Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2024-0069_2025.10.17_Final EIR_Appendix E. Late Response to CommentsSnug Harbor Surf Park Project Appendix City of Newport Beach Final EIR Appendix E: Late Response to Comments 1 Date: September 9, 2025 Prepared by: Renee Escario To: Joselyn Perez, JPerez@newportbeachca.gov Site: Snug Harbor Surf Park Project Subject: Responses to Late Individual Comments This memo contains responses to comments related to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the City of Newport Beach received in response to the notice of the Planning Commission Hearing for the proposed Project of September 4, 2025. These comments were received after the close of the Draft EIR public review period (May 23, 2025 through July 7, 2025). Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses, if a comment is received within the public comment period (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c)(“Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.”).) Although a lead agency is not required to respond to late comments, it may choose to do so (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1110 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens).) The City of Newport Beach has elected to prepare the following written responses to comments received after the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR ended (July 7, 2025) that include environmental issues of concern with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and numbered portions of the comment letters. As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments result in identification of any substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new environmental impacts would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative that would reduce potential impacts, or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature. 2 Letter L1: Matt Clark (2 pages) Late Comment Letter 3 4 Response to Letter L1: Matt Clark, dated August 27, 2025 Response L1.1: As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 2, Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, the Project site consists of privately owned land within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, which is a commercial recreation facility that is not City/publicly owned (not a municipal golf course). Regarding the loss of open space, the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, details that the Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Parks and Recreation, which is intended to provide for a variety of both active and passive uses, including: golf courses, marina support facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The Project site is zoned for Open Space and Recreation within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which, subject to a use permit, allows for outdoor commercial recreation. The proposed Project is consistent with the intended uses for the site within the City’s General Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 3, CEQA Piecemealing and Housing Opportunity Sites, no housing is currently proposed across Mesa Drive from the Project site. No application for development of these parcels has been submitted to the City nor is such development a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project, which proposes a surf park that is designed to allow continued functioning of the existing golf course (by providing access between holes, golf cart storage, etc.). Response L1.2: The Project located at Orchard Drive and Irvine Avenue is included in the EIR as Project 5 in Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects List, (Draft EIR page 5-5) and Figure 5-1 (Draft EIR page 5-7). As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation, in Impact TRA-2, (Draft EIR pages 5.14- and 5.14-17) based on City and CEQA Guidelines screening criteria, the proposed Project would generate a net increase in vehicular trips that are below the threshold of 300 daily trips and would be less than significant at both a Project level and cumulatively. The comment provides no substantiation or evidence of the claim that traffic would be significantly worse than stated in the EIR. Response L1.3: As detailed in Response L1.1, the Project site and parcels to the south of Mesa Drive have a General Plan Land Use designation of Parks and Recreation and are zoned for Open Space and Recreation by the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which, subject to a use permit, allows for outdoor commercial recreation. Response L1.4: As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 2, Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, the Project site consists of privately owned land within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, which is a commercial recreation facility that is not City/publicly owned (not a municipal golf course). The proposed Project is similarly a commercial recreation facility. As detailed in Final EIR Master Response 1, Project Merits, any economic and social effects of the proposed Project are not treated as effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Therefore, consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include a discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects. Response L1.5: As detailed in Response L1.2, Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation, Impact TRA-2, (Draft EIR pages 5.14- and 5.14-17) details that based on City and CEQA Guidelines screening criteria, the proposed Project would generate a net increase of approximately 186 daily trips with a net reduction of 73 AM peak hour trips and 10 PM peak hour trips compared to the existing golf course uses, which is below the threshold of 300 daily trips and would be less than significant at both a Project level and cumulatively. 5 Letter L2: Joseph Salvo (2 pages) Late Comment Letter 6 7 Response to Letter L2: Joseph Salvo, dated August 28, 2025 Response L2.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips for a response regarding the traffic generated by the proposed Project. Please refer to Master Response 5: Noise Impacts within the Final EIR as well as Draft EIR Section 5.11 Noise, for the discussion of the proposed Project’s noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are listed in Draft EIR Tables 5.11-7 and 5.11-8 and operational noise impacts are shown on Tables 5.11-9 through 5.11-13. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts related to increased noise levels near sensitive receptors. The proposed wave making technology would not utilize a drone but rather a set of paddles that oscillate up and down cause the waves. The paddles would be stationary in the location at the top of the lagoon and would not “push” the water around as the commenter suggested. This comment is speculative and does not provide any supporting evidence to its claim that the proposed Project would result in an impact related to noise. Thus, no further response is warranted. Response L2.2: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 3, CEQA Piecemealing and Housing Opportunity Sites, regarding the City’s Housing Implementation Program and the housing opportunity sites. 8 Letter L3: Russell Symonds (1 page) Late Comment Letter 9 Response to Letter L3: Russell Symonds, dated August 28, 2025 Response L3.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips for a response regarding the traffic generated by the proposed Project. In regards to the loss of open space, as discussed in Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, and in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project site is privately owned and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Parks and Recreation, which is intended to provide for a variety of both active and passive uses, including: golf courses, marina support facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The Projects is zoned for Open Space and Recreation within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which, subject to a use permit, allows for outdoor commercial recreation. The proposed Project is consistent with the intended uses for the site within the City’s General Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning. Regarding tree coverage, as detailed on page 5.3-11 of the Draft EIR, the Project site has been subject to decades of anthropogenic disturbances, which has removed native habitat for sensitive wildlife species. The proposed landscaping would increase the area of tree coverage compared to the existing condition, as shown by comparison of Draft EIR Figures 3-3, Aerial View, and 3-8, Conceptual Site Plan. 10 Letter L4: Kim Harmes (1 page) Late Comment Letter 11 Response to Letter L4: Kim Harmes, dated August 28, 2025 Response L4.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips for a response regarding the traffic generated by the proposed Project as well as Master Response 1: Project Merits regarding focused environmental review and opinions regarding merits of the proposed Project. 12 Letter L5: Nicole Summers (1 page) Late Comment Letter 13 Response to Letter L5: Nicole Summers, dated August 28, 2025 Response L5.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. In regard to potential noise impacts, please refer to Master Response 5: Noise Impacts as well as Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips for a response regarding increased traffic. 14 Letter L6: Katie Lewis (1 page) Late Comment Letter 15 Response to Letter L6: Katie Lewis, dated August 28, 2025 Response L6.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. In regard to potential traffic impacts, please refer to Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips. 16 Letter L7: Gail Garceau (1 page) Late Comment Letter 17 Response to Letter L7: Gail Garceau, dated August 29, 2025 Response L7.1: Please refer to Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips, for a response to comments regarding the proposed Project’s traffic effects. Response L7.2: The Project’s consistency with the JWA safety and land use policies are detailed in Draft EIR Sections 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and 5.10, Land Use and Planning. The comment does not identify a specific issue regarding the EIR’s analysis of JWA . Thus, no further response is warranted. Response L7.3: As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Noise, on page 5.11-22, based on the manufacturer’s specifications for the wave generator, the proposed wave machinery would generate a peak wave noise event of 61.4 Leq at a distance of 50 feet, which would be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Draft EIR Table 5.11-12 and Table 5.11-13 identifies that the Project would generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from less than 0.1 to 0.8 dBA Leq and nighttime noise level increases ranging from less than 0.1 to 2.0 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations, which are less than the thresholds. Therefore, noise impacts related to Project operations would be less than significant. Please refer to Master Response 5: Noise Impacts, as well as Draft EIR Section 5.11 Noise, for additional discussion of the proposed Project’s noise impacts. 18 Letter L8: Sally Holstein (1 page) Late Comment Letter 19 Response to Letter L8: Sally Holstein, dated August 29, 2025 Response L8.1: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, 15 holes of golf would be retained with implementation of the proposed Project. Please refer to Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, for the response to comments related to the change to the existing golf course use as well as Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. In regard to potential noise impacts, please refer to Master Response 5: Noise Impacts as well as Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips for a response regarding increased traffic. 20 Letter L9: Joe Bonafede (1 page) Late Comment Letter 21 Response to Letter L9: Joe Bonafede, dated August 30, 2025 Response L9.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. In regard to potential traffic impacts, please refer to Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips. Refer to Master Response 3, CEQA Piecemealing and Housing Opportunity Sites, regarding the City’s Housing Implementation Program and the housing opportunity sites. 22 Letter L10: Jeffrey Menkes (1 page) Late Comment Letter 23 Response to Letter L10: Jeffrey Menkes, dated August 31, 2025 Response L10.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. In regard to potential traffic impacts, please refer to Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips. In addition, the City’s Fire and Police Departments were consulted regarding potential public service and safety impacts as part of preparation of the Draft EIR, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services. 24 Letter L11: Julie Thornton (1 page) Late Comment Letter 25 Response to Letter L11: Julie Thornton, dated September 1, 2025 Response L11.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. In regard to potential traffic impacts, please refer to Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips, which details that the net increase in traffic would be below the threshold of 300 daily trips and would be less than significant. As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 2, Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, the Project site consists of privately owned land within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, which is a commercial recreation facility that is not City/publicly owned (not a municipal golf course). Response L11.2: The comment provides unspecific concerns related to the loss of greenspace. Refer to Draft EIR Sections: 5.2, Air Quality, 5.3, Biological Resources, regarding effects related to air quality, biology, and community health. No specific issues related to the EIR analysis have been provided. Thus, no further response is warranted. Response L11.3: Refer to Draft EIR Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems for an evaluation of water demands based on engineering reports and the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, which determined that impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. In addition, Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits, which describes that potential economic and social effects of the proposed Project are not treated as effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)); and thus, not evaluated in the EIR. Response L11.4: As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 2, Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, the Project site consists of privately owned land within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, which is a commercial recreation facility that is not City/publicly owned (not a municipal golf course). In addition, please refer to Master Response, 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. 26 Letter L12: Mark Adams (1 page) Late Comment Letter 27 Response to Letter L12: Mark Adams, dated September 1, 2025 Response L12.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. Regarding potential traffic impacts, please refer to Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips. Response L12.2: As discussed in Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, and in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project site is privately owned and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Parks and Recreation, which is intended to provide for a variety of both active and passive uses, including: golf courses, marina support facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The Projects is zoned for Open Space and Recreation within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which, subject to a use permit, allows for outdoor commercial recreation. The proposed Project is consistent with the intended uses for the site within the City’s General Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed on page 5.3-11 of the Draft EIR, the Project site has been subject to decades of anthropogenic disturbances, which has removed native habitat for sensitive wildlife species. The proposed landscaping would increase the area of tree coverage compared to the existing condition, as shown by comparison of Draft EIR Figures 3-3, Aerial View, and 3-8, Conceptual Site Plan. Regarding water use, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the City’s 2020 UWMP projects an increase in water demand from 14,866 AF in 2025 to 15,371 AF in 2030, which is an increase of 505 AF. The 2020 UWMP bases water demand projections on population growth projections from the Center for Demographic Research at California State Fullerton and planned land uses based on zoning designations. The Project’s annual demand if 87 AF of potable water would be 17.2 percent of the anticipated increase in water demand between 2025 and 2030 and would have sufficient supplies for the proposed Project. Thus, the Draft EIR determined that impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. In addition, the majority of water used by the Project would become wastewater that would be conveyed to the OC San Wastewater Treatment Plan No.1 that is treated and then conveyed to the OCWD GWRS system that further purifies water to meet all State and federal drinking water standards and then injects it into the groundwater basin providing a loop of water supply and re-use. Therefore, a majority of the water used by the Project (except for irrigation water and evaporation) would become wastewater that would be purified and then reinjected into the groundwater basin for reuse. Response L12.3: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. In addition, as discussed in Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, the Project site consists of privately owned land within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, which is a commercial recreation facility that is not City/publicly owned (not a municipal golf course). The Project would retain 15 holes of golf on the site while accommodating the new surf lagoon. Both commercial recreational activities would be provided in the area. 28 Letter L13: Diane Moore (1 page) Late Comment Letter 29 Response to Letter L13: Diane Moore, dated September 2, 2025 Response L13.1: As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Noise, on page 5.11-22, based on the manufacturer’s specifications for the wave generator, the proposed wave machinery would generate a peak wave noise event of 61.4 Leq at a distance of 50 feet, which would be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Draft EIR Table 5.11-12 and Table 5.11-13 identifies that the Project would generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from less than 0.1 to 0.8 dBA Leq and nighttime noise level increases ranging from less than 0.1 to 2.0 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations, which are less than the thresholds. Therefore, noise impacts related to Project operations would be less than significant. Please refer to Master Response 5: Noise Impacts, as well as Draft EIR Section 5.11 Noise, for additional discussion of the proposed Project’s noise impacts. Response L13.2: As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 2, Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, the Project site consists of privately owned land within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, which is a commercial recreation facility that is not City/publicly owned (not a municipal golf course). The proposed Project is similarly a commercial recreation facility. As detailed in Final EIR Master Response 1, Project Merits, any economic and social effects of the proposed Project are not treated as effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Regarding plant coverage, as detailed on page 5.3-11 of the Draft EIR, the Project site has been subject to decades of anthropogenic disturbances, which has removed native habitat for sensitive wildlife species. The proposed landscaping would increase the area of tree coverage compared to the existing condition, as shown by comparison of Draft EIR Figures 3-3, Aerial View, and 3-8, Conceptual Site Plan. Response L13.3: As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 3, CEQA Piecemealing and Housing Opportunity Sites, no housing is currently proposed across Mesa Drive from the Project site. No application for development of these parcels has been submitted to the City nor is such development a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project, which proposes a surf park that is designed to allow continued functioning of the existing golf course (by providing access between holes, golf cart storage, etc.). 30 Letter L14: Chris Karalis (2 pages) Late Comment Letter 31 32 Response to Letter L14: Chris Karalis, dated September 2, 2025 Response L14.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. Please see below responses to the bulleted comments within the letter: - Water Use: As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the City’s 2020 UWMP projects an increase in water demand from 14,866 AF in 2025 to 15,371 AF in 2030, which is an increase of 505 AF. The Project’s annual demand if 87 AF of potable water would be 17.2 percent of the anticipated increase in water demand between 2025 and 2030 and would have sufficient supplies for the proposed Project. In addition, the majority of water used by the Project would be treated and then conveyed to the OCWD GWRS system that injects it into the groundwater basin providing a loop of water supply and re-use. Therefore, impacts related to water supply were determined to be less than significant. - Energy Demand/Carbon footprint: The Draft EIR Section 5.5, Energy, details on page 5.5-10 that the proposed solar PV panels would provide approximately 2,375,568 kWh per year of energy, which equates to 20 percent of the Project’s annual energy demand. In addition, adherence to California Building Code and Energy Code standards would ensure that energy efficient technologies and practices are used for the Project. - Chemical Pollution: The Orange County Department of Health has approved a variance for Project to allow the levels of chlorine to be 0.5 ppm that is lower than the recreational pool requirement of 1.0 ppm due to the low user load density to water volume ratio by nature of the surf lagoon. An ultraviolet (UV) light system would be utilized as supplemental sanitation of the lagoon water. This system would treat 100% of the recirculation flow rate of the lagoon filtration system and would inactivate chlorine resistant pathogens such as cryptosporidium. As detailed in the Surf Lagoon Water Systems Narrative, included as Appendix C to the Final EIR, prior to discharge of a surf basin, the water would be allowed to dechlorinate through natural dissipation during days of non-use, or alternatively could be dechlorinated by dosing sodium thiosulfate prior to pumping the water out to the sewer system. Approximately 575 lbs of sodium thiosulfate would be required to dechlorinate the entire lagoon volume to a zero-chlorine residual. Thus, lagoon water that is discharged into the sewer system would be safe to discharge into the sewer system. - Heat Island Effect: Refer to Draft EIR Figure 3-8, Conceptual Site Plan; the proposed Project site would largely consist of the water surf basins, landscaping areas, and solar canopies shaded parking areas, which would not increase heat in the area. - Noise: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 5: Noise Impacts as well as Draft EIR Section 5.11 Noise, for the discussion of the proposed Project’s noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are listed in Draft EIR Tables 5.11-7 and 5.11-8 and operational noise impacts are shown on Tables 5.11-9 through 5.11-13. - Habitat Destruction: As detailed on page 5.3-11 of the Draft EIR, the Project site has been subject to decades of anthropogenic disturbances, which has removed native habitat for sensitive wildlife species. The proposed landscaping would increase the area of tree coverage compared to the existing condition, as shown by comparison of Draft EIR Figures 3-3, Aerial View, and 3-8, Conceptual Site Plan. Thus, after implementing the Project birds and other wildlife would have similar locations on the site and the replacement of ornamental trees does not result in long-term adverse impacts on biodiversity. As detailed in Draft EIR Appendix C, Biological Technical Report, that was prepared by technical biological experts, with implementation of the construction related mitigation measures, potential impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant. This comment does not include substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact related to biological resources. - Trash Contamination: The lagoon water volume would be continuously filtered utilizing a perlite regenerative media filtration system that would capture particulates and remove contaminants from the lagoon water to the 1-5 micron range. Perlite filter media has been tested to be effective 33 at removing pathogens such as cryptosporidium from the filtered water and would be used as an additional method of sanitation for the lagoon water. When the filter media is changed wastewater would be generated containing spent perlite media, which would be discharged into the sewer system. Perlite filter media is derived from naturally occurring volcanic rock, is non-toxic, and generally permitted to be discharged into the sewer system (Appendix C of the Final EIR). - Evaporation: As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.16 Utilities and Service Systems, the total annual water demand for the surf lagoon is 22.7 million gallons per year or 69.8 AFY as detailed in Table 5.16-7 which includes an average evaporation water loss of 51,572 gallons per year. As detailed previously, the Project’s annual demand of potable water would be 17.2 percent of the anticipated increase in water demand between 2025 and 2030, and would be less than significant. - Waste: This comment is speculative and does not contain comment related to the Draft EIR analysis. However, as detailed on page 5.16-22 of the Draft ER, construction projects in California are required by the California Green Building Standards Code to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous demolition debris, which is implemented by the City through construction and demolition permitting. Response L14.2: This comment provides potential environmental benefits to golf course developments. However, many of the mentioned benefits do not apply to the existing Newport Beach Golf Course. Specifically within the proposed Project parcel, many of the benefits related to expansive green space and landscaping are not fully utilized as a majority of the site is made up of concrete and paving or artificial turf which is located throughout the entire driving range area. Only golf holes 1,2 and 9 are covered in grass. In addition, the existing parcel does not include wetland integration or wildflower meadows as mentioned in the comment. Regarding water runoff, Draft EIR evaluates hydrology and drainage in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. As detailed on page 5.9-14 of the Draft EIR, the 5.06-acre surf lagoon would capture rainfall and not result in runoff. As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.9-2, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a reduction in the overall runoff rate in a 100-year, 24-hour storm condition. 34 Letter L15: Jim Auster (1 page) Late Comment Letter 35 Response to Letter L15: Jim Auster, dated September 2, 2025 Response L15.1: The Project’s consistency with the JWA safety and land use policies are detailed in Draft EIR Sections 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and 5.10, Land Use and Planning. The General Aviation Improvement Program for John Wayne Airport1 and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport2 do not include extension of any runway to include the back 9 of the golf course. There are no other airport or airport land use plans to extend any John Wayne Airport facilities to areas south of Bristol Street and State Route 73, which is located in between the airport and golf course holes 10-18 (the back 9). Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts related to operation of John Wayne Airport in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and the Aircraft Hazard and Land Use Risk Assessment & Wildlife Hazard Management Analysis, prepared by Johnson Aviation, Inc., included as Appendix M. The proposed Project was evaluated for compliance with existing FAA, California Division of Aeronautic, and AELUP planning guidelines and regulations related to airport hazards and land uses. As detailed on Draft EIR page 5.8- 40, there is an annual risk of an accident on the Project site of 0.033% per year, which is the same under either existing golf course or proposed surf park uses. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Noise, the General Plan Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix, identifies that commercial recreation facilities are “normally compatible” up to 75 dBA CNEL, which is consistent with the ambient noise on the Project site. Response L15.2: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, for the response to comments related to the change to the existing golf course use as well as Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips for a response regarding increased traffic, and the previous response (L15.1) regarding airport operations. 1 https://files.ocair.com/media/2020-12/General-Aviation-Program- FAQ_20200922.pdf?VersionId=pyXDNRUElrUqIxuFRtUBoMVJaxcTOLOa 2 https://files.ocair.com/media/2021-02/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf?VersionId=cB0byJjdad9OuY5im7Oaj5aWaT1FS.vD 36 Letter L16: Jaime Luce (1 page) Late Comment Letter 37 Response to Letter L16: Jaime Luce, dated September 2, 2025 Response L16.1: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, 15 holes of golf would be retained with implementation of the proposed Project. Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, for the response to comments related to the change to the existing golf course use as well as Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips for a response regarding increased traffic. 38 Letter L17: Linda Giedt (1 page) Late Comment Letter 39 Response to Letter L17: Linda Geidt, dated September 2, 2025 Response L17.1: As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 2, Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, the Project site consists of privately owned land within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, which is a commercial recreation facility. The proposed Project is similarly a commercial recreation facility. As detailed in Final EIR Master Response 1, Project Merits, any economic and social effects of the proposed Project are not treated as effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Therefore, consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include a discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects. 40 Letter L18: Kristi Jackson (1 page) Late Comment Letter 41 Response to Letter L18: Kristi Jackson, dated September 2, 2025 Response L18.1: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, 15 holes of golf would be retained with implementation of the proposed Project. Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, for the response to comments related to the change to the existing golf course use as well as Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. Response L18.2: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 4: Impacts Related to Vehicle Trips for a response regarding increased traffic. In regards to the loss of open space, as discussed in Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, and in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Parks and Recreation and is zoned for Open Space and Recreation which, subject to a use permit, allows for outdoor commercial recreation. Thus, the proposed Project is consistent with the intended uses for the site within the City’s General Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, on page 3-23, the proposed Project would include approximately 143,844 SF of drought tolerant ornamental landscaping that would cover approximately 20 percent of the site that would include 24-inch box trees, 15-gallon trees, various shrubs, and ground covers to enhance views of the proposed Project and screen structures from offsite viewpoints. Landscaping would be located throughout the site, along the Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive right-of-way, an d along the site boundary. Regarding wildlife, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Biological Resources on page 5.3-21, the Project site is comprised of disturbed/developed area and turf grass/ornamental landscaping, which is not classified as a sensitive natural community. The area between the Project site and Upper Newport Bay contains a hill with existing recreational and residential land uses that is approximately 50 feet higher in elevation than the Project site and 40 to 50 feet higher in elevation than the northernmost portion of the Upper Newport Bay. The hill provides a natural barrier between the Upper Newport Bay and the Project site. The Draft EIR details that impacts related to the Project and the Upper Newport Bay would not occur. 42 Letter L19: John Wayne Airport Orange County (10 pages) Late Comment Letter 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Response to Letter L19: John Wayne Airport Orange County, dated September 3, 2025 Response L19.1: The Project’s consistency with the JWA safety and land use policies are detailed in Draft EIR Sections 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and 5.10, Land Use and Planning. The proposed Project was evaluated for compliance with existing FAA, California Division of Aeronautic, and AELUP planning guidelines and regulations related to airport hazards and land uses. As detailed on Draft EIR page 5.8- 40, there is an annual risk of an accident on the Project site of 0.033% per year, which is the same under either existing golf course or proposed surf park uses. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.11, Noise, the General Plan Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix, identifies that commercial recreation facilities are “normally compatible” up to 75 dBA CNEL, which is consistent with the ambient noise on the Project site. In addition, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation, the increase in vehicle trips to the Project site below the threshold of 300 daily trips. As detailed on page 6-1 of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in the addition of 23 employees that would not be all onsite at one time. Thus, the additional persons on the Project site would be limited. Response L19.2: The Project’s consistency with the JWA safety zones are detailed in Draft EIR Sections 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As detailed in the previous response (L19.1) the increase in vehicle trips and employees on the site would be limited. Consistent with the existing golf facilities, the proposed surf facilities would provide outdoor recreation for individuals and small groups, such as surf lessons. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the maximum number of participants in the lagoon at one time would be 72 people with an average hourly usage of 35-45 people. The wave lagoon would operate on a reservation basis, and the facility is anticipated to host approximately 12 surf events/competitions per year that would be ticketed events similar in scale to other local sporting events, such as golf events. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies stadiums, group recreational uses as prohibitive within Safety Zone 2 and 4; but states on page 4-19 that the “usage intensity - the number of people per acre - is the best common denominator by which to compare the safety compatibility of most land use types”. As detailed previously, the increase in intensity of the Project site was determined to be limited to less than 300 vehicle trips and 23 employees, which is less than significant. Response L19.3: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Figure 5.8-2, 2024 John Wayne Airport Noise Contours, the Project site is located within the SNA 65 CNEL noise contour as identified by the airport in 2024. As shown in Table 5.11-4, the existing daytime noise levels range from 67.8 to 73.7 dBA, which is largely generated from both airport operations and traffic along both Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. The AELUP contains airport noise contours from 1985 (shown in Figure 5.10-3 in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning), which identifies that a majority of the Project site is located within the 65 dBA CNEL and a small area in the northeastern portion of the Project site that is planned for parking and wave lagoon machinery is in the 70 dBA CNEL airport noise contour. The AELUP for SNA states that community facilities and commercial land uses are “conditionally consistent” within the 70 CNEL contour with interior sound attenuation. There are no proposed structures proposed within the 70 CNEL contour. Only parking and lagoon equipment would be located in the area. In addition, the General Plan Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix (GP Table N2), included as Draft EIR Table 5.11-1, identifies that commercial recreation facilities are “normally compatible” up to 75 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the proposed community related commercial recreation facilities that are proposed for the site would be consistent with the aircraft noise from operation of SNA pursuant to both the AELUP and City’s General Plan. Impacts related to exposure of people within the Project area to excessive airport-related noise levels would be less than significant. Response L19.4: As detailed in previous responses, the Project’s consistency with the JWA safety and land use policies are detailed in Draft EIR Sections 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and 5.10, Land Use 53 and Planning. The proposed Project was evaluated for compliance with existing FAA, California Division of Aeronautic, and AELUP planning guidelines and regulations related to airport hazards and land uses; which were found to be less than significant. The information regarding the capacities of the proposed Project provided clarification that an intensive increase in onsite capacity would not occur. The City looks forward to continued collaboration with the airport. 54 Letter L20: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (4 pages) Late Comment Letter 55 56 57 58 Response to Letter L20: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, dated September 3, 2025 Response L20.1: The City sent a formal written response to the Tribe’s June 6, 2025 email on June 23, 2025, which is attached to this response. As detailed in the previous letters sent by the City on May 16 and June 4, 2025, in addition to consultation with Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation), the City received a timely request for consultation from another California Native American Tribe that is recognized on the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Contact List and eligible to engage in consultation for purposes of SB 18 (tribal consultation in land use planning) and AB 52 (CEQA tribal consultation). The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California tribe provided the City with substantial evidence identifying that the Project area is within their Ancestral Tribal Territory. In addition, the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search completed for the Project by the NAHC resulted in a positive finding that the site is within traditional lands or cultural places for the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. As recently as 2023, the NAHC identified the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California as a Native American Tribe that is traditionally or culturally affiliated with Orange County and the Project area.3 Pursuant to Government Code Section 21080.3.1, the NAHC shall assist lead agencies with identifying those Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project site. Response L20.2: As noted in email correspondence from the Tribe on May 16, 2025, to the City, “consultation [under SB 18 and AB 52] is not based on equity, shared interest, or requests for inclusion—it is based on substantial evidence of traditional and cultural affiliation to the land in question.” Substantial evidence in the record supports the City’s conclusion that the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California have met this standard. Substantial evidence also rebuts the Kizh Nation’s stated position that the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California have “no direct historical, ancestral, or cultural ties to the Newport Beach. Conversely, Kizh Nation has not provided the City with any substantial evidence of cultural affiliation to potential resources on or near the site. Instead, the Kizh Nation provided mitigation measures for tribal monitoring during Project excavation and grading, which have been modified to be applicable to all tribes with ancestorial affiliation to the Project area and included in the EIR. Response L20.3: The City is not in possession of any information that the proposed Project site would disturb sacred ceremonial grounds or ancestral burials of the Kizh Nation. This information was not provided by Kizh Nation during the tribal consultation. As detailed in Draft EIR Sections 5.4, Cultural Resources, Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, and Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project site has been fully disturbed and contains undocumented fill soils that are up to 15 feet in depth. Although this ground disturbance previously occurred, the EIR includes mitigation in the case that any archaeological, paleontological, or tribal buried resources are uncovered during construction activities, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant levels. In addition, the comment does not detail how the City has allegedly not completed consultation as required by law. However, as detailed in the City’s previous letter from June 6, 2025, the City would like to directly address the Kizh Nation’s suggestion that the Project’s SB 18 and AB 52 process has somehow run afoul. The First District Court of Appeal’s recent holding in Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 815 states that the fundamental holding is that closure of consultation failed to meet statutory requirement of a “process of seeking, discussing and considering carefully the views of others” and “where feasible, seeking agreement.” (Gov. Code, § 65352.4.) The administrative record here demonstrates that the City has gone to great and meaningful lengths to seek agreement with the Kizh 3 NAHC March 22, 2023 Letter to K. Graham re Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, Newport Beach Housing Implementation Program EIR Project, Orange County. 59 Nation. If the City were to abide by Kizh Nation’s proposed mitigation measure through this consultation process, the City would be violating SB 18 and AB 52 as it applies to Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California. The City’s communication with the Kizh Nation, in letters dating May 16, June 4, and June 23, 2025 has been clear, consistent, and ongoing. The EIR includes mitigation, including recommendations from Kizh Nation, in the case that any tribal buried resources are uncovered during construction activities, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant levels. However, excluding other tribes, as requested by Kizh Nation would violate SB 18 and AB 52. 60 61 62 63 Letter L21: Laurie Kelly (1 page) Late Comment Letter 64 Response to Letter L21: Laurie Kelly, dated September 2, 2025 Response L21.1: The proposed Project does not include development of housing on the Project site. Refer to Master Response 3 regarding the housing opportunity sites. 65 Letter L22: Michael Philipps (1 page) Late Comment Letter 66 Response to Letter L22: Michael Philipps, dated September 3, 2025 Response L22.1: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, 15 holes of golf would be retained with implementation of the proposed Project. Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, for the response to comments related to the change to the existing golf course use as well as Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. Response L22.2: As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project’s annual demand of potable water would be 17.2 percent of the City’s anticipated increase in water demand between 2025 and 2030 and the City would have sufficient supplies for the proposed Project. In addition, the majority of water used by the Project would be treated and then conveyed to the groundwater basin providing a loop of water supply and re-use. The Draft EIR Section 5.5, Energy, details on page 5.5-10 that the proposed solar PV panels would provide approximately 2,375,568 kWh per year of energy, which equates to 20 percent of the Project’s annual energy demand. In addition, adherence to California Building Code and Energy Code standards would ensure that energy efficient technologies and practices are used for the Project. 67 Letter L23: Jim Auster (7 pages) Late Comment Letter 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Response to Letter L23: Jim Auster, dated September 2, 2025 Response L23.1: The comment letter is a copy of a letter submitted during the Draft EIR Public review period. Please refer to Responses I54.3 through I54.20 in the Final EIR for responses to this comment letter. 75 Letter L24: Benny Hallock (2 pages) Late Comment Letter 76 77 Response to Letter L24: Benny Hallock, dated September 2, 2025 Response L24.1: As detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, 15 holes of golf would be retained with implementation of the proposed Project. Please refer to Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, related to the change to the existing golf course use as well as Master Response 1: Project Merits regarding focused environmental review and opinions regarding merits of the proposed Project. 78 Letter L25: Benny Hallock (4 pages) Late Comment Letter 79 80 81 82 Response to Letter L25: Benny Hallock, dated September 3, 2025 Response L25.1: Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project. As detailed in the Final EIR Master Response 2, Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, the Project site consists of privately owned land within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, which is a commercial recreation facility that is not City/publicly owned (not a municipal golf course). Response L25.2: CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with the physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Any economic and social effects of the proposed project are not treated as effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Therefore, consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include a discussion of the Project’s economic or social effects. Thus, impacts related to the proposed Project’s potential failure as a business and ability to be redeveloped is not within the scope of CEQA and is speculative. Should the site be redeveloped for another use in the future, further CEQA analysis would be needed to examine the scope and environmental impacts of such a Project. Response L25.3: As discussed in the response above, the proposed Project’s potential failure as a business and ability to be redeveloped is not within the scope of CEQA and is speculative. 83 Letter L26: Jim Mosher (4 pages) Late Comment Letter 84 85 86 87 Response to Letter L26: Jim Mosher, dated September 4, 2025 Response L26.1: The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR), permits parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The proposed surf park would implement the existing land use designation providing both active and passive (spectator) recreation. The PR land use designation allows for both aquatic facilities and private recreation. Thus, the proposed Project would be consistent with the existing PR land use designation. The Project site is zoned as Open Space/Recreation (OS/R), that allows golf courses and outdoor commercial recreation and accessory uses and structures with a use permit. The proposed surf park and golf course support facilities (including parking, starter shack, golf cart storage, and golf cart paths) for the remaining golf course areas to the north and south of the proposed Project would implement outdoor commercial recreation and accessory uses as intended by the OS/R designation and would not result in a conflict related to avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The existing uses on the Project site include a retail store that is similar to the one proposed as part of the clubhouse building, which is an accessory use. In addition, the proposed fitness center is an accessory to the surf lagoon and would only be used by surf park members or with a surf session reservation; and therefore, would be an accessory to the surf lagoon uses. The comment asserts that the Project includes hotel and motel rooms, which is inaccurate. The Project includes 20 surfer accommodation units, which as detailed in the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description (page 3-22) the units would be exclusively for visiting surfers and surf park guests to stay while using the onsite amenities; and therefore, are accessory uses. As detailed in the Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to zoning or General Plan inconsistency. Response L26.2: The Draft EIR evaluation of potential impacts to aesthetics is based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s General Plan guidance regarding visual resources in the City. Draft EIR page 5.1-8 describes that as the Project site is located within an urban area, the evaluation of aesthetic character identifies if the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, pages 5.1-12 through 5.1-16 describes that the proposed Project would change the public views of the Project site from a golf course with a driving range and a clubhouse building and would construct a surf park with a 5.06-acre surf lagoon, amenity clubhouse, athlete accommodations, parking lot, ornamental landscaping, and associated infrastructure. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, on page 3-23, the proposed Project would include approximately 143,844 SF of drought tolerant ornamental landscaping that would cover approximately 20 percent of the site that would include 24-inch box trees, 15-gallon trees, various shrubs, and ground covers to enhance views of the proposed Project and screen the proposed Project structures from offsite viewpoints. Landscaping would be located throughout the site, along the Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive right-of-way, and along the site boundary. Response L26.3: The lead staff who prepared the technical noise study and previous response has over 25 years of experience conducting noise measurement and analysis and is a standing member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineers. The noise meter was properly set with in the “slow” response, in fact there is no other setting that would extend the Lmax measurement. However, as detailed in the response to comments referred to in this comment, while the Lmax is shown to provide characterization of the environment, it is not used in the analysis. The City does not use Lmax as a standard. As previously stated, “The analysis relies on hourly Leq for construction and stationary sources, and community noise level equivalent (CNEL) for traffic noise and land use compatibility, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach’s Noise Element and CEQA guidelines. Lmax is included only to help characterize the existing noise environment, not to determine impact significance. As such, the Lmax discrepancies do not affect the conclusions of the analysis.” Therefore, the 88 original comment was not relevant to the analysis or the findings under CEQA or the City standards. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence related to a new or increased environmental impact. Response L26.4: This comment provides a list of miscellaneous comments regarding the Planning Commission Agenda , Resolutions, and Project Conditions of Approval, which were made publicly available. The comments are not regarding the environmental impacts or the EIR prepared for the proposed Project. Thus, no response is warranted. 89 Letter L27: Niki Parker (1 page) Late Comment Letter 90 Response to Letter L27: Niki Parker, dated September 3, 2025 Response L27.1: Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts related to operation of John Wayne Airport in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning. Please refer to Final EIR Master Response 1: Project Merits for a response to comments regarding the merits of the proposed Project.