'DDDDD'''DDDDDD'''''''''''''''D'D''''DDD'''''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'D'D'D'DDD'''D'D'D'D'D'D'DDD'''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DRWWYWYWYWYWYW"S" L I N E E LINNE LININNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNINN "S NOTES: INSTALL 18" RCP SD PIPE INSTALL 18" SDR 35 PVC SD PIPE INSTALL 8" SDR 35 PVC AREA DRAIN PIPE CONSTRUCT BIORETENTION BMP PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 INSTALL 8" CLEANOUT PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 INSTALL OBSERVATION WELL PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 INSTALL 18"x18" CATCH BASIN PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-2 CONSTRUCT GCP INLET PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. D75B CONSTRUCT TYPE G1 INLET PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. D72B CONSTRUCT JUNCTION STRUCTURE NO. 1 PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 310-L CONSTRUCT CONCRETE COLLAR PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 313-L CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT TYPE "C" PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 319-L CONSTRUCT 242.6' SWALE PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-2 REMOVE 111.1' OF EXIST CONCRETE DITCH REMOVE EXIST INLET REMOVE EXIST MANHOLE INSTALL 8" PERFORATED SDR 35 PVC SUB DRAIN PIPE REMOVE EXIST HEADWALL REMOVE 73.4' OF EXIST CONCRETE DITCH WALL DRAIN PER RETAINING WALL PLANS RETAINING WALL GUTTER PER RETAINING WALL PLANS INSTALL 24" RCP SD PIPE LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL BIORETENTION BMP CENTERLINE STORM DRAIN DATA NORTHING AND EASTING COORDINATES CONSTRUCTION NOTES 19 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 305 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE STORM DRAIN PLAN AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SD-1SD-2 KEYMAP WEST COA S T H I G H W A Y SUPE RI O R A V E N U E ORER SU UE VE HOAG HOSPITAL LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL BIORETENTION BMP CENTERLINE STORM DRAIN DATA NORTHING AND EASTING COORDINATES CONSTRUCTION NOTES NOTES: INSTALL 18" RCP SD PIPE INSTALL 18" SDR 35 PVC SD PIPE INSTALL 8" SDR 35 PVC AREA DRAIN PIPE CONSTRUCT BIORETENTION BMP PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 INSTALL 8" CLEANOUT PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 INSTALL OBSERVATION WELL PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-1 INSTALL 18"x18" CATCH BASIN PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-2 CONSTRUCT GCP INLET PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. D75B CONSTRUCT TYPE G1 INLET PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. D72B CONSTRUCT JUNCTION STRUCTURE NO. 1 PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 310-L CONSTRUCT CONCRETE COLLAR PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 313-L CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT TYPE "C" PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 319-L CONSTRUCT 242.6' SWALE PER DETAIL ON SHEET SDD-2 REMOVE 111.1' OF EXIST CONCRETE DITCH REMOVE EXIST INLET REMOVE EXIST MANHOLE INSTALL 8" PERFORATED SDR 35 PVC SUB DRAIN PIPE REMOVE EXIST HEADWALL REMOVE 73.4' OF EXIST CONCRETE DITCH WALL DRAIN PER RETAINING WALL PLANS RETAINING WALL GUTTER PER RETAINING WALL PLANS INSTALL 24" RCP SD PIPE 20 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 306 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT STORM DRAIN PROFILE C-8020-6 SDPF-1 PROFILE: STORM DRAIN LINESEPROFILE: STORM DRAIN LINESE L5, L6, L7, L8, AND L96L5 L6 L7 L8 AND L96 PROFILE: STORM DRAIN LINESI L1, L2, L3, AND L4L1 L2 L3 AND L4 NOTES:NOTES CONSTRUCT GCP INLET PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. D75BUPCONSTRUCT GCP INLET PER CALTRANS STD PLAN NO D75BUP CONSTRUCT TYPE G1 INLET PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN NO. D72BUT CONSTRUCT JUNCTION STRUCTURE NO. 1 PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 310-LUROCONSTRUCT JUNCTION STRUCTURE NO. 1 PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 310 LURO CONSTRUCT CONCRETE COLLAR PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD. NO. 313-LUFCO S C CO C CO C O O C S O 21 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 307 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT STORM DRAIN DETAILS C-8020-6 SDD-1 BIORETENTION BMP NO SCALE SPLASH PAD NO SCALE LINER FASTENING DETAIL NO SCALE 8" CLEANOUTS & OBSERVATION WELL NO SCALE CURB CUT NO SCALE 22 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 308 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 SDD-2 SWALE NO SCALE 18"x18" CATCH BASIN NO SCALE LINER PENETRATION NO SCALE PVC PIPE CONNECTION TO STORMDRAIN STRUCTURE NO SCALE 23 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 309 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTILITY AND LIGHTING PLAN SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SP-2UT-1 KEYMAP WEST COAS T H I G H W A YSSS SUPERIOR AVENUEENERSUNSET RIDGE PARK "S" LINES" L E" LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE 24 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 310 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTILITY AND LIGHTING PLAN SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SP-1MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SP-3UT-2 WEST COAST HIGHWAY SUPERIOR A V E N U E NRRU KEYMAP NOT TO SCALE "S" L I N E E LINNE LININNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNINNNN "S 'DRWY ' L INE INEDDDD'DD''''D'DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'DD'D'''''''D'D'''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'D'DDDDD'''DDDDDD'''''''''''''''D'D''''DDD'''''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD'D'D'D'DDD'''D'D'D'D'D'D'DDD'''DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YRWRLEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE 25 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 311 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTILITY AND LIGHTING PLAN SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SP-2UT-3 KEYMAP WEST COA S T H I G H W A Y SUPE RI O R A V E N U E NU AVORES HOAG HOSPITAL LEGEND EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING TELECOM EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY / PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE 26 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 312 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION PLAN TS-1SUPERIORWEST COAST B A L B O A A V E N U E B A L B O A A VAVENUEAVENUEAVENUAVENU HIGHWAYYAWAWHGHIHWAYAWAWHH CONSTRUCTION NOTES 27 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 313 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SS-2KEYMAP WEST COAS T H I G H W A Y WAYWAYHWAYAYAYHWHHWAYWAWAHWAYHWAYAYAAAAYHHWAHHHWHHHWAHWAHHAAAWHWHWHHHWHHWAAAHWWHWWWAAAAW SUPERIOR AVENUESUNSET RIDGE PARK SS-1 "S" LINES"N 28 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 314 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SS-1MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SS-3SS-2 KEYMAP WEST COAST HIGHWAY SUPERIOR A V E N U E NUARSU TYPICAL ADA PARKING STALL DETAIL TYPICAL PARKING STALL DETAIL STRIPING LEGEND: DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, PER CSP A20A DETAIL 21 12" WHITE LIMIT LINE, PER CSP A24E STOP PAVEMENT MARKING, PER CSP A24D SIGN LEGEND:"DRWY" LINEE"DY"WY"S" L I N E E LINNE LINI 29 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 315 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6MATCH LINE SEE SHEET SS-2SS-3 KEYMAP WEST COA S T H I G H W A Y SUPE RI O R A V E N U E NU AVORES 30 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 316 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RETAINING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 RW-1MATCH LINE STATION 13+00SEE RIGHTPLAN: SEGMENTAL WALL 1 SCALE: 1"=20' PROFILE: SEGMENTAL WALL 1RAPROFILE: SEGMENTAL WALL 1RA MATCH LINE STATION 15+00MACHNESTTON15L0SEE SHEET C-RW-2SESETCRW2EMATCH LINE STATION 13+00SEE LEFTMATCH LINE STATION 15+00SEE SHEET C-RW-2LEGEND: SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE NOTE: TOP OF WALL (TW) AND BOTTOM OF WALL (BW) STEP ARE SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET THE GRADE AND LAYOUT REQUIREMENT OF THE SITE. STEPS TO BE SLOPED AS SHOWN IN "STEPPED TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL DETAIL" 31 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 317 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RETAINING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 RW-2MATCH LINE STA 15+00SEE SHEET C-RW-1PROFILE: SEGMENTAL WALL 1S PROFILE: SEGMENTAL WALL 1SMATCH LINE STA 15+00MAHLNESTA50C0SEE SHEET C-RW-1SEECRW1EPLAN: SEGMENTAL WALL 1 SCALE: 1"=20' LEGEND: SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE NOTE: TOP OF WALL (TW) AND BOTTOM OF WALL (BW) STEP ARE SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET THE GRADE AND LAYOUT REQUIREMENT OF THE SITE. STEPS TO BE SLOPED AS SHOWN IN "STEPPED TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL DETAIL" 32 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 318 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RETAINING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 RW-3 PROFILE: SEGMENTAL WALL 2RTPROFILE: SEGMENTAL WALL 2RT PLAN: CIP RETAINING WALL 3 SCALE: 1"=20' PROFILE: CIP RETAINING WALL 3IGPROFILE CIP RETAINING WALL 3IG PLAN: SEGMENTAL WALL 2 SCALE: 1"=20' LEGEND: SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL SEGMENTAL WALL BOTTOM FACE NOTE: TOP OF WALL (TW) AND BOTTOM OF WALL (BW) STEP ARE SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET THE GRADE AND LAYOUT REQUIREMENT OF THE SITE. STEPS TO BE SLOPED AS SHOWN IN "STEPPED TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL DETAIL" 33 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 319 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RETAINING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 RW-4 PLAN: CIP RETAINING WALL 4 SCALE 1" = 20' PROFILE: CIP RETAINING WALL 4EPROFILE: CIP RETAINING WALL 4E PLAN: CIP RETAINING WALL 5 SCALE 1" = 20' PROFILE: CIP RETAINING WALL 5RNPROFILE: CIP RETAINING WALL 5RN LEGEND: CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL FOOTING CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN 34 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 320 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RETAINING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE AND PARKING LOT C-8020-6 RW-5 PROFILE: CIP RETAINING WALL 6PLPROFILE CIP RETAINING WALL 6PL PLAN: CIP RETAINING WALL 6 SCALE: 1"=20' PLAN: CIP RETAINING WALL 7 SCALE: 1"=20' PROFILE: CIP RETAINING WALL 77PROFILE CIP RETAINING WALL 77 LEGEND: CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL FOOTING CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN 35 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 321 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT RETAINING WALL DETAILS C-8020-6 RW-6 1034" 1814" 1034" 1814" 1214" 8" 1214" SECTION A PLAN VIEW SEGMENTAL 40 BLOCK DETAIL FRONT OF WALL DETAIL END OF WALL TRANSITION DETAILS GEOGRID PLACEMENT ON CURVES DETAIL GEOGRID CONNECTION DETAIL TOP OF WALL DETAILS STEPPED TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL DETAIL TYPICAL SLOPE CONDITION DETAIL TYPICAL LEVEL CONDITION DETAIL 36 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 322 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT RETAINING WALL DETAILS C-8020-6 RW-7 TYPICAL SEGMENTAL WALL CROSS SECTION NOTES: DESIGN NOTES: 37 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 323 R-7008-S 74 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEAND PARKING LOT RETAINING WALL DETAILS C-8020-6 RW-7 CIP RETAINING WALL 3 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE CIP RETAINING WALL 4, 5, 6 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE CIP RETAINING WALL 7 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 38 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT AT BEGINNING AND END OF WALL NO SCALE SECTION A-A NO SCALE SECTION B-B NO SCALE PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 324 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 325 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 326 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 327 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 328 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 329 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 330 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 331 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 332 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 333 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 334 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 335 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 336 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 337 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 338 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 339 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 340 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 341 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 342 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 343 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 344 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 345 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 346 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 347 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 348 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 349 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 350 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 351 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 352 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 353 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 354 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 355 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 356 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 357 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 358 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 359 PA2019-014 Attachment No. PC 11 - Project Plans 360 From:Grace Rogers To:Planning Commissioners Subject:No more Bridges!! Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 9:09:26 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have lived here my entire life.. 50 years. We need another footbridge like we need a hole in the head. Please do not do this to our city. it will not be used and it will be a homeless haven. stop spending ridiculous money!!!!! Grace Rogers, bridge builder 949.370.1081gracerogers@me.com gracerogers.lifevantage.com “at all times and in all places, always be the first to smile." Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:fleas finds To:Planning Commissioners Subject:No vote on Bridges at Superior/PCH Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 1:46:45 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. NO NO NO ON BRIDGES PLEASE IF YOU LIVED WITHIN BLOCKS OF THIS AREA YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND....The real problem is whomever designed the intersection as it stands now Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Mary Howard To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Opposed to bridges at PCH and Superior Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 7:27:14 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please do not pass the plan to build bridges at PCH and Superior. It will be an horrendous obstruction for many reasons: 1.Block one of the most beautiful views from Superior to PCH 2.Removes crosswalks that cyclist and people who cannot climb to get to walk way 3.Cost 4.Home for homeless and transients 5.Creating an even more massive highway at PCH PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS! I use these roads to get to work on Lido everyday. Seeing anunobstructed view of the ocean and Catalina is priceless! Mary Howard1909 Whittier Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92627mghoward08@gmail.com 949.402.9927 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Peggy Palmer To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Newport Beach - PCH and Foot-Bridges Date:Sunday, February 28, 2021 3:06:13 PM Attachments:Screen Shot 2018-06-18 at 2.13.34 PM.png Screen Shot 2018-06-18 at 2.03.16 PM.png [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Chair Weigand and Members of the Planning Commission, Recently, The City of Newport Beach announced their 2018-2019 Budget, this public document described that the City wants to secure funding for two foot-bridges, (estimated cost of the two-foot bridges $10 million dollars), as well as, expand Pacific Coast Highway. Please note on behalf of The Coalition to Protect Mariner’s Mile, we are vehemently against the widening of Pacific Coast Highway from Dover Drive to the Arches Bridge.The traffic flow is consistent with what is referred to as the “heart" of our town and we feel that if anything, that the speeds remain excessive along this corridor and that the traffic needs to be slowed down. At this time, we are requesting that Cal-Trans work with our engineers to help develop a safe public strip of road that serves the schools, pedestrians and bicyclist. (Please see our diagram below).In addition, there are plans to construct more than a 100 residential homes along Pacfic Coast Highway; widening PCH would initiate more traffic, (which would eventually "bottle neck” at the Arches Bridge defeating the purpose of the widening), this is not in the community’s best interest, nor is it safe. The present decibel readings are interfering and impacting the environment in the surrounding communities of Bayshores, Lido Isle, Newport Heights and Cliff Haven. (We are currently reading 100+ decibels at street level when the sports cars and motorcycles race down Mariner’s Mile, long or repeated exposure to sounds at or above 85 decibels can cause hearing loss). We ask that the measure M Funds be moved towards the engineering of narrowing the lanes along PCH; hence, creating a family friendly village, much like Corona Del Mar. Furthermore, research has shown that even with the busiest of intersections that 52% of people will not take foot-bridges when there is a street-grade crossing. These two proposed ideas, one of widening PCH and the other to build two foot-bridges are not compatible with the over-all concept of Newport Village, especially, with 33 curb cuts on the harbor-side and 43 curb cuts on the inland parcels. In the future, we would like to work with Cal-Trans to make mutually positive decisions that are in the best interest of the residents, the public and the visitors of Newport Beach. Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) The Coalition to Protect Mariner’s Mile Opposes Both of these Proposals and request that both bridges be discussed as a whole and further evaluate their cumulative impacts. Thank you,Peggy V. PalmerThe Coalition to Protect Mariner’s Milewww.ProtectMarinersMile.org Our Concept: The City’s Proposed Budget with Measure M Funds: Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Michael Palmer To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Please Stop Expanding PCH Date:Sunday, February 28, 2021 3:42:44 PM Attachments:Public Comment sample doc..docx [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Weigand and Planning Commission Members, Please see the following letter regarding the proposed PCH bridge project.We need to further evaluate, WHY the City Staff is continuing to expand Pacific Coast Highway at the expense ofthe tax-payers. I am requesting that an alternative plan be proposed with the 10 million dollars. Thank you,Michael C. Palmer Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) February 17, 2021 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach, CA planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Mr. Chairman, I support preserving, protecting and enhancing our coastal resources. I am concerned about the significant visual impacts from project’s grading, construction of the oversized retaining walls and bridge. I don’t understand why the City is choosing to separate this project from the West Coast Highway Widening Bridge project. Shouldn’t they be considered together? I think additional analysis is needed to demonstrate the need for the project. Is this really the least damaging environmental alternative to our coastal resources. Widening Pacific Coast Highway will mean increased traffic, more accidents, less parking and threaten the safety of our kids. I don’t want PCH Widened and have to live with bridges, bridges and more bridges. Stop the Pacific Coast Freeway Thank you, Michael C. Palmer 1421 Superior Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:CDCO To:Planning Commissioners Subject:BRIDGE Date:Sunday, February 28, 2021 7:43:40 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAN’T A BETTER WAY BE FOUND TO SPEND 10 MILLOPM DOLLARS????????????? Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Nicole and Jeffrey Holowaty To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Superior and PCH expansion Date:Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:16:57 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi - where do I find information related to the purposed changes to the PCH / Superior are in NPB ? I would like to review what is being proposed and also like to know how I can voice my opinion on the matter. Thank you. Nicole Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Val Lyon To:Planning Commissioners Subject:PCH and Superior Bridges Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 8:22:21 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission This email is to express our strong opposition to the construction of the proposed foot bridges that would span Superior Avenue and PCH. At a cost of $10 million (likely to be higher) this would be completely irresponsible and unnecessary spending by the City of Newport Beach, especially during the current economic environment. There are certainly better ways to spend taxpayer dollars that would benefit the residents of Newport Beach. Sincerely, Edward and Barbara Lyon 427 San Bernardino Avenue NB CA 93663 val-lyon@sbcglobal.net 949-351-4300 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Madelon Maupin To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Bridges Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 8:27:50 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Supervisors, This resident speaks for me in my concerns as well: Superior / PCH Bridge Project - March 4, 2021 Hearing. As a resident in West Newport, I think it is important to note that the City is proposing two bridges at the intersection of Superior and PCH at a cost of more than 10 million dollars. The underlying reason is to expand Pacific Coast Highway. I think that these two intersections need "calming measures" NOT footbridges. There is also a rumor that the crosswalks will be completely taken out too!!! What happens to the bicyclist and pedestrians who realistically won't hike- up these bridges? I also think these bridges could become a "homeless" high-rise that connect to Sunset Ridge Park. Please voice your concerns that perhaps the Planning Commission take a 'safer" approach at this intersection and study the view impacts of these bridges from Sunset Ridge Park and Sunset View Park. Let's see if another solution can't be found. Thank you, Madelon Maupin 307 Montero AVenueNewport Beach 92661 Madelon MaupinBible Roads3419 Via Lido, Suite 263Newport Beach, CA 92663Tel: (949) 200-5990www.BibleRoads.com "Live well. Live blessed." (Luke 8:48) Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Jackie Cota To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Superior / PCH Bridge Project - March 4, 2021 Hearing. Date:Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:51:48 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Superior / PCH Bridge Project - March 4, 2021 Hearing. As a 54 year resident in Newport, I think it is important to note that the proposed two bridges at the intersection of Superior and PCH at a cost of more than 10 million dollars is ridiculous. The lights and crosswalks are sufficient and spending 10M to accommodate lazy people is a waste of our money. I’d rather see you put a stop light at 28th street and Balboa where pedestrians consistently almost get run over on a daily basis which is recorded with calls to NBPD by speeding traffic and cars that run right through the crosswalk when people are crossing. A crossing bridge will just become a nuisance where homeless will settle and the city will do nothing about removing them just like they do nothing about removing them from the streets and piers now. I would attend this hearing however I am out of town. Please consider this as a request to deny this effort of the crossing bridge Jackie Carron Cota 211 28th Street Newport Beach Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Marcia OHern To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Bridges Date:Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:59:02 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I oppose the building of bridges at Superior & PCH highway. I’m concerned about the homeless creating problems around this. Marcia O’Hern, 201 Via Nice, Newport Beach Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) 1 Subject:FW: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Attachments:FINAL NPB OCTA RCP ICE 10-17-2018.pdf From: Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>   Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 4:25 PM  To: Summerhill, Yolanda <YSummerhill@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>;  Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>  Subject: Fwd: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019‐014)  Sent from my iPhone  Begin forwarded message:  From:dave@earsi.com  Date: March 2, 2021 at 4:16:02 PM PST  To: "Weigand, Erik" <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>, "Lowrey, Lee"  <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>, "Kleiman, Lauren" <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>, "Ellmore,  Curtis" <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>, "Klaustermeier, Sarah"  <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>, "Koetting, Peter" <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>, "Rosene,  Mark" <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov>  Subject: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project  (PA2019‐014)  [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the  content is safe.  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission  I am the appellant.  Given the short period generally allowed for testimony before the Commission, I wanted to make sure  you were able to review 2 documents.  Both documents are referenced in my comment letter in  significant detail.  1.The attached funding application for “West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2)” dated October 18, 2018. This application contains detailed description, need and engineering plans prepared by the City for the  intersection widening and improvements.  This was over a year before the City Council Approved Phase I  (the Superior Bridge Project) in November 2019.  1.The land use restriction on the Directors Deed for the purchase of Superior Ridge Park.  The Deed identifies a Scenic Easement over approx.. 40% of the park, including that portion of the park where the Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) 2 bridge and its abutment are proposed.  The 2006 Directors Deed  states:  Superior Ridge Park  Directors Deed 2006  “ADDITIONALLY, THE GRANTEE IS PROHIBITED FROM PLACING PERMANENT STRUCTURES OR  PAVEMENT WITHIN DIE EASEMENT AREA, AND NO PARKING OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES SHALL BE  PERMITTED WITHIN THE EASEMENT AREA.”  PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT ‐ REAL PROPERTY DD040766‐01‐01  VI  “The property is being sold "as is" and is being conveyed subject to any special assessments, restrictions,  reservations or easements of record and subject to any reservations or restrictions contained in the  Director's Deed. Buyer has read and understands other information the Seller has relative to these  matters.”  The map showing the easement area is contained in my comment letter and in Staff’s responses to my  comments.  Finally, below are two impacts not considered by staff.  1.The Project will impact a City Council Policies G‐1 (Retention, Removal and Maintenance of City Trees), and G‐3 (Preservation of Views) through the removal of a Special Tree (Resolution 2021‐ 05).  Removal of a special tree was previously denied by Staff and in the CEQA document.  The impact from removal of the Impact to this Special Tree must be evaluated by CEQA. 1.The Project has not considered the impact form bridges to the marine industry. The protection of the City’s marine industry is a priority. Thanks,  Dave  David J. Tanner  223 62nd Street  Newport Beach, CA 92663  949 646‐8958 home  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, and any  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.  Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2) OCTA Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program (CTFP) Regional Capacity Program – Intersection Capacity Enhancement PREPARED FOR: Orange County Transportation Authority 600 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92868 PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach Andy Tran, PE, Senior Civil Engineer 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 644-3315 October 18, 2018 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Balboa Blvd(ADT 24,308) Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) City of Newport Beach OCTA CTFP – Intersection Capacity Enhancement i 1. CTFP Online Application (Submitted through OCFundtracker) .................................. 1 2. Project Description Detail ............................................................................................. 5 • Project Description/Scope of Work • Project Location Map 3. Cost Estimate - All Phases ............................................................................................. 9 4. Draft Resolution .......................................................................................................... 10 5. Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts ....................................................................... 13 6. LOS Calculations .......................................................................................................... 16 7. 24-Hour Traffic Counts ................................................................................................ 19 8. Preliminary Conceptual Layout Plan .......................................................................... 23 Table of Contents Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs 2019 Call for Projects 7-7 As of 8/13/2018 Exhibit 7-2 Intersection Capacity Enhancement (ICE) CTFP Application Checklist Guide Planning – Environmental & Engineering o CTFP Online Application – submitted through OCFundtracker o Project Description, Scope of Work and Project Limits o Cost Estimate for Complete Project - ALL PHASES o General Application Sample Resolution o Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts, LOS Calculations, and ADT for each leg of the intersection o Aerial Photo w/ Proposed Improvements Shown Right-of-Way o CTFP Online Application – submitted through OCFundtracker o Project Description Detail (include plat maps and legal descriptions for proposed acquisitions) o Detailed right-of-way Acquisition/Disposal Plan using the OCTA provided right-of-way acquisition/disposal plan form available for download at https://ocfundtracker.octa.net. o Cost Estimate for Complete Project - ALL PHASES o Estimated right-of-way Cost by Parcel (Land, Improvements Taken, Severance, Goodwill, Incidental Expenses) * o General Application Sample Resolution o Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts, LOS Calculations, and ADT for each leg of the intersection o CEQA Compliance Form (CE, Negative Declaration, EIR) o Aerial Strip Map w/ Existing and Proposed Improvements Shown o Include right-of-way Improvements and Parcels to be Acquired o Preliminary Construction Layout Plans* Construction o CTFP Online Application – submitted through OCFundtracker o Project Construction Specifications o Cost Estimate for Complete Project - ALL PHASES o General Application Sample Resolution o Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts, LOS Calculations, and ADT for each leg of the intersection o CEQA Compliance Form (CE, Negative Declaration, EIR) o Project Development Documents - Project Report or Materials Report * o Approved Project Construction Plans* NOTE: To qualify for the 10 percent local match discount for measurable improvement of PCI, please include documentation from the last two PMP biennial Measure M Eligibility submittals that provide average PCI for Overall System. *Items are due after first application review. OCTA staff will contact you regarding those projects that will require this additional information. ii Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) MAIN MENU CHANGE PASSWORD | LOGOUT | OCTA | SCAG VIEW PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY (XLS)UPLOAD PROJECT DOCUMENTS APPLICATION NUMBER: PROJECT ID: CP--3515 VERSION: 1 CTFP TOTAL ALLOCATIONS: $780,000.00 CTFP TOTAL PAYMENTS: $0.00 STATUS: Planned TOTAL PROJECT COST $6,700,000.00 MATCH RATE 0.00 BOARD APPROVAL DATE LAST MODIFIED BY: Patrick Arciniega (10/16/2018) APPROVED BY: N/A HISTORY PROJECT INFORMATION IMPROVEMENT TYPE ICE - Intersection Capacity Enhancement CONG DISTRICT48 SUP DISTRICT2 SENATE DISTRICT37 ASSEMBLY DISTRICT74 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Newport Beach, City of PROJECT MANAGER Andy Tran, P.E. PHONE (10-DIGIT) 9496443315 EMAIL atran@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT TITLE West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION - GUIDELINES SYSTEM State Hwy ROUTE 1 INTERCHANGE NO FROM West Coast Hwy TO Superior Avenue MAP LANES INFORMATION Left Turn # of Lanes Through Right Turn Existing NorthBound 1.5 1 0.5 SouthBound 1.5 1.5 2 With Application NorthBound 1.5 1 0.5 SouthBound 1.5 1.5 1 (free) Existing EastBound 2 3 1 WestBound 1 4 0 With Application EastBound 2 4 0 WestBound 1 4 0 GENERAL QUESTIONS CTFP QUESTIONS Is this application on your current approved measure M2 CIP? NO Has your agency previously received CTFP funding for this Application? NO If Yes, When? If No, Type N/A N/A Project ID? N/A MATCH RATE DISCOUNT Has your agency adopted & maintained the Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan? YES Is your agency using fairshare funding as a match for this project? NO Does your agency have a PCI over 75 or has your agency had a measurable improvement of PCI from previous reporting period to current reporting period? YES PROGRAMMING INFORMATION ($0)[HISTORICAL REVENUES] [GRAPH REVENUES] Please enter all funding required for the total project for all years. Note: This 2019 Call for Projects will allocate M2 funds for FY19/20,FY20/21,FY21/22 only. ** Minimum match for local funds is 25% **** Actual Local Agency Match Rate is 35% ** FISCAL YEAR FUND TYPE (PROGRAMMED REVENUE SOURCE)ENG ROW CON TOTAL 19/20 General Fund X 19/20 Intersection Capacity Enhancements (ICE) X 20/21 Intersection Capacity Enhancements (ICE) - Future Call X 20/21 General Fund X 22/23 General Fund X 22/23 Intersection Capacity Enhancements (ICE) - Future Call X Project Overview. In accordance with the Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs (CTFP) Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) requests funding for the planning phase which includes planning /permitting, right-of-way engineering, environmental clearance, and i i /d i ti iti Th Cit t i th i t ti f W t C t $420,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $420,000 $780,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $780,000 $0.00 $375,000.00 $0.00 $375,000 $0.00 $125,000.00 $0.00 $125,000 $0.00 $0.00 $1,250,000.00 $1,250,000 $0.00 $0.00 $3,750,000.00 $3,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) General Fund Intersection Capacity Enhancements (ICE) Intersection Capacity Enhancements (ICE) - Future Call Update Subtotals GRAND TOTAL SCHEDULE INFORMATION SCHEDULED START SCHEDULED COMPLETION STATUS CONTRACTAWARD/NOTICETO PROCEEDDATE ACTUALCOMPLETION FINAL REPORT SUBMITTAL EXPENDITURE EXTENSION DEADLINE MONTH YEAR MONTH YEAR PLAN NOV 2019 JUL 2022 Planned ENG NOV 2019 JUL 2022 Planned ROW NOV 2020 JAN 2022 Planned CON SEP 2022 DEC 2023 Planned TYPE OF REQUEST NONE DELAY ADVANCE TRANSFER CANCELLATION SCOPE CHANGE EXCESS RIGHT-OF- WAY FUNDS EXTENSION PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS LINK BOARD APPROVALDATE PHASE ACTION FY AMOUNT COMMENT PDFPDFPDF[ADD NEW ROW] JUSTIFICATION - LAST UPDATED: 10/8/2018 - Call for projects ENTER SCORING DATA MARK ON MAP Please Mark on Map before submitting. If marked on map, click Save. If there is a pop-up window, please click No Save for Later Save and Submit to OCTA PRINT CONTACT OCTA 3.91s EMAIL OCFUNDTRACKERHELP@ECOINTERACTIVE.COM $420,000 $125,000 $1,250,000 $1,795,000 $780,000 $0 $0 $780,000 $0 $375,000 $3,750,000 $4,125,000 $1,200,000 $500,000 $5,000,000 $6,700,000 2 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) MAIN MENU CHANGE PASSWORD | LOGOUT | OCTA | SCAG PROJECT RANKING AGENCY: Newport Beach, City of TITLE: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2) ICE - Intersection POINT(S) Facility Usage ADT (Sum of Avg ADT for 4 legs based on OCTA Trafflic Flow Map)67254 15 Current Project Readiness Environmental Approvals Preliminary Design (35%) Right of Way (All offers issued) Final Design (PS&E) Right of Way (All easement and titles) 0 Economic Effectiveness Coordination with Contiguous Project NO 0 Cost Benefit 6700000 (Total Project Cost) / 67254 (ADT) = 100 3 Funding Over-Match 35% (City Match) - 25% (Required) = 10%2 Facility Importance Transportation Significance Major 8 Operational Efficiencies Protected/Permissive Safety Improvements Sustainability Water Conservation Elements Channels traffic Lowers density Bike Lanes Bus Turnouts Free Right Ped. Facilities (new) Grade separations 20 Benefit 1Existing LOS - Starting Point - (Peak Hour) 0.82 LOS - After Project - (Peak Hour) 0.74 LOS Improvement 0.08 2 TOTAL =2 3 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) SAVE RANKING CLOSE WINDOW PRINT TOTAL POINT(S):52 CONTACT OCTA 1.28s EMAIL OCFUNDTRACKERHELP@ECOINTERACTIVE.COM 4 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) City of Newport Beach OCTA CTFP – Intersection Capacity Enhancement PROJECT DESCRIPTION DETAIL Project Overview. In accordance with the Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs (CTFP) Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) requests funding for the planning phase which includes planning /permitting, right-of-way engineering, environmental clearance, and engineering/design activities. The City proposes to improve the intersection of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard. Refer to the Project Location Map and the Layout Plan on the following pages. The estimated cost for the planning phase is $1,200,000. The City requests $780,000 in Measure M2 competitive grant funds (65%) from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and will contribute a minimum of $420,000 (35%) of local funds to satisfy the minimum matching requirement (50% minus the anticipated 25% match reduction plus a 10% overmatch), as outlined in the application form. Existing Conditions at the Intersection. West Coast Highway is the primary east-west highway along the Pacific Ocean and connects the City of Huntington Beach to the west and the City of Laguna Beach to the east. This segment of the highway is currently within California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction and is classified as a “Major Arterial” on the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) map and is also identified as a “Major Road” in the City’s General Plan - Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The north leg of the intersection leads to the City of Costa Mesa via Superior Avenue. The south leg of the intersection leads to the Balboa Peninsula via Balboa Boulevard. Both Superior Avenue and Balboa Boulevard are classified as “Primary Arterial” on the OCTA MPAH map. Similarly, both these streets are classified as “Primary Road” on the City’s General Plan - Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The sum of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for this intersection is 67,254. 24-Hour traffic counts were collected on Wednesday September 26, 2018. The existing lane configuration is described below: Eastbound West Coast Highway: Two left turn lanes, three through lanes, one right turn lane and a bike lane. Westbound West Coast Highway: One left turn lane, four through lanes including one shared de-facto right turn lane, and a bike lane. The four through lanes reduces to three lanes immediately past the intersection. Northbound Balboa Boulevard: One left turn lane, one shared left turn and through lane, and one shared through and de-facto right turn lane. Southbound Superior Avenue: One left turn lane, one shared left turn and through lane, one through lane, two right turn lanes and a bike lane. Project Need. 1)Reduce Traffic Congestion and Delay. The project will improve the operation of the intersection by adding capacity, reducing vehicle queuing and alleviating congestion. This intersection is an important gateway to adjacent cities and multiple high-impact destinations. The south leg of the 5 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) City of Newport Beach OCTA CTFP – Intersection Capacity Enhancement intersection leads to the Balboa Peninsula, one of the most popular and heavily-trafficked tourist and recreation destinations in Southern California. The coastal population swells by an estimated 100,000 per day during peak tourist season, more than doubling the population and adding to the already congested streets, as vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic head south toward the Peninsula’s public beaches and the hundreds of entertainment and retail venues. On the northwest side of the intersection is the recently constructed Sunset Ridge Park, which is home to organized youth soccer and baseball leagues. More than 16,000 persons use the park annually for youth league sports, and even more for the park’s playground and walking and biking trails. Although the intersection LOS calculations only show a slight improvement with the implementation of this project, there is a significant improvement in terms of delay that motorists will experience due to the proposed removal of the crosswalk across West Coast Highway. Given the high ADT on West Coast Highway, this critical east-west vehicular movement is often times delayed by pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the highway. This intersection, especially in the opposing north-south direction experiences a high volume of pedestrians and bicyclist due to the proximity of Balboa Peninsula. The construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge will allow the elimination of the at-grade crosswalk, which will in turn add a significant amount of traffic signal time to the critical east-west vehicular movement, ultimately reducing delay. The LOS calculation methodology does not take into account the delay time that the motorist experiences. The ADT presented in this application was recently collected on Wednesday September 26, 2018. The ADT would be much higher during the peak tourist season (summer) with the increased population. 2)Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Access. This project will improve safety at this intersection by separating motorists and pedestrians/bicyclists and reducing vehicle/pedestrian/bike conflicts. Many pedestrians and bicyclists travel south on Superior Avenue towards public beaches and entertainment and retail venues. The slope of Superior Avenue is approximately 10% downhill towards West Coast Highway, which is extremely steep for a Primary Arterial. Given the steep slope, bicyclists often times travel at high and unsafe speeds down Superior Avenue towards a very busy Major Arterial. The steep slope, combined with the curvature of Superior Avenue is a less than ideal condition for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed bridge will allow pedestrians and bicyclist to safely cross West Coast Highway and avoid opposing vehicles traveling at high speeds. The proposed bridge will also provide more efficient access for pedestrians and bicyclist at this intersection. The two bridges (across Superior Avenue and across West Coast Highway) will allow safe and continuous access across both sides of the intersection. Description of the Intersection Improvements. The proposed improvements at this location will be completed in two separate phases. The following is a description of each phase: Phase 1 involves the construction of the Superior Avenue pedestrian/bicycle bridge and a parking lot. This phase also involves earthwork, grading, retaining walls, concrete flat work, traffic signal modification, signing and striping. The design of this phase is currently underway. Phase 1 is not part of this CTFP funding application. However, planning and design of Phase 1 will accommodate the proposed improvements associated with Phase 2. The City was successful in securing federal grants to fund a portion of construction for Phase 1. This federal grant is part of the 2016 Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program (BCIP) call for projects. Depending on the outcome of this grant application, the City may request to combine the two phases. 6 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) City of Newport Beach OCTA CTFP – Intersection Capacity Enhancement Phase 2 is the subject of this CTFP ICE grant application. This phase involves widening West Coast Highway to accommodate one additional eastbound through lane and converting the two southbound right turn lanes into a single free right turn lane. In addition, this phase involves constructing a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge across West Coast Highway. A pedestrian ramp at the south side of West Coast Highway would also need to be constructed to allow pedestrians to access the sidewalk from the top of the bridge. All existing utilities that are impacted by the proposed roadway widening will need to be adjusted or relocated. This phase also involves the reconstruction of the raised median on West Coast Highway, concrete flatwork, traffic signal modification, signing, and striping. With the completion of the two new pedestrian/bicycle bridges, the two crosswalks that parallel the bridges would be eliminated, which will dramatically decrease vehicular delay as discussed above. Proposed Planning Phase. This application requests funding for Phase 2 planning activities for the widening of West Coast Highway and the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway. Planning activities include the following: 1)Planning/Permitting – Conceptual design, coordination with other agencies such as the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and Caltrans, procure Coastal Development Permit from CCC, process design and procure permits from Caltrans, and conduct public outreach with the community. 2)Right-of-Way Engineering – Identify necessary right-of-way from adjacent property owners (Newport Banning Ranch and Hoag Hospital). 3)Environmental Clearance – Prepare appropriate environmental documentation, circulate documentation for public review and comment, identify and complete all mitigation measures, and file environmental documents with the County of Orange. 4)Engineering/Design – Prepare final construction plans, specifications and construction cost estimates, coordinate utility impacts with other agencies, advertise and award construction contract, and prepare record drawings upon completion of construction. Future Implementation Phase. Upon substantial completion of the planning phase, the City will proceed with the implementation phase. At that time, the City will seek additional grant funding to complete the implementation phase which includes the following: 1)Right-of-Way Acquisition – Prepare appraisals, negotiate with property owners, purchase necessary right-of-way to accommodate widening West Coast Highway. 2)Construction – Procure a contractor, construction management, and continue with public outreach with the community. 7 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) 1 1CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT W E S T C O A S T H I G H W A Y SUPERIOR AVENUEPROJECT LOCATION MAP B A L BO A BOU L E V AR D NEWPORTBOULEVARDNEWPORT BANNING RANCH APPROXIMATELY 400 ACRES WE S T C O A S T H I G H W A Y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF COSTA MESA PACIFIC OCEAN WEST COAST HWY AND SUPERIOR AVE/BALBOA BLVD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE 2) SUNSET RIDGE PARK HOAG HOSPITAL 8 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) City of Newport Beach: West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvements (Phase 2) COST ESTIMATE (OCTOBER 2018) I.PLANNING Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Engineering LS $600,000 1 $600,000 2 Environmental Clearance LS $450,000 1 $450,000 3 Permitting LS $150,000 1 $150,000 TOTAL PLANNING $1,200,000 II. RIGHT-OF-WAY Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Estimated 15,000 sq. ft. to be acquired SF $33.33 15,000 $500,000 from Newport Banning Ranch to facilitate road widening on West Coast Highway (WCH) (a narrow strip of land) TOTAL R/W ACQUISITION $500,000 III. CONSTRUCTION Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost 1 Pedestrian & Bicycle Bridge (Over WCH), 1 Ramp LS $2,500,000 1 $2,500,000 (on the southside of WCH), and 1 Abutment (linking to the Phase 1 pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue) 2 Road Widening on WCH LS $2,000,000 1 $2,000,000 3 Contingency (Approx. 10% of total construction) LS $500,000 1 $500,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $5,000,000 IV. PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL $6,700,000 9 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) NOTE: The City will take the resolution to the City Council on November 27, 2018. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FUNDING APPLICATION FOR AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach desires to implement the transportation improvements listed below; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has been declared by the Orange County Transportation Authority to meet the eligibility requirements to receive M2 "Fair Share" funds; and WHEREAS, the City's Circulation Element is consistent with the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach will provide 35 percent in matching funds for the planning phase for the West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvement project as required by the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Transportation Authority intends to allocate funds for transportation improvement projects within the incorporated cities and the County; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach will not use M2 funds to supplant Developer Fees or other commitments; and WHEREAS, the City must include all projects funded by Net Revenues in the seven-year Capital Improvement Program as part of the Measure M2 Ordinance eligibility requirement; and WHEREAS, the City authorizes a formal amendment to the seven-year Capital Improvement Program to add projects approved for funding upon approval from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council does hereby requests the Orange County Transportation Authority allocate funds in the amounts specified in the City's application from the Comprehensive Transportation Programs. Said funds shall be matched by funds from the City of Newport Beach as required and shall be used as supplemental funding to aid the City in the West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard Intersection Improvement project 10 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Resolution No. 2018-___ Page 2 of __ Section 2: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 3: 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 4: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 11 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Resolution No. 2018-___ Page 3 of __ 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 ____ day of _________, 20__. ______________________ Duffy Duffield Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE ___________________________ Aaron C. Harp City Attorney 12 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) File Name : h1809089 Site Code : 00005701 Start Date : 9/27/2018 Page No : 1 City: NEWPORT BEACH N-S Direction: SUPERIOR AVE E-W Direction: COAST HIGHWAY Groups Printed- Turning Movements SUPERIOR AVENUE Southbound COAST HIGHWAY Westbound BALBOA BOULEVARD Northbound COAST HIGHWAY Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 07:00 39 27 50 20 81 16 28 21 16 52 355 118 823 07:15 44 30 48 23 80 9 33 45 29 35 368 99 843 07:30 47 28 43 32 137 15 43 48 27 48 510 174 1152 07:45 69 36 43 84 143 12 42 70 39 96 501 199 1334 Total 199 121 184 159 441 52 146 184 111 231 1734 590 4152 08:00 64 50 51 59 146 32 28 66 50 65 437 140 1188 08:15 58 31 30 43 141 28 37 59 40 60 474 189 1190 08:30 60 22 45 44 123 10 31 62 40 52 400 170 1059 08:45 68 35 46 55 151 22 21 58 32 60 458 196 1202 Total 250 138 172 201 561 92 117 245 162 237 1769 695 4639 *** BREAK *** 16:30 206 48 44 51 577 30 10 51 76 47 212 51 1403 16:45 182 55 51 40 510 27 26 36 60 61 238 61 1347 Total 388 103 95 91 1087 57 36 87 136 108 450 112 2750 17:00 194 64 52 42 525 41 10 42 73 42 180 69 1334 17:15 255 76 77 34 550 32 26 50 69 34 197 74 1474 17:30 181 65 53 38 562 40 20 45 50 62 222 50 1388 17:45 147 49 45 29 474 32 24 48 82 59 240 61 1290 Total 777 254 227 143 2111 145 80 185 274 197 839 254 5486 18:00 125 54 33 36 415 38 26 38 73 49 148 73 1108 18:15 142 57 37 41 477 48 22 31 71 54 198 52 1230 Grand Total 1881 727 748 671 5092 432 427 770 827 876 5138 1776 19365 Apprch %56 21.7 22.3 10.8 82.2 7 21.1 38 40.9 11.2 66 22.8 Total %9.7 3.8 3.9 3.5 26.3 2.2 2.2 4 4.3 4.5 26.5 9.2 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 13 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) File Name : h1809089 Site Code : 00005701 Start Date : 9/27/2018 Page No : 2 City: NEWPORT BEACH N-S Direction: SUPERIOR AVE E-W Direction: COAST HIGHWAY SUPERIOR AVENUE Southbound COAST HIGHWAY Westbound BALBOA BOULEVARD Northbound COAST HIGHWAY Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 07:30 47 28 43 118 32 137 15 184 43 48 27 118 48 510 174 732 1152 07:45 69 36 43 148 84 143 12 239 42 70 39 151 96 501 199 796 1334 08:00 64 50 51 165 59 146 32 237 28 66 50 144 65 437 140 642 1188 08:15 58 31 30 119 43 141 28 212 37 59 40 136 60 474 189 723 1190 Total Volume 238 145 167 550 218 567 87 872 150 243 156 549 269 1922 702 2893 4864 % App. Total 43.3 26.4 30.4 25 65 10 27.3 44.3 28.4 9.3 66.4 24.3 PHF .862 .725 .819 .833 .649 .971 .680 .912 .872 .868 .780 .909 .701 .942 .882 .909 .912 SUPERIOR AVENUE COAST HIGHWAY COAST HIGHWAY BALBOA BOULEVARD Right 238 Thru 145 Left 167 InOut Total 1163 550 1713 Right218 Thru567 Left87 OutTotalIn2239 872 3111 Left 156 Thru 243 Right 150 Out TotalIn 501 549 1050 Left702 Thru1922 Right269 TotalOutIn961 2893 3854 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 Turning Movements Peak Hour Data North Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 14 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) File Name : h1809089 Site Code : 00005701 Start Date : 9/27/2018 Page No : 3 City: NEWPORT BEACH N-S Direction: SUPERIOR AVE E-W Direction: COAST HIGHWAY SUPERIOR AVENUE Southbound COAST HIGHWAY Westbound BALBOA BOULEVARD Northbound COAST HIGHWAY Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:30 to 18:15 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:30 16:30 206 48 44 298 51 577 30 658 10 51 76 137 47 212 51 310 1403 16:45 182 55 51 288 40 510 27 577 26 36 60 122 61 238 61 360 1347 17:00 194 64 52 310 42 525 41 608 10 42 73 125 42 180 69 291 1334 17:15 255 76 77 408 34 550 32 616 26 50 69 145 34 197 74 305 1474 Total Volume 837 243 224 1304 167 2162 130 2459 72 179 278 529 184 827 255 1266 5558 % App. Total 64.2 18.6 17.2 6.8 87.9 5.3 13.6 33.8 52.6 14.5 65.3 20.1 PHF .821 .799 .727 .799 .819 .937 .793 .934 .692 .877 .914 .912 .754 .869 .861 .879 .943 SUPERIOR AVENUE COAST HIGHWAY COAST HIGHWAY BALBOA BOULEVARD Right 837 Thru 243 Left 224 InOut Total 601 1304 1905 Right167 Thru2162 Left130 OutTotalIn1123 2459 3582 Left 278 Thru 179 Right 72 Out TotalIn 557 529 1086 Left255 Thru827 Right184 TotalOutIn3277 1266 4543 Peak Hour Begins at 16:30 Turning Movements Peak Hour Data North Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 15 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) LOS Calculations ‐ Justification for Using 2% Growth  The City assumed a 2% growth rate per year to estimate the future peak hour turning movement count.  This project is scheduled to open in December 2023, a little over five years from today. The turning  movement counts were recently collected on September 27, 2018. Based on the City’s General Plan, the  development of approximately 400 acres of land known as Newport Banning Ranch (NBR) is currently  planned. As shown on the attached Project Location Map, NBR is located immediately adjacent to the  proposed project location. The development of NBR will generate a significant amount of traffic at this  intersection.  During the preparation of the General Plan, peak hour turning movement counts from 2009 were used.  The projected build‐out, which included the development of NBR, was anticipated to be in year 2025.   The following AM/PM peak hour turning movement counts were used for both 2009 and 2025.   Turning Movement  2009 AM Peak  Hour Volume  Projected 2025  AM Peak Hr  Volume  2009 PM Peak  Hour Volume  Projected 2025  PM Peak Hour  Volume  Northbound Left 168 180 254 360  Northbound Through  266 500 208 180  Northbound Right 114 160 78 150  Southbound Left 170 80 228 240  Southbound Through  165 110 243 390  Southbound Right 247 560 710 790  Eastbound Left 709 640 258 340  Eastbound Through 1914 3020 986 1750  Eastbound Right 211 270 243 340  Westbound Left 95 130 226 280  Westbound Through  768 1000 1854 3070  Westbound Right 155 210 162 160  Total 4982 6860 5450 8050  Based on these turning movement counts, the growth rates for the AM and PM peak hours are  calculated to be 2.0% and 2.5%, respectively. As of today, the development of NBR has not begun due to  the lack of a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. Since the calculated  growth rate for both the AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts are greater than 2%, the City  assumed a 2% growth rate per year for the next five years.   16 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET INTERSECTION: Superior Drive (N/S) and West Coast Highway (E/W) CONDITION: COUNT DATE: Thur Sept 27, 2018 DATE:16-Oct-18 Note: Split phasing on N-S approaches (OL) - Right-turn overlap phase INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS MOVEMENT LANES SAT. CAPACITY VOLUME V/C VOLUME FOR CALC. (C)AM PM AM PM NL 1.5 2550 171 308 0.067 0.121 * NT 1 1700 268 199 0.158 0.117 NR 0.5 850 165 79 0.194 *0.093 SL 1.5 2550 184 248 0.072 *0.097 ST 1.5 2550 160 268 0.063 0.105 SR (OL)2 3400 0 643 0.000 0.189 * EL 2 3400 775 281 0.228 0.083 * ET 3 5100 2122 914 0.416 *0.179 ER 1 1700 297 204 0.175 0.120 WL 1 1700 97 145 0.057 *0.085 WT 4 6800 626 2387 0.128 0.378 * WR (defacto)0 0 241 184 0.142 0.108 CLEARANCE 0.05 0.05 CRITICAL RIGHT -- ICU 0.79 0.82 LOS C D NOTE: ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*) plus critical right-turn value if any. Existing Conditions with Forecasted Volumes at 2% Growth per Year (5 years) 17 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET INTERSECTION: Superior Drive (N/S) and West Coast Highway (E/W) CONDITION: Proposed Improvements with Forecasted Volumes at 2% Growth per Year (5 years) COUNT DATE: Thur Sept 27, 2018 DATE:16-Oct-18 Note: Split phasing on N-S approaches (OL) - Right-turn overlap phase INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS MOVEMENT LANES SAT. CAPACITY VOLUME V/C VOLUME FOR CALC. (C)AM PM AM PM NL 1.5 2550 171 308 0.067 0.121 * NT 1 1700 268 199 0.158 0.117 NR 0.5 850 165 79 0.194 *0.093 SL 1.5 2550 184 248 0.072 *0.097 ST 1.5 2550 160 268 0.063 0.105 * SR (FREE)0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 EL 2 3400 775 281 0.228 0.083 * ET 4 6800 2122 914 0.356 *0.164 ER 0 0 297 204 0.175 0.120 WL 1 1700 97 145 0.057 *0.085 WT 4 6800 626 2387 0.128 0.378 * WR (defacto)0 0 241 184 0.142 0.108 CLEARANCE 0.05 0.05 CRITICAL RIGHT -- ICU 0.73 0.74 LOS C C NOTE: ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*) plus critical right-turn value if any. 18 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 NEWPORT BCHSite::COAST HIGHWAYLocation Date::W/O SUPERIOR AVENUESegment 09/26/18 :CITY NEWPORT BCHClient File:D1809100 Interval Combined Day:WB EB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 224 431 1,612 28 107 260 1,156 331 2,76878691106 12:15 360 41 28050 64091 12:30 430 17 31446 74463 12:45 391 21 30250 69371 01:00 108 388 1,818 16 47 280 1,311 155 3,1292366839 01:15 446 14 36633 81247 01:30 446 7 32334 76941 01:45 538 10 34218 88028 02:00 59 566 2,278 7 50 294 1,200 109 3,4782886035 02:15 520 19 27011 79030 02:30 594 12 30312 89724 02:45 598 12 3338 93120 03:00 63 654 2,852 15 50 324 1,350 113 4,2021897833 03:15 666 11 35016 1,01627 03:30 778 11 32812 1,10623 03:45 754 13 34817 1,10230 04:00 79 879 3,667 10 96 336 1,262 175 4,92961,21516 04:15 938 10 29429 1,23239 04:30 920 22 29822 1,21844 04:45 930 54 33422 1,26476 05:00 217 1,046 3,867 40 384 334 1,389 601 5,256401,38080 05:15 1,000 82 36145 1,361127 05:30 960 115 33062 1,290177 05:45 861 147 36470 1,225217 06:00 463 792 2,876 158 1,398 312 1,139 1,861 4,0151031,104261 06:15 812 242 300121 1,112363 06:30 792 382 262114 1,054496 06:45 480 616 265125 745741 07:00 969 438 1,736 540 3,117 236 773 4,086 2,509194674734 07:15 448 738 210185 658923 07:30 470 925 166286 6361,211 07:45 380 914 161304 5411,218 08:00 1,272 310 1,192 696 3,037 123 559 4,309 1,7513764331,072 08:15 352 762 142328 4941,090 08:30 268 767 142278 4101,045 08:45 262 812 152290 4141,102 09:00 1,152 270 931 616 2,018 120 438 3,170 1,369263390879 09:15 277 498 108272 385770 09:30 208 444 96316 304760 09:45 176 460 114301 290761 10:00 1,280 169 588 360 1,379 88 317 2,659 905292257652 10:15 162 322 92339 254661 10:30 133 347 81329 214676 10:45 124 350 56320 180670 11:00 1,490 102 369 288 1,256 48 178 2,746 547371150659 11:15 104 328 48370 152698 11:30 93 290 52365 145655 11:45 70 350 30384 100734 Totals 7,376 23,786 12,939 11,072 20,315 34,858 Split%68.2 63.7 31.836.3 Day Totals 24,011 55,17331,162 Day Splits 56.5 43.5 Peak Hour 11:00 04:45 07:30 05:00 07:30 04:45 Volume 1,490 3,936 3,297 1,389 4,591 5,295 Factor 0.97 0.94 0.89 0.95 0.94 0.96 Printed :9/28/2018Data File :D1809100 19 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 NEWPORT BCHSite::COAST HIGHWAYLocation Date::E/O SUPERIOR AVENUESegment 09/26/18 :CITY NEWPORT BCHClient Interval Combined Day:WB EB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 79 175 672 14 67 278 1,174 146 1,8462945343 12:15 166 30 29216 45846 12:30 170 11 32218 49229 12:45 161 12 28216 44328 01:00 28 164 772 15 43 288 1,123 71 1,8951045225 01:15 176 12 3119 48721 01:30 200 2 2527 4529 01:45 232 14 2722 50416 02:00 25 211 899 7 42 234 1,036 67 1,9351244519 02:15 207 12 2384 44516 02:30 231 12 2843 51515 02:45 250 11 2806 53017 03:00 23 224 1,106 14 43 293 1,282 66 2,388951723 03:15 278 11 3305 60816 03:30 306 8 3261 6329 03:45 298 10 3338 63118 04:00 32 366 1,402 11 88 338 1,174 120 2,576670417 04:15 335 10 2868 62118 04:30 350 22 2848 63430 04:45 351 45 26610 61755 05:00 92 366 1,370 48 369 314 1,205 461 2,5751668064 05:15 314 72 30618 62090 05:30 357 109 27422 631131 05:45 333 140 31136 644176 06:00 215 368 1,238 130 1,169 264 1,007 1,384 2,24542632172 06:15 324 212 26555 589267 06:30 338 354 22450 562404 06:45 208 473 25468 462541 07:00 380 206 750 462 2,387 202 669 2,767 1,41958408520 07:15 199 572 17766 376638 07:30 194 681 160126 354807 07:45 151 672 130130 281802 08:00 539 154 577 532 2,173 108 484 2,712 1,061148262680 08:15 180 573 124134 304707 08:30 124 556 136127 260683 08:45 119 512 116130 235642 09:00 670 136 479 462 1,580 90 344 2,250 823178226640 09:15 120 392 84168 204560 09:30 119 380 68174 187554 09:45 104 346 102150 206496 10:00 690 76 290 292 1,110 98 326 1,800 616166174458 10:15 82 270 72189 154459 10:30 82 286 92189 174475 10:45 50 262 64146 114408 11:00 604 43 161 266 1,128 44 152 1,732 31316687432 11:15 48 288 47140 95428 11:30 41 272 40140 81412 11:45 29 302 21158 50460 Totals 3,377 9,716 10,199 9,976 13,576 19,692 Split%49.3 75.1 50.724.9 Day Totals 20,175 33,26813,093 Day Splits 39.4 60.6 Peak Hour 09:45 04:00 07:30 03:15 07:30 03:45 Volume 694 1,402 2,458 1,327 2,996 2,590 Factor 0.92 0.96 0.90 0.98 0.93 0.92 Printed :9/28/2018Data File :D1809102 20 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 NEWPORT BCHSite::BALBOA BOULEVARDLocation Date::S/O COAST HIGHWAYSegment 09/26/18 :CITY NEWPORT BCHClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 95 154 578 32 138 199 923 233 1,5013135363 12:15 132 48 22329 35577 12:30 162 24 22823 39047 12:45 130 34 27312 40346 01:00 62 172 637 21 63 212 892 125 1,5292438445 01:15 176 20 22814 40434 01:30 140 16 20318 34334 01:45 149 6 2496 39812 02:00 42 172 642 12 40 218 811 82 1,4531439026 02:15 162 12 18412 34624 02:30 154 8 22212 37620 02:45 154 8 1874 34112 03:00 39 176 710 8 26 217 955 65 1,6651439322 03:15 162 6 2488 41014 03:30 194 2 2345 4287 03:45 178 10 25612 43422 04:00 32 186 727 4 26 231 966 58 1,69324176 04:15 196 8 24510 44118 04:30 183 6 2387 42113 04:45 162 8 25213 41421 05:00 139 186 702 19 129 227 1,083 268 1,7851641335 05:15 190 29 29433 48462 05:30 158 31 26026 41857 05:45 168 50 30264 470114 06:00 352 180 659 78 427 288 1,112 779 1,77162468140 06:15 147 98 28878 435176 06:30 166 99 306106 472205 06:45 166 152 230106 396258 07:00 603 144 568 151 902 213 715 1,505 1,283111357262 07:15 178 181 208129 386310 07:30 146 232 158187 304419 07:45 100 338 136176 236514 08:00 756 98 398 210 906 151 648 1,662 1,046226249436 08:15 108 242 193178 301420 08:30 106 252 144182 250434 08:45 86 202 160170 246372 09:00 636 76 276 207 787 120 510 1,423 786163196370 09:15 56 194 130152 186346 09:30 62 184 126157 188341 09:45 82 202 134164 216366 10:00 535 62 229 156 708 103 378 1,243 607130165286 10:15 57 192 106136 163328 10:30 54 174 94134 148308 10:45 56 186 75135 131321 11:00 571 49 153 190 805 40 217 1,376 37015589345 11:15 40 202 66148 106350 11:30 28 194 61134 89328 11:45 36 219 50134 86353 Totals 3,862 6,279 4,957 9,210 8,819 15,489 Split%40.5 56.2 59.543.8 Day Totals 14,167 24,30810,141 Day Splits 41.7 58.3 Peak Hour 07:30 03:30 07:45 05:45 07:45 05:45 Volume 767 754 1,042 1,184 1,804 1,845 Factor 0.85 0.96 0.77 0.97 0.88 0.98 Printed :9/28/2018Data File :D1809103*21 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 NEWPORT BCHSite::SUPERIOR AVENUELocation Date::N/O COAST HIGHWAYSegment 09/26/18 :CITY NEWPORT BCHClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 51 146 653 12 48 192 772 99 1,4251733829 12:15 166 15 17517 34132 12:30 172 10 20810 38020 12:45 169 11 1977 36618 01:00 28 166 772 12 38 167 679 66 1,4511133323 01:15 190 11 1845 37416 01:30 212 11 1708 38219 01:45 204 4 1584 3628 02:00 21 166 710 6 13 188 776 34 1,486635412 02:15 175 4 1948 36912 02:30 190 2 1985 3887 02:45 179 1 1962 3753 03:00 15 160 701 3 15 238 914 30 1,61563989 03:15 228 4 2064 4348 03:30 174 3 2382 4125 03:45 139 5 2323 3718 04:00 27 151 592 3 25 246 1,062 52 1,65433976 04:15 160 8 2802 44010 04:30 134 7 28010 41417 04:45 147 7 25612 40319 05:00 117 139 596 18 102 324 1,094 219 1,6901146329 05:15 154 16 30424 45840 05:30 147 30 25429 40159 05:45 156 38 21253 36891 06:00 382 150 572 44 263 214 798 645 1,3704936493 06:15 148 60 21671 364131 06:30 122 73 198106 320179 06:45 152 86 170156 322242 07:00 945 131 484 101 529 130 458 1,474 942137261238 07:15 124 128 134198 258326 07:30 108 126 108260 216386 07:45 121 174 86350 207524 08:00 1,258 67 294 148 554 86 333 1,812 627294153442 08:15 77 143 91312 168455 08:30 74 146 80316 154462 08:45 76 117 76336 152453 09:00 910 58 244 109 479 85 289 1,389 533258143367 09:15 57 118 86232 143350 09:30 62 126 64192 126318 09:45 67 126 54228 121354 10:00 747 51 174 150 594 44 156 1,341 33019895348 10:15 48 146 42184 90330 10:30 52 156 34169 86325 10:45 23 142 36196 59338 11:00 639 40 95 164 645 21 95 1,284 19016261326 11:15 17 144 25179 42323 11:30 19 173 25138 44311 11:45 19 164 24160 43324 Totals 5,140 5,887 3,305 7,426 8,445 13,313 Split%44.2 39.1 55.860.9 Day Totals 10,731 21,75811,027 Day Splits 50.7 49.3 Peak Hour 07:45 01:00 11:00 04:30 07:45 04:30 Volume 1,272 772 645 1,164 1,883 1,738 Factor 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.94 Printed :9/28/2018Data File :D1809101 22 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) 1 1CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONCEPT PLANS WEST COAST HWY AND SUPERIOR AVE/BALBOA BLVD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE 2)BALBOA BOULEVARD SUPERIOR AVENUE WES T C O A S T H I G H W A Y HOAG LOWER CAMPUS SUNSET RIDGE PARK RIVER A V E N U E W E S T C O A S T H I G H W A Y LAYOUT PLAN 23 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Protect Mariner"s Mile To:Weigand, Erik; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene,Mark Cc:Planning Commissioners; Brenner Joy; Avery, Brad; O"Neill, William; Dixon, Diane; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Blom, Noah; CalTrans District 12; an.zhou@dot.ca.gov; CalTrans District 12; Norris Cottie-Petrie; OC Board of Supervisors Subject:Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) Date:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 10:42:54 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Chairman and Commissers, Scenic corridor views along West Coast Highway cannot be taken for granted. I supportpreserving, protecting, and enhancing our coastal resources and coastal views. I am concerned about the significant visual impacts from project grading, construction of retaining walls, andthe pedestrian bridge. Transparency The full scope of all foreseeable development project proposals for widening West CoastHighway must meet State, Coastal Commission, community, and environmental requirements before approval. Why is the City choosing to separate this project from the West Coast Highway WideningBridge project? Shouldn’t they be considered together? I think additional analysis is needed to demonstrate the need for the project and to assure it is the least damaging environmentalalternative to our coastal resources. Would it be better for the Planning Commission and the City Council to step back, take a look from a big picture perspective, and independentlyinquire beyond the surface into the details of the full scope of all West Coast Highway infrastructure projects before deciding? Without a detailed justification for widening WestCoast Highway and a full understanding of how the PCH & Superior Bridges project ties into all proposals to widen West Coast Highway, a decision should not be made. The significant risk to scenic corridor views due to these projects must not be undervalued or dismissed. I am asking the City of Newport Beach to lay out all of these projects and their impact on the environment so the community stakeholders can study and understand how everything proposed ties together before any single project is approved. Thank you, Patrick Gormley Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) March 3, 2021 Chairman Weigand and Commissioners Newport Beach, CA Subject: Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project (PA2019-014) The Superior Bridge project is a project that is not needed and will not improve the safety of the pedestrians and bicyclists that use this intersection. Why is the removal of street level cross walks being proposed? Public views are threatened but the height of the bridges. It is a total waste of our money! The second phase of this terrible project is the widening and proposed bridge over Pacific Coast Highway at the same intersection. I support preserving, protecting, and enhancing our coastal resources. I am concerned about the significant visual impacts from the project’s grading and construction and then oversized retaining walls and bridges. We do not understand why the City is choosing to separate this project from the West Coast Highway Widening Bridge project. Shouldn’t they be considered together? The citizens of Newport Beach do not want a freeway down PCH and additional widening at any points or by any methods will only increase the speeds and dangers and additionally hurt businesses along our scenic corridor. The car accidents resulting in death and destruction will increase. I am not for the widening of the of the Pacific Coast Highway in any manner! Additional analysis is needed to demonstrate the need for the project. Bridges are an eye sore and not proven to improve safety. Sincerely, Sandra Ayres Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Superior Avenue Bridge Project PA2019‐014                 3/4/21  Good day Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission,  My name is Charles Klobe.  I am a resident of Newport Beach.  I oppose this project being approved tonight as staff is recommending.  The Superior  Bridge project is clearly a part of the greater plan to widen West Coast Highway from the  Santa Ana River to Dover Drive.  Newport Beach residents overwhelmingly oppose the  increase in speeds on this stretch of the Highway.  Following is an excerpt from 10/17/18  OCTA Grant Application Letter from City Staff:  “Although the intersection LOS calculations only show a slight improvement with the  implementation of this project, there is a significant improvement in terms of delay that  motorists will experience due to the proposed removal of the crosswalk across West Coast  Highway. Given the high ADT on West Coast Highway, this critical east‐west vehicular  movement is often times delayed by pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the highway. This  intersection, especially in the opposing north‐south direction experiences a high volume of  pedestrians and bicyclist due to the proximity of Balboa Peninsula. The construction of a  pedestrian/bicycle bridge will allow the elimination of the at‐grade crosswalk, which will  in turn add a significant amount of traffic signal time to the critical east‐west vehicular  movement, ultimately reducing delay.”    I do not understand why the City is choosing to separate the Superior Bridge project from  the West Coast Highway Widening/Bridge project.  Residents and local business owners  see this project as another attempt to widen WCH and remove on grade crossings as  another way to increase traffic speed.    I support preserving, protecting and enhancing our coastal resources and coastal views.  I  am concerned about the significant visual impacts from project grading, construction of  retaining walls and the bridge.  This bridge will remove the view of the Coastal Bluff along  Superior Avenue from those passing the intersection and introduce additional visual  impacts due to retaining walls and bridge supports.    Please save the City and staff reputation by not approving this or risk having it appealed  to the California Coastal Commission.      Thank you for your service,  Charles Klobe    Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:brad larsen To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Objection to $10M project to build pedestrian bridges at PCH and Superior. Date:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:34:47 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I'm curious, what aren't *aren't* we spending money on in order to find these funds. Given the task "make pedestrians safer", that $10M could probably install about 30 lighted blinking crosswalks or possibly improve some bike lanes throughout the city. Reasons this project shouldn't be done: It's not a practical crossing solution, so removing the crosswalks will just make things worse.- PCH / Superior area has an exploding homeless population. A car-free bridge would just become a "homeless high rise".- Most people won't want to "walk the gauntlet" of homeless. - Bike riders wouldn't want to haul up-n-over. Instead they'll just brave freeway speed cars but without the protection of crosswalks. It's another maintenance headache and earthquake hazard, not to mention disruptions, noise, and extra hazards during a lengthy construction. May I humbly suggest putting those funds towards lighted crosswalks throughout the city. Now *THAT* would improve our lives and be worth the expense. Respectfully, Brad Larsen, homeowner / property tax payer 515 PlayaNewport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Appeal of Coastal Development Permit for Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Planning Commission Public Hearing March 4, 2021 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Community Development Department -Planning Division 2 [Title] Vicinity Map Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Project Description Pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Superior Avenue 130-space public parking lot Expanded passive open space at Sunset View Park Addendum to MND Community Development Department -Planning Division 3 •Retaining walls –up to 25 feet •Bridge –Up to 32 feet Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Site Photos Community Development Department -Planning Division 4 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Site Photos Community Development Department -Planning Division 5 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Community Development Department -Planning Division 6 Background •1992: Acquired existing parking lot parcel •2006: Acquired the Sunset Ridge Park (SRP) and undeveloped parcels •March 2010: SRP EIR was adopted (included 97 parking spaces) •June 2013: Received SRP CDP •Dec 2014: Completed SRP without on-site parking (CDP constraints) Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Community Development Department -Planning Division 7 Background •Feb 2018: Received federal BCIP grant for Superior Ave Bridge and Parking lot project •2018-19: Developed conceptual design and environmental analysis •Considered multiple alternative (parking structure, various bridge structures) Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Community Development Department -Planning Division 8 2019 Community Outreach •Held 5 community outreach meetings •Newport Crest Association (5/9/19) •Villa Balboa Association (5/21/19 and 10/15/19) •West Newport Association (5/29/19) •Lido Sands Association (6/8/19) •Received very positive feedback from neighboring residents •Concerned about proposed dog park •Presented the conceptual design to PB&R Commission in August 2019, recommended proposed improvements to City Council Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Community Development Department -Planning Division 9 Nov 19, 2019 City Council Meeting •Adopted Environmental Document (MND) •Approved Conceptual Design with 3-span concrete bridge •Meeting was well attended by residents, concerned about proposed dog park •Replaced proposed dog park with passive recreation (grass) area 3-Span Concrete Bridge Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Community Development Department -Planning Division 10 Aug. 25, 2020 City Council Meeting •May 2020: Received OCTA Measure M2 grant for WCH Intersection Widening Project •Approved engineering and environmental services agreements for WCH Intersection Widening project •Approved revised Conceptual Design with Arch Bridge Nov 2019 3-Span Bridge Design Aug 2020 Arch Bridge Design Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Zoning Administrator Action December 10, 2020 Approved Coastal Development Permit Adopted MND Addendum Community Development Department -Planning Division 11 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Appeal Community Development Department -Planning Division 12 Appeal Filed on January 4, 2021 Does not conform to LCP Standards Does not conform to public access policies Inadequate environmental review Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Appeal Community Development Department -Planning Division 13 Piecemealing Cumulative projects Scenic easement Coordinating with CalTrans Special tree To be relocated in accordance with Council Policy G-1 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Community Development Department -Planning Division 14 Site Plan 130 parking spaces Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Bridge Height Community Development Department -Planning Division 15 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Retaining Walls Community Development Department -Planning Division 16 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Retaining Walls Community Development Department -Planning Division 17 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Public Access Community Development Department -Planning Division 18 Increase in parking Net gain 66 spaces Increase access to Sunset Ridge Park No change to vehicular access No changes to crosswalks Additional and enhanced viewing opportunities Plaza Sunset View Park Bridge Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Public Views Community Development Department -Planning Division 19 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Public Views Community Development Department -Planning Division 20 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Public Views Community Development Department -Planning Division 21 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) CEQA Review Mitigated Negative Declaration in November 2019 Circulated for public review and comment Addendum to address project design change and cumulative projects Three-span design to arch design Potential future West Coast Highway project Community Development Department -Planning Division 22 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Cumulative Impacts Community Development Department -Planning Division 23 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Recommended Action Conduct a de novo public hearing Adopt resolution affirming the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum No. ND2019-002 and approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-143 Community Development Department -Planning Division 24 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) For more information contact Questions?Chelsea Crager, Associate Planner 949-644-3227 ccrager@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Community Development Department -Planning Division 25 Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:NewportHeightsCliffhaven To:Planning Commissioners; Dept - City Council Subject:Louise Greely Tree -Sunset View Park - Special Tree - Bridge Date:Thursday, March 4, 2021 1:56:26 PM Attachments:Screen Shot 2021-03-04 at 1.45.26 PM.png Screen Shot 2021-03-04 at 1.48.50 PM.png [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Weigand and Planning Commissioners, We understand that the Planning Commission is hearing the Superior Bridge Project tonight. We are concerned that the City's designated Special Tree for Louise Greely will haveto be removed, if the project is approved. We have not found any information in the Staff report regarding this tree. Please postpone this decision and let the community weigh in on alternatives regarding thismatter. As stated in the language below, the City Council must become involved with an approval ofthis project with regard to Special Trees. As our previous Mayor has stated, our trees are very special to the community and LouiseGreely would not want this tree destroyed for concrete. Thank you, Newport Heights / Cliff Haven Community Assocation It is the City’s policy to retain City trees categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees, which have historical significance, and/or contribute to and givecharacter to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Landmark, Dedicated, and Neighborhoodtrees are identified by species by Attachment 1, and shall hereinafter be referred to as SpecialTrees. Trees within these categories shall be identified, mapped, recorded and administered bystaff for the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission ("Commission"). The Commissionshall review the Special Tree list on an as needed basis and forward recommendations foradditions or deletions to the City Council for approval. Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received After Deadline Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received After Deadline Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received After Deadline Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Ryan DarbyTo:Planning CommissionersSubject:Villa Balboa - Superior Pedestrian Bridge and Parking LotDate:Thursday, March 4, 2021 1:58:44 PMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.png [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom This May Concern, My name is Ryan Darby and I am the Community Manager for Villa Balboa Homeowners Association. As the current plan stands where the bridge and parking lot would be installed, in addition to the ridge expansion, the Board of Directors are in favor of the project as it stands per the 2019 design plans that were presented to the homeowners and Board Members at both meetings. This item was discussed heavily and had significant outreach to get to the point of the 2019 design plans without the dog park. We appreciate all that the City has done to keep the members of Villa Balboa informed in the process and provide an opportunity to receive their feedback.   RYAN DARBY | MANAGER OF COMMUNITY SERVICESACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT2603 MAIN STREET, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92614OFFICE | (949) 450-0202WEBSITE | VCARD | RDARBY@ACTIONLIFE.COM **CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message is intended to be viewed only by the individual to whom it is addressed. It maycontain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of thiscommunication 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 furtherinformation about Action Property Management, please see our website at www.actionlife.com or refer to any of our offices. Thank you.** Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received After Deadline Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) From:Ela To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Superior ave and PCH bridges and parking lot Date:Thursday, March 4, 2021 3:59:30 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission of NPB, Please don’t allow bridges and parking lots on the corner of PCH and Superior. It is already too crowded there, why making it even more crowded and ugly? Our City is already too crowded, please don’t make it worse. From May to Sept our beaches look like a zoo... Thank you Ela Grigorian Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received After Deadline Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014) March 4, 2021  Newport Beach Planning Commission  Newport Beach, CA  planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov  Subject:  Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project  (PA2019‐014)  Mr. Chairman and Commissioners,  I do not support this project.  I do support preserving, protecting and enhancing our coastal resources and  coastal views.  I am concerned about the significant visual impacts from project grading, construction of  retaining walls and the bridge.  I think additional analysis is needed to demonstrate the need for the  project and that it is the least damaging environmental alternative to our coastal resources.   I also do not support the removal of pedestrian crossings at Superior.  By removing the cross walk and  timed crossing signal, traffic speeds on West Coast Highway will be increased.  We need to slow WCH  traffic down, not speed it up.  Faster traffic, whether there are pedestrians or not, does not increase the  safety of Newport Beach residents as they drive on West Coast Highway from Newport Blvd to the city  limit with Huntington Beach.   Thank you,  Nancy Scarbrough  Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received After Deadline Superior Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, Parking Lot and Recreation Area Project Appeal (PA2019-014)