Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 Big Canyon DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA (949) 644-3275 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 28, 2001 FROM: Jay Elbettar, Building Director RE: Building Director's Acceptance and Approval of Negative Declaration Document in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Applicant — Big Canyon Country Club, One Big Canyon LOCATION: One Big Canyon Drive, portion of the golf course ACTION: Acceptance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing pond approximately 0.64 acres in size and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing sewer line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance. The Building Director finds that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), there is no substantial evidence the project, as conditioned by the mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. AUTHORIZATION: Section 15356 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines defines the "Decision - making body" as any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue. In this particular case, the project involves issuance of a Grading Permit by the Building Department of the City of Newport Beach. Section of 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that any advisory body (Planning Department representative in this case) of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision making body (Building Official) shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. The decision making body shall approve and adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on e-mail: cnb_blg®city.newport-beach.ca.us • Webpage: www.city.newport.beach.ca.us/building the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. BUILDING DEPARTMENT uilding Director Attachments: Notice of Determination Negative Declaration and supporting documentation cc: Applicant Property Owner F:\Users\PLN\Shared\ I PLANCOM\PENDING\BIGCANYON\BldgOfficlal-MEMO.doc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92758-8915 (949) 644-3200 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92758-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Big Canyon Country Club Project - Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Trunk Line State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: SCH #200005118 Javier S. Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner (949) 644-3206 Project Location: 1 Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach, California. Project Description: The application is the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing pond approximately 0.64 acres in size and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing sewer line. The pond, once filled, will be •landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance. This is to advise 28. 2001 and has that the City of Newport Beach, Building Official , has approved the above described project on November made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Findings The final EIR or Negative City of NewportBeach, The City is &t Lead Agency • Responsible Agency for the project. The project 0 will &twill not have a significant effect on the environment. • An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. &t A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures &t were 0 were not made a condition of the approval of the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations 0 was &t was not adopted for this project. &t were • were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Department of the 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, California 92658-8915, (949) 644-3200. C_CM_^ 4 s... November 28, 2001 Signature/Title Javier . Garcia AICP, Senior Planner Date F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\I PLANCOM\PENDING\B IGCANYON\NODbigcyn I .doe DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 21, 2001 Jay Garcia, Plannin HODGE AND ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM Department, City of Newport Beach Cheryle L. Hodge, Hodge & Associates Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Improvement Project —Final CEQA Record For your use, I've enclosed eight (8) copies (3-ring binders) and one (1) unbound copy of the Final CEQA documentation prepared for the above referenced project. The only item to be added to the Final CEQA record is the Notice of Determination (NOD) once the City takes action on the project for approval/denial of the CEQA compliance. Please let me know when the NOD is signed and I will file/post it with the County Clerk. If you should have any questions regarding this transmittal please call me at (949) 661-6488. Thanks. Attachment 24040 CAMINO DEL AVION • SUITE A-247 • MONARCH BEACH, CA 92629 • TEL: 949/661-64138 • FAX: 949/661-3791 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB POND FILL, STORM DRAIN & SEWER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE PROJECT FINAL CEQA RECORD Lead Agency City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Prepared By Hodge & Associates 24040 Camino del Avion, #A247 Monarch Beach, California 92629 November 2001 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Notice of Determination (NOD) filed/posted at County Clerks Office & State Clearinghouse for the City decision on the CEQA document (IS/MNID). 2. 3. Response to Public Comments/Issues submitted to City per public review of the Recirculated Draft IS/MND (Public Review Period Concluded on June 26, 2001). Public Comments received for the 30-day Public Review Period for Recirculated draft IS/MND. (Public Review Period Concluded on April 3, 2001). 4. Public Notice (NOD posted at project site (March 6, 2001) in 3 separate locations at the pond near the clubhouse, at the pond near the driving range, and at the entry of the golf course at the intersection of Big Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road (east gate to Big Canyon). Photos of posted notice were taken (March 6, 2001). 5. 6. 7. Public Notice — "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" filed/posted with County Clerk. Copy of County Clerk stamped filed/posted NOI provided to City of Newport Beach (March 5, 2001). Notice of Completion to State Clearinghouse for Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration dated March 5, 2001 published. Recirculated Draft IS/MND (March 5, 2001) published for a 30-day public review period. Copies of IS/MND sent to Army Corps of Engineers, Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, Coastal Commission, Caltrans, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (with incorporation of hydrology/drainage maps, and groundwater data). Document also includes public comments received on 15t draft IS/MND. Page 1 of 2 8. Public Notice (NOI) posted at project site (on May 27, 2000) in 3 separate locations at the pond near the clubhouse, at the pond near the driving range, and at the entry of' the golf course at the intersection of Big Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road (east gate to Big Canyon). Photos of posted notice were taken. 9. Public Notice — "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" filed/posted with County Clerk. Copy of County Clerk stamped filed/posted NOI provided to City of Newport Beach (May 26, 2000). 10. Notice of Completion to State Clearinghouse - Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. State Clearinghouse No. SCH#200005118 assigned to the Project (May 25, 2000). 11. Draft IS/MND published for a 30-day public review period (May 26, 2000). Copies of IS/MND sent to Army Corps of Engineers, Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, Coastal Commission, Caltrans, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Page 2 of 2 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION • r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92758-8915 41149)644-3200 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92758-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR: Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Nance of Project: Big Canyon Country Club Project - Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Trunk Line State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: SCH #200005118 Javier S. Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner (949) 644-3206 1 Project Location: 1 Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach, California. Project Description: The application is the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing pond approximately 0.64 acres in size and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing sewer line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance. This is to advise 28, 2001 and has that the City of Newport Beach, Building Official has approved the above described project on November , made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The final EIR or Negative City of Newport Beach, The City is Q Lead Agency • Responsible Agency for the project. The project 0 will Elwill not have a significant effect on the environment. • An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Q A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures 21 were • were not made a condition of the approval of the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations • was El was not adopted for this project. Findings O were 0 were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Department of the 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Califomia 92658-8915, (949) 644-3200. 1..,_ November 28, 2001 Signature/Title Javier . Garcia AICP, Senior Planner Date F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\i PLANCOM\PENDING \BIGCANYONVNODbigcyn I .doc • RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS/ISSUES • f • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT POND FILL, STORM DRAIN & SEWER TRUNK LINE Response to Project Issues/Questions Presented to City per Public Review of Draft CEQA Document Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Prepared by: Hodge & Associates Ms. Cheryle L. Hodge 24040 Camino del Avion, #A247 Monarch Beach, California 92629 November 2001 • Introduction This document has been prepared for City staff use in evaluating public questions/issues raised and presented in writing to the City of Newport Beach during the public review period on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Big Canyon Country Club Project. The comment letters are on file with the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach is under no obligation to respond to comments received on the IS/MND. Although there is no duty to respond to such comments, the City of Newport Beach and the project applicant, Big Canyon Country Club have caused this document to be prepared and has done so voluntarily in order to consider and evaluate project questions and/or comments presented to the City. This document has been prepared to focus on the public questions/issues pertaining to the project for several particular topical areas such as the City's compliance with CEQA procedures, biological resources, hydrology/drainage, the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer, and the operation and use of the golf course. The City of Newport Beach will consider the environmental documentation, together with any comments received, prior to the adoption of the CEQA document (i.e. Mitigated Negative Declaration). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 clearly state that significant effect is based on substantial evidence, not public controversy or speculation. The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project do not require preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 15064(5) of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. If there is no substantial evidence a project may have a significant effect on the environment or the initial study identifies potential significant impacts, but provides for project revisions and/or mitigation that make such effects insignificant, a public agency must adopt a negative declaration to such effect and, as a result no EIR is required. The term "significant impact" as used in environmental analyses, is a statutory term defined in per the CEQA. The statute defines a "significant effect on the environment" as a "substantial, or potentially substantially, adverse change in the environment." California Public Resources Code Section 20168. The written public comments submitted to the City of Newport Beach do not provide substantial evidence that a significant effect will occur as a result of the project. The comment letters do convey opinions, argument, and raise project questions and potential speculation that may be based on lack of information and/or incorrect facts. Additionally, the comments (or issues raised) by "professional experts" may also be different than those of the Lead Agency if based upon different facts. This does not necessarily constitute a disagreement 2 f among experts. The IS/MND contains substantial evidence to support all of the conclusions presented herein. That is not to say that there will be potential disagreements with these conclusions. Both the CEQA Guidelines and case law clearly provide standards for treating disagreement with environmental determinations. Compliance with CEQA Procedures 1. Comment Questions and/or comments have been submitted to the City that question whether the project has complied with CEQA procedures including public noticing of the project, requirement of City to consider previous written comments dated July 10, 2000 submitted by EIS, and a request that an EIR be prepared. 1. Response The project has complied with CEQA requirements pertaining to Mitigated Negative Declarations. On March 5, 2001 a "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed and posted with County Clerks office and City in regards to the proposed MND and it's 30-day public review period. The public notice was also posted at 3 locations including at the pond near the clubhouse, at the pond near the driving range, and at the entry of the Country Club outside of the gated entrance near the intersection of Big Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. Photos of the posted notices were taken. Additionally, on March 4, 2001 15 copies of the complete MND and appendix were submitted to the State Clearinghouse as well as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), California Department of Fish & Game (CDFDG), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Caltrans, and the Coastal Commission (although site is not located in coastal zone). Consultation with regulatory agencies (i.e. CDFG & USCOE) have also occurred and is on file at the City. In compliance with State law and City procedures, the City has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental compliance for the proposed project. Therefore, the City will not cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In compliance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study checklist form and explanation discussion format meets the requirements of the CEQA. Section 15063(d)(3) require that the entries on the Initial Study checklist identifying environmental effects are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. An Initial Study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies or other substantial evidence to document its findings. An Initial Study is not intended nor required to include a level of detail which would provided in an EIR (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 1337). The IS/MND is not intended to be a lengthy detailed document. • Sewer Transmission Pipeline 1. Comment Since the City of Newport Beach does not have any jurisdiction or authority in regards to the sewer trunk line, what is Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) role in regards to the project, specifically the replacement of the sewer trunk line? Will OCSD be issuing a grading permit for replacement of the sewer trunk line? Approving CEQA compliance? 1. Response OCSD has indicated to the City that it's their intent to hire Big Canyon Country Club's Consultant, Walden & Associates, through a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between Waldon & OCSD to complete the design to replace a portion of OCSD's Big Canyon Trunk Sewer. The design will include obtaining any permits required to replace the sewer. OCSD typically does not obtain grading permits because OCSD constructs sewers in the public right of way, not private property. In this case, OCSD owns a public right of way easement through the Big Canyon Country Club (Golf Course). If a new alignment is required to avoid problems with the new storm drains, then OCSD assumes that the Big Canyon Country Club will grant OCSD a new easement. Also, OCSD expects that if the City of Newport Beach requires a grading permit for the new storm drains on private property owned by the Big Canyon Country Club, then the application for that permit would include grading provisions for any OCSD sewer. OCSD's Consultant will verify that the proper CEQA documentation/procedures have been performed in relation to OCSD's project. Also, in compliance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the OCSD prepared and processed an EIR for the Strategic Plan that was certified by OCSD on October 27, 1999. A Notice of Determination was filed on October 29, 1999. 2. Comment Are the sewer leaks in the project area and/or from the 1,100' segment to be replaced or the 7,500' entire length to be replaced per the strategic plan? 2. Response The OCSD has indicated to the City of Newport Beach that they do not have evidence of sewer leaks (i.e. exfiltration) in the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer including the 1,100' segment to be replaced. The OCSD conducted a closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection on the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer on December 9 and 10, 1999. The inspection revealed cracks, mineral deposits, sags, and infiltration. Areas where there is infiltration (the groundwater elevation is above the sewer pipe) will not have exfiltration due to the pressure of the groundwater forcing its way into the pipe. The Big Canyon Trunk Sewer is a gravity sewer that is not under pressure; therefore there is no pressure that would push the sewage out of the pipe. The CCTV inspection did not reveal that that the sewer is leaking. Groundwater infiltration under pressure forces its way into the 4 • pipe, not out of the pipe. The project will replace a portion of the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer in conjunction with the area affected by the Big Canyon Pond Filling Project. The Big Canyon Trunk Sewer is scheduled to be rehabilitated, in the Strategic Plan, by 2009. The rehabilitation will be designed to correct any groundwater infiltration problems into OCSD's sewer. 3. Comment Is any untreated sewage being leaked (or discharged) to the groundwater beneath the Big Canyon Country Club & Golf Course? 3. Response The OCSD has indicated that there is no untreated sewage being leaked or discharged from OCSD's Big Canyon Trunk Sewer. Also see response to #2 above. 4. Comment What is the groundwater level within the project area (pond & sewer trunkline)? 4. Response OCSD will investigate and determine the groundwater level during design. However, the OCSD have indicated that is estimated that the groundwater level is at a depth of approximately 10' below the surface. The groundwater level is above the existing Big Canyon Trunk Sewer. Additionally, in 1989, Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. conducted field explorations within the Big Canyon Country Club golf course (this report is on file at the City of Newport Beach). The field explorations included subsurface investigation by drilling borings to depths of approximately 41.5' to 56.5' below the existing grade. Ground water was encountered at depths of 20' to 25'. 5. Comment Is any remedial action to remove fecal or other materials from the area of the OCSD pipeline been previously done or now needed? 5. Response There are no fecal materials in the area of the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer caused by OCSD's sewer pipe. Fecal or other materials, including the water, cannot and do not exfiltrate out of the pipe in the Big Canyon area due to the constant hydraulic conditions of groundwater under pressure. Also see response to #2 above. 6. Comment What is the timing/schedule for replacement of the remaining 7,500' length of sewer trunkline? 6. Response Rehabilitation of the remaining Big Canyon Trunk Sewer is scheduled to be completed prior to 2009. i • 7. Comment What are the current and projected flow amounts in the sewer pipeline and is there appropriate capacity to determine accurately size the sewer line? 7. Response The current flow volume, projected flow volume, and capacity, questions will be analyzed in the design phases he OCSD Strategic Plan identifies that the 2020 peak wet weather flow is 2.43 MGD (the City's draft Recirculated ISMIND also states this on page 25). 8. Comment Is the sewer pipeline project identified per the City's or OCSD's CIP (Capital Improvement Program)? 8. Response Big Canyon Offsite Sewer Rehabilitation is included in OCSD's Capital Improvement Program and OCSD's Strategic Plan adopted in October 1999. Also, in compliance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the OCSD prepared and processed an EIR for the Strategic Plan that was certified by OCSD on October 27, 1999. A Notice of Determination was filed on October 29, 1999. Hvdrologp/Drainage 1. Comment The pipe system, as proposed, would only carry the flow that would result from a storm with about a 5-year frequency. 1. Response See attached report dated April 2001 prepared by Walden & Associates. Per the April 2001 report, the drainage conveyance facilities are generally designed for 10-25 years flows based on hydrology criteria that existed at the time, with habitable structures protected against 100-year flows.Ddditionally, Walden & Associates (Civil Engineering firm) submitted to the City a precise grading plan for the pond fill and drainage improvements showing the existing drainage patterns for flow into this area. The plan identifies the projected overflow of the storm drain pipes due to downstream pipe clogging or to an event approximating an El Nino storm flow. Walden & Associates have indicated that the project's design can accommodate a projected overflow (as significant as the El Nino event). Also, see response to #2 below. 2. Comment By removing the existing pond, any peak -flow reduction associated with that lake will be eliminated, thus reducing the frequency stone that the existing drains can handle. • • 2. Response See attached report dated April 2001 prepared by Walden & Associates. The existing pond outlet is a headwall/weir structure with a four -foot difference between top of weir and top of headwall with the ability to overflow downstream. Two separate drainage areas contribute to the pond with approximately 54% from the east and 46% from the southeast. Also see response to #3 below. 3. Comment The proposed undersized drainage system will cause the storm flows to back up, resulting in the formation of lake upstream from the proposed pipes. 3. Response See attached report dated April 2001 prepared by Walden & Associates. The project will replicate the existing ponding and conveyance system as follows: • The southeast drainage, 46% of the total flow, can be ponded adjacent to the 18`h green in the existing inlet sump to a depth of approximately 7 feet. • The east drainage, 54% of the total flow, can be ponded at a headwall/weir inlet structure with a 5-foot differential between top of weir and top of headwall and the ability to overflow downstream. The overflow, should it occur, will be conducted downstream in a swale designed to accommodate the overflow and to protect any improvements or slopes adjacent to the swale. The maximum depth of any flow in this swale should be less than three feet. Walden & Associates (Civil Engineering firm) have submitted to the City a precise grading plan for the pond fill and drainage improvements showing the existing drainage patterns for flow into this area. Also, noted in Walden & Associates projected overflow of the storm drain pipes due to downstream pipe clogging or to an event approximating an El Nino storm flow. This overflow should be accommodated within the Projected Overflow area to a depth of 2' to 3' with no disturbances to existing structures and no hillside deterioration. Walden & Associates has also submitted to the City of Newport Beach a topographic map showing current topographic conditions and the existing drainage pattern. Also noted is the area of inundation, as best determined by Walden & Associates, due to overflow of the pond outlet culverts approximating the El Nino storm flow. 4. Comment The undersized drainage system will create conditions resulting in the reduction of stability of the existing slopes along the stream upstream of the proposed construction. 4. Response See attached report dated April 2001 prepared by Walden & Associates. See response to #3 above. The precise grading plan and topographic map submitted by Walden & Associates indicate that the drainage design of the proposed project will not result in any reduction of stability of the existing slopes along the stream upstream of the proposed construction. Biological Resources 1. Comment The biological assessment appears to have been conducted over a year ago and therefore now may be considered unreliable and cannot be used as a factual basis to assess the project's impact. 1. Response The regulatory agencies (i.e. US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG)) have reviewed the biological studies and have also conducted site inspections in addition to site assessments conducted by the biological resource consultant. The project applicant has commenced permit applications with these agencies in compliance with regulatory requirements including biological assessment and survey protocols. The applicant must obtain approval from these regulatory agencies prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit for the project. 2. Comment The need for updated and expanded field surveys is highlighted by the Lead Agency's recognition that "42 sensitive or special status species of animals and 21 sensitive or special status species of plants that occur with the general regional of the proposed project" could potentially exist on the project site. Since those species are never identified, it's not possible to independently determine the potential presence of these unspecified species on or near the project site. If a "database search" was conducted, why was that information not included in technical appendix of the Revised Initial Study? Specifically what sensitive or specials status species were identified in that search? Are there any City, CDFG, or USFWS policies and/or procedures with regard to the currency of biological assessments? After what time period should a biological survey be updated to ensure that it accurately reflects current conditions and from what source is that determination derived? 2. Response The CEQA documentation includes a complete biological resources assessment. As stated previously the site is located within an existing private golf course. Existing residential development and golf course surround the site The Biological Resources study (page 2 and 5) identifies that a literature review included the California Natural Diversity Database and the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Therefore, the source is cited that contains the listing of the sensitive or special status animal and plant species that occur in the general region of the project. The cited sources are available to the public. The comment incorrectly characterizes that the biological assessment study (page 4) identifies that these potential sensitive or special status species could potentially exist on the project site. Page 4 of the biological study does not state that these species could potentially exist on the project site but rather states that the species "occur within the general region of the proposed project". In fact, the biology study goes on to clearly state that because of the lack of suitable habitat in the already existing development (a golf course), it not expected that any of these specials plants or animals are present at the proposed project site. 3. Comment The CDFG correspondence submitted to the City (dated June 26, 2000) indicates that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and appendix containing the biological assessment is inadequate per CDFG. 3. Response The mitigation measures recommended for potential biological resource impacts are based on a professional expert biological assessment of the site. The mitigation measures are drafted in manner to ensure compliance, implementation, and verification. The habitat mitigation plan for wetlands is developed in consultation with the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over such resources. The mitigation must comply with state and federal laws. The project can't proceed forward until the City receives evidence identifying that the requirements of the regulatory agencies have been met. The project will comply with the legal requirements pertaining to the breeding season. The project applicant has applied for a CDFG Agreement and issuance of the Agreement is pending the City's completion of the CEQA compliance. As with any project subject to CDFG regulations and compliance, the CDFG reserves the right to require additional environmental documentation and/or adopt the subject CEQA document (IS/MND) for use in the consideration and issuance of a CDFG Agreement. As stated previously, the City will not issue a grading permit for the proposed project until required regulatory agency permits/agreements are obtained and evidence of said compliance is provided to the City. Golf Course Use 1. Comment Comments submitted to the City raise issues/questions pertaining to the expanded use of the golf course and impacts associated with the use of the golf course, including the putting green, expanded depth of the driving range, potential increase in club membership. 1. Response The proposed project is a private initiated project. The applicant is the Big Canyon Country Club. The project requires a grading permit from the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the grading permit is subject to review, and approval or denial from the City Building Official. In compliance with State law and City procedures, the subject grading permit request and associated CEQA documentation does not require public hearings and/or meetings be held to consider the project. Additionally, the project (grading permit/CEQA documentation) will not be subject to City Planning Commission review and/or City Council review. The City has conducted a thorough environmental review of the proposed grading permit request. A grading permit is required for the grading activities associated with the project. 9 In addition to the City grading permit, the applicant must obtain approval of other various permits from numerous agencies prior to the commencement of grading/construction activities. For example the project will require review and approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the water district. Without approval from these governmental entities that project will not be allowed to proceed. The CEQA document (IS/MND) was provided to these agencies for review and comment and no unavoidable adverse significant impacts were identified by these agencies. The City Planning Department has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA determination for the proposed project (grading permit request). The IS/MND disclosed information that was provided to the City by the project applicant that indicated that pond site (once filled) would potentially be utilized as a putting green area. Additional golf course improvements identified included relocation of the golf cart paths near the pond and expanding the depth of the driving range. The putting green area, increase depth of the driving range, relocation of golf cart paths etc. are allowable uses in compliance with the Big Canyon Country Club Planned Community. The CEQA documentation disclosed these potential uses for informational purposes only. These uses are permitted uses and do not require any discretionary permit approval beyond that previously approved in conjunction with the original Planned Community Regulations and development of the golf course. Therefore, the project activities that are the subject of review and analyses of the CEQA document is the proposed grading permit only. Comments submitted to the City make reference to the expansion of the golf course and impacts associated with potential increase in golf course country club memberships. The Big Canyon Country Club membership is subject to the rules and regulations set forth in their By -Laws. Potential golf course uses of the pond area are disclosed since the project applicant provided this information to the City, however, these uses are allowed and permitted within the existing golf course property boundaries. Additionally, the project applicant indicated that algae have been a problem at the pond. The project applicant is under no obligation to provide alternative solutions for the possible algae problem. The applicant has requested a grading permit for the purposes of filling the pond and constructing associated drainage improvements. Public comments submitted to the City continue emphasis an issue with the use of the site as a putting green area and the modification of the driving range. These uses are permitted allowable uses and are not subject to the subject permit and the associated CEQA document prepared for the proposed grading permit. Although, the City appreciates the concerns expressed in regards to these potential golf course uses, these uses are not subject to the grading permit. Therefore, the proiect is not an expansion of the existing golf course. 10 Gray Davis Can Hawn STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse April 6, 2001 Javier S. Garcia City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Big Canyon Country Club Project -Pond Fill, Storm Drain and Sewer Trunk Line SCH#: 2000051118 Dear Javier S. Garcia: sLit aim I Steve Nissen in RFC IOR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed•on April 4, 2001, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not at order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, grAtz- Terry Roberts Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency PLANNINGEIVED DEPBY ARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR i 0 2001 PM 71819110111112111213141816 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.COV/CLEARINCHOUSE.HTML State Clearinghouse Data base •. SCH# 2000051118 Protect Title Big Canyon Country Club Project -Pond Fill, Storm Drain and Sewer Trunk Line Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type Neg Negative Declaration Description The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club to allow the placement of fill materials within an existing pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size and construction of associated Improvements. Improvements Include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth will be expanded to provide additional distance. Lead Agency Contact • Name Javier S. Garcia Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949) 644-3206 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip .92658 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets Big Canyon Drive & San Joaquin Hills Road Parcel No. 442-032-069 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Pacific Coast Highway Airports Railways Waterways USGS- Laguna Beach Quadrangle Schools Land Use Existing golf course with,pond and golf uses/ Zoning: recrea0on,,generai plan: open space. Project Issues AesthefcNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; ArchaeologlaHistoric; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil ErosionlCompacfon/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Population/Housing Balance; Minerals; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Conservation; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8;. Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5;, Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Health Services; State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Program Date Received 03/05/2001Start of Review 03/06/2001 , End of Roview 04/04/2001 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient Information provided by lead.agency. ti GUJFORNIA•THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Governor iARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME uth Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue n Diego, Califomia 92123 58) 467-4201 FAX (858) 467-4235 • • April 4, 2001 Javier S. Garcia City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFWPnD'r REACH AM APR 10.2uo1 PM 71819110111112111213141616 Comments on the Big Canyon Country Club Project — Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Trunk Line Revised Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, City of Newport Beach (SCH#2000051118) Dear Mr. Garcia: The Department.of Fish•and-Game (Department) bas reviewed the above -referenced Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MAID) that was received on December •19, 2000. The Department is identified as a Trustee Agency pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15386 and is responsible for the conservation, protection and management of the state's biological resources. The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing pond and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance. The project is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course in Newport Beach. The site contains an existing pond approximately 0.64 acres in size. Surrounding and nearby properties include the golf course and single-family residential to the north of the pond. Currently, the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that carries the water to the bay. With the proposed filling of the pond, the existing storm drain system will remain. However, instead of the water flowing through the pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond that will connect to the existing storm drain system. The project also involves partial replacement.of;ap Orange County Sanitation OCSD (OCSD) 15-inch sewer line: The existing 15-inch sewer line.is.part of the Big Canyon Off -Site Trunk Sewer that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length. The sewer Javier S. Garcia April 4, 2001 Page 2 line begins east of MacArthur Boulevard and extends through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The existing sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and 12-inch VCP (vitrified clay pipe). A portion (from manhole 19 to manhole 14) of existing sewer line will be replaced with approximately 1,100 feet of new 12-inch VCP. The new sewer will integrate into the existing system. The sewer line improvement will require the rehabilitation and replacement of at least 6 manholes. The sewer line improvement would be constructed in conjunction with the Big Canyon Country Club pond filling and storm drain improvements. The site supports the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri), a California Species of Special Concern and provides roosts and potential nesting habitat for black -crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) and other migratory birds. The pond supports native emergent wetland vegetation, including bulrush (Scirpus sp.) The Department offers the following comments and recommendations: Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Resources The jurisdictional delineation prepared for the project dated April 13, 2000 (Appendix C) identifies &total of 0.64 acre of CDFG jurisdiction associated with the pond only. An additional 0,27 acre of drainage flowing into the pond is identified as "Waters of the United States" subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act. The additional0.27 acre of stream flowing into the pond is also subject to •the Department's jurisdiction, and impacts within the stream require mitigation. Please note that in stream systems, the limit's of the Department's jurisdiction may exceed the area subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. 'Army Corps of Engineers. The Department considers the loss of wetland habitat as a significant impact. Wetlands provide essential habitat for wide variety of important resident and migratory wildlife species. Mitigation Measure Number 3 discusses the project's need for required permits/agreements, but does not adequately describe a proposal to mitigate for the loss of all of the jurisdictional resources, including the on -site stream. If specific mitigation plans are not described in the final MND, the mitigation may require separate CEQA documentation. The Department recommends that the final MND discusses a conceptual mitigation plan including a proposed location. The project will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement, pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, with the applicant prior to the applicant's commencement of any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river, stream or lake, or use material from a streambed. The Department's issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Departmeht as a responsible agency. The Department as a responsible agency under CEQA, may consider the • 4/1//1 Javier S. Garcia April 4, 2001 • Page 3 local jurisdiction's (lead agency) Negative Declaration or EIR for the project. To minimize additional requirements by the Department pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the document should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the agreement.. A Streambed Alteration Agreement form may be obtained by writing to The Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, or by calling (858) 636-3160, or by accessing the Departments web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/1600. The MND fails to provide the level of detail necessary for the Department to consider issuing a Streambed Alteration Agreement without additional CEQA documentation. Impacts to Nesting Birds In order to avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds, the Department recommends that grading and construction take place outside of the peak breeding season for migratory birds (March 1- July 31). If grading and construction take place during the peak breeding season, the Department recommends that construction, grading, or clearing activities within 300 feet of any active nests of raptors and 100 feet of other migratory birds should be avoided. The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on your project. If you have any questions or comments pertaining to this letter, please contact Brad Henderson at (310) 214- 9950. Since, g�William E. Tippets Environmental Program Manager cc: Department of Fish and Game File U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board State Clearinghouse EiEnvironmental Impact Sciences 2Miss o•Via Concha Mission Viejo, California 92691-5614 (949) 837-1195 (949) 837-3935 FAX April 2, 2001 Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach - Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 VIA HAND DELIVERY Subject: Big Canyon Country Club -Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Dear Mr. Garcia: Environmental Impact Sciences was provided a copy of the City of Newport Beach's (City or Lead Agency) "Notice of Intent" (NOI) to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the proposed Big Canyon Country Club — Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline project. Based on a detailed review of the "Big Canyon Country Club Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project — Recirculation of Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Revised Initial Study) and pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is evident that the Revised Initial Study fails to provide a supportable basis for the proposed MND. As more thoroughly described in the attached comments, a number of defects exist with that document. Those defects include, but are not limited to: • In the absence of new environmental notice, including posting in the Office of the County Clerk and publication of a new NOI, there exists substantive defects with the Lead Agency's procedural obligations under CEQA. As a result of those procedural defects, the public and other governmental agencies have been denied full access to the environmental process. The City is, therefore, required to provide new notice and to recommence the CEQA process. • Since the project examined in the Revised Initial Study is substantially different from the project addressed in the prior "Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration — Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project," the City is precluded from recirculating that earlier document as the environmental basis for its assessment of the current development proposal. • The Lead Agency has failed to prepare an adequate environmental record for the proposed project, demonstrating that all potential impacts resulting from the project's construction and operation can be mitigated to below a level of significance. The attached comments, in combination with other information in the project's administrative record, contain substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will produce one or more significant environmental effects. As a result, the Lead Agency is precluded for adopting the proposed MND as the environmental basis for those discretionary actions required for the project's implementation. The Lead Agency, therefore, has before it two available options: either deny the project outright or immediate commence the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). Should you have any questions concerning the attached material, please contact me at 837-1195. Y, Peter Lewandowski, AICP Principal Enclosure Environmental Consultants environment@home.com RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 0 2 2001 AM PM 7181911U11111gI11413141b1b i • • PRELIMINARY COMMENTS BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB POND FILL, STORM DRAIN & SEWER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE PROJECT RECIRCULATION OF REVISED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 2, 2001 Submitted to: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - PLANNING DEPARTMENT • Attn: Javier Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 (949) 644-3250 FAX (949) 544-3206 Submitted by: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES Attn: Peter Lewandowski, AICP, Principal 24601 Via Concha Mission Viejo, California 92691-5614 (949) 837-3935 FAX (949) 837-1195 April 2001 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain,& Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Sections Section LIST OF ACRONYMS Page ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Incorporation into the Administrative Record 1 1.3 Additional Comments on the Revised Initial Study 2 2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY 2 2.1 Misrepresentation of the Revised Initial Study 3 2.2 Misrepresentation of Lead Agency Status 4 2.3 Failure to Identify Other Responsible Agencies 5 2.4 Project Fragmentation to Avoid Environmental Disclosure 8 2.5 Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations 13 2.6 Failure to Fulfill CEQA Requirements 13 2.7 Lead Agency Precluded from Deferring Environmental Analysis 15 2.8 Presentation of Illusory Mitigation Measures 17 2.9 Selective Application of CEQA Requirements 19 2.10 Lack of Consistent Project Description 20 2.11 Failure to Provide Adequate Environmental Notice 21 3.0 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY 22 3.1 Environmental Checklist 23 3.2 Project Description 24 3.3 Background and History 30 3.4 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons 30 3.5 Incorporation by Reference 32 3.6 Aesthetics 33 3.7 Air Quality 35 3.8 Biological Resources 39 3.9 Geology & Soils 43 3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 46 3.11 Hydrology & Water Quality 50 3.12 Land Use and Planning 53 3.13 Noise 56 3.14 Utilities and Service Systems 57 3.15 Mandatory Findings of Significance 59 3.16 Appendices 60 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 61 List of Attachments Attachment A Curriculum Vitae B Additional Comments on the Revised Initial Study C Air Quality Analysis D Drainage Report - Hunsaker & Associates Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents April 2001 Page i BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project LIST OF ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers Act Seismic Hazards Mapping Act ADT average daily one-way trips APA American Planning Association AP-42 AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Back Bay Upper Newport Bay BCCC Big Canyon Country Club BMPs best management practices Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDMG California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGC California Government Code Checklist Environmental Checklist Form CIP capital improvement program City City of Newport Beach CO carbon monoxide Commission City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Council City of Newport Beach City Council CUP conditional use permit CWA Federal Clean Water Act dBA A -weighted decibels Department California Department of Fish and Game D/T dilution to threshold Ecological Survey Ecological Survey of Aquatic & Terrestrial Resources EIR environmental impact report EIS Environmental Impact Sciences General Plan City of Newport Beach General Plan GPA general plan amendment IS initial study Handbook South Coast Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook Lead Agency City of Newport Beach LUE Land Use Element MND mitigated negative declaration mph miles per hour Municipal Code Newport Beach Municipal Code NBMC Newport Beach Municipal Code Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Acronyms April 2001 Page ii rP BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project ND NOA NOI NOx NPDES OCSD OPR 03 PM,0 PEIR PRC project R&OSE Revised Initial Study RIS ROC RWQCB SAA SCAB SCAQMD SIP SOx State CEQA Guidelines SWANCC USEPA WDR 2000 Initial Study Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration — Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project negative declaration Notice of Availability Notice of Intent oxides of nitrogen National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Orange County Sanitation District Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) ozone particulate matter program environmental impact report Public Resources Code Big Canyon Country Club Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Recreation and Open Space Element Big Canyon Country Club Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project — Recirculation of Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration," dated March 2, 2001 Revised Initial Study reactive organic compounds Regional Water Quality Control Board Streambed Alteration Agreement South Coast Air Basin South Coast Air Quality Management District State Implementation Plan sulfur oxides Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Environmental Protection Agency Waste Discharge Requirement Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 List of Acronyms Page iii BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction On behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Klieman, owners of property located at 21 Lochmoor Lane, Newport Beach, the following comments are submitted to the City of Newport Beach (City or Lead Agency) in response to the City's recent release of the "Big Canyon Country Club Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project — Recirculation of Revised Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration," dated March 2, 2001 (Revised Initial Study or RIS). The Kliemans formally request receipt of copies of all environmental and other related notices, staff reports, and other documentation prepared by or on behalf of the Lead Agency concerning any aspect of the proposed project both as now proposed and as may be subsequently modified. As indicated in correspondence to the Kliemans from Homer L. Bludau, City Manager (dated June 23, 2000), included in Appendix D of the Revised Initial Study and part of the administrative record for the proposed project, "the final document will incorporate responses to comments from the public and other agencies and will recommend changes and/or additional mitigation measures." Since the following comments are submitted on behalf of the Kliemans behalf, based on the City Manager's declaration that the Lead Agency will "incorporate response to comments,' written responses to each of the issues, items, and inquiries raised herein should be prepared. The City's draft responses should then be provided directly to the Kleimans prior to the commencement of any public hearings concerning the proposed "Big Canyon Country Club Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project" (project) so that the adequacy of those responses can be considered and, if appropriate, additional comments submitted to the City. Additionally, it is requested that these comments and the City's draft written responses be forwarded to the City's advisory and decision -making bodies, to the State Clearinghouse, and to other Responsible Agencies prior to the commencement of any formal deliberations concerning the proposed project. 1.2 Incorporation into the Administrative Record The following comments are submitted to the City pursuant to the authorization provided under Sections 21003.1 and 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), codified in the Public Resources Code (PRC), and Sections 15002(j), 15022(a)(5), 15044, 15064(c), 15074(b), 15105,and 15204 of the "Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act" '(State CEQA Guidelines), codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). These comments are submitted to the Lead Agency within the time period established in the "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" (NOI) for the submission of written comments to the City. As required under Section 15064(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected." As a result, this, letter constitutes a formal request for the Planning Commission (Commission) and City Council (Council) to direct staff to commence the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project. Because of the presence of unresolved environmental issues and the project's potential to produce significant environmental effects, an EIR is required in order to create an opportunity for broad - based community and agency dialogue concerning the adverse environmental implications of the project. Preparation an EIR will "insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug" (Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors). Presented herein is the factual basis submitted in support of that request. • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 1 Preliminary Comments • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project The comments presented herein have been prepared by Peter Lewandowski, AICP, Principal of Environmental Impact Sciences (EIS). Mr. Lewandowski's curricula vitae is attached hereto (Attachment A) and demonstrates that these comments represent "expert testimony" with regards to the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and the project's compliance or, more specifically, lack of compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. 1.3 Additional Comments on the Revised Initial Study As required under Section 15088(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving the reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be a good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice." In Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, the court stated that even if impacts are not deemed to be significant, the agency is required to present the technical basis for its conclusion. As indicated in the Discussion following Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, citing Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, "an agency must provide the information it used to reach its conclusions and that a checklist unsupported by data and facts is not sufficient for an adequate Initial Study." These comments supplement, but are not intended to replace, those previous comments submitted to the Lead Agency by EIS (dated July 10, 2000) and others in response to information contained in the Lead Agency's "Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration — Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project," dated May 26, 2000 (2000 Initial Study), which are hereby incorporated by reference and by this reference made a part hereof. Those earlier comments, which address an earlier and only partially related project that was proposed on the Big County Country Club (BCCC) property, identify the technical defects with the 2000 Initial Study. Since the City portrays the Revised Initial Study as a "recirculation" of the 2000 Initial Study, all comments submitted on the 2000 Initial Study remain applicable to the Lead Agency's assessment of the proposed project, as contained in the Revised Initial Study. Although those comments are attached to the Revised Initial Study, the Lead Agency has failed to adequately address the comments and concerns raised therein. It is not sufficient to merely include comments as part of the project's administrative record, the Lead Agency is obligated under CEQA to consider all comments received (Section 15074[b], State CEQA Guidelines) and, as applicable, address those comments in the City's environmental assessment. As a result of the Lead Agency's failure to address the issues raised therein and their continuing relevancy to the proposed project, those comments are hereby submitted (Attachment B) and constitute an integral part of these written comments provided to the Lead Agency in response to the Revised Initial Study. It is requested that the City prepare formal written response to the issues, items, and inquires raised in both these comments (on the Revised Initial Study) and those earlier comments (on the 2000 Initial Study). Those comments and City's preliminary responses should then be provided to the Commission and Council as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed project. 2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY The following general comments are presented to the Lead Agency based on the information presented in the Revised Initial Study. Specific comments addressing the Revised Initial Study and the statements presented therein are included in a subsequent section of this document. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 2 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project 2.1 Misrepresentation of the Revised Initial Study As indicated by the Lead Agency, the Revised Initial Study is identified as the "Recirculation of Revised Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration" (RIS, cover). As indicated in Section 15073.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency is "required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption! As further indicated in Section 15073.5(b) therein, "substantial revision" shall mean either: (1) a new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or (2) the Lead Agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Pursuant to Section 15073.5(c), recirculation is "not required" under the following circumstances: (1) mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures; (2) new project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments; and/or (3) measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA. With the exception of minor word changes, the mitigation measures proposed in the 2000 Initial Study are identical to those now recommended in the Revised Initial Study. Similarly, although the project is substantially revised (e.g., inclusion of a sewer transmission pipeline component), the Lead Agency has not elected to include any new additional mitigation measures beyond those presented in the 2000 Initial Study. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, in response to the 2000 Initial Study, "among the comments received, the Orange County Sanitation OCSD (OCSD) indicated that in conjunction with the proposed BCCC project, the OCSD proposes to replace an existing sewer truck with a new sewer line. The City of Newport Beach reviewed all comments received on draft IS/MND (5/26/00) and taking into consideration the OCSD's request, determined that the draft CEQA document should be revised and recirculated for public review" (RIS, p. 3). Although correspondence from the OCSD (dated July 10, 2000) is included in the Revised Initial Study, that letter makes no reference to the any proposal for the replacement of an existing sewer truck line. If such correspondence was, in fact, received, the Lead Agency has failed to include that document or any definitive reference thereto in the Revised Initial Study. The project's environmental review record, therefore, lacks any documentation supporting the Lead Agency's assertion that the proposed revisions to the project are predicated upon a request from the OCSD. Where in the Revised Initial Study is the OCSD's declaration of its intent to replace the existing sewer trunk line In conjunction with the proposed BCCC project"? It is apparent that the Lead Agency's election to "recirculate" the 2000 Initial Study is the result of revisions to the proposed project (i.e., OCSD sewer truck line improvements) and not the result of either of the two authorized reasons for recirculation allowed under Section 15073.5(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. As a result, the Lead Agency lacks CEQA authorization to "recirculate" a previous document as the environmental basis for the current project. Since the current project is substantially modified from that addressed in the 2000 Initial Study, the Lead Agency is precluded from revising and recirculating that previous analysis and must prepare a "new" initial study addressing the new and expanded project now under consideration. This material misrepresentation serves to under -value the role and significance of the CEQA process and • 410 • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 3 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project only serves to artificially diminish the potential environmental consequences associated with the new and expanded project. Similarly, although "the project also involves partial replacement of an Orange County Sanitation OCSD 15-inch sewer line" (NOI), the OCSD's status must be elevated from that of a "responsible agency" to that of a "lead agency" or joint applicant since the OCSD is a public entity and its self -issued authorization for "partial replacement" is independent of the Big Canyon Country Club's request to seek authorization for the "placement of fill materials within an existing pond" (NOI). Since the project addressed in the Revised Initial Study is not the same project addressed in the 2000 Initial Study and since the new project (as examined in the Revised Initial Study) contains two separate and distinct project proponents (e.g., "Big Canyon County Club & OCSD," RIS, Mitigation Measure Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9), not only does the 2000 Initial Study have no legitimate value (e.g., being never adopted by the Lead Agency and clearly defective based on the comments submitted to the Lead Agency) but the City must now defer the role of "lead agency" under CEQA to the OCSD (see Section 15051 [a], State CEQA Guidelines). 2.2 Misrepresentation of Lead Agency Status Referencing Section 15051(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, the determination of which agency will serve as the "lead agency" shall be governed by the following criteria: If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the lead agency even if the project would be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency. Since the OCSD's proposed sewer line improvements (i.e., approximately 1,100 feet in length) is substantially in excess of the minimal amount required to accommodate "the Big Canyon County Club pond filing and storm drain improvements" (RIS, p. 1), those improvements constitute a separate and distinct activity that must be initiated by the OCSD, whether or not those sewer line improvements are subsequently constructed by the BCCC or directly by the OCSD. Any such improvement that extends beyond the edge of grading for the "placement of fill materials within an existing pond" (NOI), constitutes a public improvement project whose existence cannot be ignored merely by combining those improvements (beyond the specific impacts to the existing line created by the BCCC project) as part of an unrelated activity (e.g., "the sewer line improvement would be constructed in conjunction with the Big Canyon County Club pond filling and storm drain improvements," RIS, p. 1). Since the July 10, 2000 letter from the OCSD on the 2000 Initial Study makes no reference to the replacement of "approximately 1,100 feet of new 12-inch VCP" (NOI), it is evident that the extensive improvements to the existing "15-inch diameter Big Canyon Truck Sewer" (OCSD, July 10, 2000 letter) are not directly related to the golf course project but constitute a separate project for which the OCSD must serve as "lead agency" under CEQA. The OCSD's "lead agency" status is further evidenced by the following statement in the Revised Initial Study: "The OCSD's Strategic Plan adopted in October 1999 calls for replacement/ rehabilitation of the sewer line by 2009. The OCSD began a study of the sewer in 1999 to determine the condition of the sewer and options for replacement/rehabilitation. The BCCC improvement project provides the OCSD the opportunity to replace a portion of the OCSD's sewer. This will allow the OCSD to raise the sewer and replace it with a new pipe" (RIS, p. 3). It is, therefore, apparent that plans for the sewer line upgrade predated the golf course improvement project, are independent and separate therefrom, and are predicated under the separate and distinct Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 4 a BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project needs and objectives of the OCSD (which are separate from the proposed grading permit now being requested by BCCC). As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the project activities that are the subject of review and analyses of the CEQA document involve those associated with the proposed grading permit and the proposed sewer trunk line that the Sanitation OCSD will implement if the Big Canyon Country Club project is constructed" (RIS, p. 30). Since the Revised Initial Study identifies the OCSD as a separate "project proponent" (see RIS, Mitigation Measure Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, and. 9), distinct from BCCC, for that portion of the proposed project involving improvements to OCSD facilities, the OCSD (and not the City) must step forward and serve in the role of "lead agency." As an autonomous public entity, OCSD must approve the proposed infrastructure improvement project (including issuance of its own grading permit). For those improvements, it is unclear whether the City has any discretionary authority over the project. In the absence of any discretionary actions, the City is precluded under CEQA from serving as "lead agency" for the proposed OCSD sewer line improvement project. This commenter formally objects to the City's designation as "lead agency" for the proposed improvements to OCSD facilities and the inclusion of those activities in the Revised Initial Study and formally requests the City to seek resolution of "lead agency" status from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), as authorized under Sections 15023(f) and 15053 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Although the Revised Initial Study indicates that the 2000 Initial Study was "sent to the State of California, State Clearinghouse (Office of Planning & Research)" (RIS, p. 2), no mention is made concerning whether the Revised Initial Study was also forwarded to OPR. If not so forwarded, the Lead Agency should state what changes to the project (including an explanation of those changes and the City's election to "recirculate" the 2000 Initial Study) have predicated the City's failure to again notify OPR. If the Revised Initial Study and NOI were forwarded to OPR, all written comments submitted upon the 2000 Initial Study and this Revised Initial Study should also be and can logically be assumed to be presented to that State agency as part of the Lead Agency's obligations to involve OPR and other State agencies in the CEQA process (e.g., based on the identified need for permits from a number of State agencies). By forwarding the Revised Initial Study and NOI to OPR, the above request for resolution of "lead agency" status must also be assumed to be forwarded to OPR as a component of the Lead Agency's environmental compliance responsibilities. When this request was presented to OPR, what was that agency's ruling with regards to OCSD's "lead agency" status? 2.3 Failure to Identify Other Responsible Agencies As defined in Section 15378(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the term 'project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies." As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, the only "Responsible Agency" which is identified is the "Orange County Sanitation District" (RIS, p. 1). As indicated in Appendix C (Biological Resource Report & Wetlands Delineation), "the pond appears to be located along an historical 'blue -line' stream" and "this pond is a state jurisdictional wetland" (RIS, Appendix C, p. 7). It is, therefore, readily apparent that the project may be subject to a Section 401 (federal Clean Water Act) water Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 5 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a Section 404 (federal Clean Water Act) individual or nationwide permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and a Section 1601-1603 (California Fish and Game Code) Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG or Department). Although those agencies are each listed in the City's "Environmental Checklist Form" (Checklist) (Checklist, p. 2), the associated permits and approvals from those agencies are not explicitly identified therein. As further indicated in correspondence received from the RWQCB, included in Appendix D of the Revised Initial Study, "RWQCB personnel have determined that this project will require coverage under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, water quality certification for dredge and fill operations" and "dewatering during construction a the site will require either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for the discharge of wastes to land." Neither of these permits (i.e., NDPES, WDR) are clearly identified in the Revised Initial Study. As a result, rather than identifying these obligations in the Revised Initial Study and presenting a reasonable analysis sufficient to address the distinct water quality issues surrounding those permits, the Lead Agency merely elects to defer to the RWQCB the responsibility to formulate appropriate mitigation measures to address the project's potential water quality impacts. In fact, none of the issues raised by the RWQCB in their correspondence (e.g., use of native vegetation, mitigation for the loss of the wetland pond value, appropriate best management practices, controls for soil characteristics related to water quality) are even addressed in the Revised Initial Study. By failing to identify those discretionary actions and by failing to list the RWQCB, ACOE, and CDFG as potential Responsible Agencies in the Revised Initial Study, to address the stated concerns of those agencies, and to present sufficient information to allow the project's decisionmakers to understand the project proponent's obligations thereunder, the Lead Agency has not only prepared an incomplete and inadequate environmental review record but has precluded the general public (who may lack a complete understating of applicable State and federal regulations and statutes) from understanding the full extent of the proposed project and its environmental implications. Alternatively, if it is not the intent of the Lead Agency to utilize this CEQA document as the environmental basis for those actions, the City has fragmented the proposed project into smaller components for the sole purpose of avoiding the full disclosure of the potential environmental impacts resulting therefrom. Although not readily apparent, the Revised Initial Study appears to indicate that the project will require a Section 404 permit from the ACOE (e.g., "the project is subject to compliance of the regulatory permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act [Section 404]," Revised Initial Study, p. 15; "a wetland delineation identified that the site contains approximately 0.64 acres of jurisdictional wetlands," Revised Initial Study, p. 16). However, based on the recent court action contained in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), the Revised Initial Study appears to make a material misrepresentation of the project's environmental obligations thereunder. The above case, decided on January 9, 2001, predated the release of the Revised Initial Study and constituted information in the possession of or available to the Lead Agency prior to the completion of its preliminary environmental assessment of the proposed project. At minimum, the Revised Initial Study needs to be augmented to discuss the implications of the above case and its application to the proposed project. The California Chapter of the American Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 6 I( BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm DraM & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Planning Association (APA), in their March -April 2001 newsletter, reports that soon after the SWANCC decision, the ACOE offices in California suspended processing requests for authorization to fill isolated waters and wetlands. This suspension is to remain in place until official regulatory guidance is issued by the ACOE and by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ACOE maintains that any fill activities that occur in the meantime, without ACOE authorization, may be subject to enforcement as a Section 404 violation. How does the SWANCC decision affect the identification of the existing pond an the project proponents stated obligations to obtain a Section 404 permit from the ACOE? As required under Section 15063(d)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study shall include "an identification of the environmental setting." Since the Revised Initial Study may contain material defects with regards to the description of the project's regulatory environment, the document fails to fulfill this requirement for an adequate initial study under CEQA. Since "the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that then carries the water to the [Upper Newport] bay/' the determination concerning whether the pond, is an isolated wetland is critical to any understanding of the project and its regulatory requirements. As defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 328.3(c), "wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are 'adjacent wetlands.'" If the pond is defined as "adjacent" (i.e., bordering, contiguous, or neighboring) to other "waters of the United States," the pond would remain subject to Section 404 permitting requirements. In the absence of any preliminary determination by the Lead Agency, insufficient information is now presented in the Revised Initial Study to determine whether Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) continues to apply to the project and/or whether the recommended mitigation measure identified in the Revised Initial Study (i.e., Mitigation Measure No. 3, p. 16) remain a relevant, enforceable obligations upon the project proponent. Referencing Section 21080.3(a) of CEQA, "prior to determining whether a negative declaration or environmental impact report is required for a project, the lead agency shall consult with all responsible agencies and with any other public agency which has jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Prior to that required consultation, the lead agency may informally contact such agency." As further required under Section 15063(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "as soon as a lead agency has determined that an initial study will be required for the project, the lead agency shall consult informally with all responsible agencies and all trustee agencies for resources affected by the project to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an 'EIR or a negative declaration should be prepared." Based, in part, upon the Lead Agency's failure to discuss the ramifications of SWANCC, it is apparent that no such "required consultation" and/or "informal consultation" has occurred between the City and the ACOE. Where in the Revised Initial Study is evidence of the "required consultation" and "informal consultation" with the OCSD, RWQCB, ACOE, and CDFG presented and on what date and in what form did that consultation occur? Although the City asserts that "the habitat mitigation plan for wetlands is developed in consultation with the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over such resources" (RIS, p. 15), there exists no evidence in support of that statement. This lack of consultation is evidenced by: (1) the Lead Agency apparent failure to understand the difference between "wetlands" and "riparian" areas (see "Biological Resources" herein); (2) the absence of any conceptual or formal mitigation plans Recirculation of Revised Initial Study &'Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Preliminary Comments Page 7 /7 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project formulated in response to the identified impacts upon jurisdictional waters (which is increasing a requirement of the ACOE as part of the CEQA process); and (3) statements submitted by the CDFG, namely "the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to provide the level of detail necessary for the Department to consider issuing an SSA." Notwithstanding the declaration from the CDFG that the City's CEQA analysis fails to provide sufficient information to allow action by a Responsible Agency, the Revised Initial Study states that "no significant project concerns and/or issues have been raised by any public agencies in relation to the project" (RIS, p. 39). The City's material misrepresentation of the project's regulatory requirements will necessitate "substantial revisions" to the Revised Initial Study, including the possible deletion or major revisions to those recommended mitigation measures now contained therein. The deletion of those mitigation measures would produce a substantive change in the project's CEQA documentation and result in both a "substantial revision" to the Revised Initial Study and the introduction of "new information" of substantial importance (Section 15073.5, State CEQA Guidelines). The resulting error in the project analysis is so significant as to suggest the need to again recirculate the Revised Initial Study so as to provide the affected public the opportunity to comment upon the likely changes to the project and to the recommended mitigation measures contained therein. 2.4 Project Fragmentation to Avoid Environmental Disclosure Based on the rulings in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California, the City is required to define the project in a manner that ensures a complete analysis of impacts resulting from future expansion or continuation of the initial aspects of development. Such impacts must be assessed when the "future expansion or other actions" are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project as initially conceived and where the future expansion or action will likely change the scope or nature of the initial projector its environmental effects. In assessing project -related impacts, CEQA mandates that the agency examine "the whole of the action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately" (Section 15378[a], State CEQA Guidelines) and not divide a larger project into smaller components merely to avoid disclosure of the project's potential environmental implications. In an attempt to suggest that the two projects (i.e., sewer line upgrade and golf course improvements) are integral parts of the same activity, the Revised Initial Study fails to list the "OCSD's Strategic Plan" and the OCSD's September 1999 program environmental impact report (PEIR) among the documents contained in the "source list" (RIS, p. 16). Since neither of those documents are included among the references cited, it is unclear from what source(s) information concerning the existing sewer line was obtained (e.g., "the OCSD conducted a video inspection of the sewer line in December 1999. The inspection revealed defects including cracks, sags, infiltration, mineral deposits, and offset joints," RIS, p. 25). In the absence of any citation to the Strategic Plan and PEIR, it is not possible to determine to what extent the City and/or the OCSD has sought to fragment the full extent of identified sewer line improvements identified therein (e.g., "the project also involves the partial replacement of an Orange County Sanitation District 15-inch sewer line," RIS, p. 1) into smaller segments (e.g., "the existing 15-inch sewer line is part of the Big Canyon Off -Site Truck Sewer that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length," RIS, p. 1; "the new sewer trunk will replace an existing sewer line that was constructed in 1998 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length," RIS, p. 39) in order to avoid the disclosure, discussion, and mitigation of the potential cumulative impacts Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 8 l3 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project that could potentially result from the planned improvement of the entire sewer line. Did the December 1999 video inspection reveal the presence of any "cracks, sags, infiltration, mineral deposits, and offset joints" in any other segment(s) of the 7,500-foot long sewer line? In any other sewer lines tributary thereto? If the City is aware of a plethora of sewer leaks not only in the project area but throughout the community, to the extent that any component of the project is being undertaken to repair and/or replace defective sewer lines, the Lead Agency must approach sewer line upgrades from a broader CEQA perspective rather than fragmenting the larger project into smaller component parts. As required under Section 15003(h) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the lead agency must consider the whole of the action, not simply its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant environmental effect." As further required under Section 15064(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "when assessing whether, a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative effect is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable... 'Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual 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." Section 15130(b)(1) (B)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, defines "probable future projects" as inclusive of "projects included in an adopted capital improvement program, general plan, regional transportation plan, or other similar plan." The OCSD's "Strategic Plan" would clearly meet that definition. The courts, in Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, concluded that "the purpose of this [cumulative impact analysis] requirement is obvious: consideration of the effects of a project or projects as if no others existed would encourage the piecemeal approval of several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the natural environment and overburden the man-made infrastructure and vital community services. This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effects of the projects upon the environment." As further indicated in Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. Board of Supervisors, the court concluded that "a cumulative impact analysis which understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decision makers' perspective concerning the environmental consequences of a project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval. An inadequate cumulative impact analysis does not demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the governmental decision maker has in fact fully analyzed and considered the environmental consequences of its actions." In San Franciscans for Responsible Growth v. City and County of San Francisco, the court concluded that a cumulative impact analysis is legally deficient when it omits projects that are "reasonable and practical" to include as part of the environmental analysis and when the analysis understates "the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts." The City states that "the proposed sewer truck will replace an existing sewer line that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length within an existing 15-foot easement. The sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and 12-inch VCP pipe that begins east of MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach and extends through the Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The proposed sewer line is consistent with the OCSD's Strategic Plan adopted in October 1999 that calls for replacement/rehabilitation of the sewer line by 2009" (RIS, p. 29). Since the OCSD's Strategic Plan "calls for replacement/rehabilitation of the [entire] sewer line by 2009" (RIS, p. 3), other sewer line improvements (beyond the 1,100-foot project segment) constitute "probable future projects" and must be examined as part a cumulative impact assessment. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 9 Preliminary Comments • L /s‘ BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain.& Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Since no information is provided concerning the content of the OCSD's "Strategic Plan" (which is not even listed among the "sources listed") or with respect to precise nature of grading that would be required for the 1,100-foot sewer line improvements (or any other sewer line improvements), the public is prevented from conducting its own cumulative impact assessment and providing evidence to the Lead Agency that the potential cumulative impacts of the project, in combination with other "probable future projects," will generate a significant environmental effect. By examining only a 1,100-foot segment of a 7,500-foot long sewer line, which is scheduled to be upgraded in its entirety, the Lead Agency has not only fragmented the project but has limited the disclosure of the collective environmental impacts that would likely occur should the entire sewer line be examined as part of a single CEQA analysis. When the impacts of a 7,500-foot long sewer line (and other known "defective" OCSD facilities) are added to the impacts of the Big Canyon golf course improvement project, the resulting impacts would be substantially greater than those associated with BCCC project in combination with only a 1,100-foot long sewer improvement. One possible motivation for fragmenting an obviously larger project into smaller components is to avoid the need for additional permitting requirements that would otherwise exist if the total project were to identified. For example, pursuant to Section 402(p) of the CWA, storm water discharges associated with industrial activity to waters of the United States must be authorized by a NPDES permit. On November 16, 1990, the USEPA published regulations under the NPDES program which defined the term "storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" to include storm water discharged from construction activities (including clearing, grading, and excavation activities) that result in the disturbance of five or more acres of total land area, including areas that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale (40 CFR 122.26[b][14][x]). Since the Revised Initial Study never discloses the full extent of grading required for the project, the City has failed to present information sufficient to determine the project's potential obligations under Section 402(p) of the CWA. Since the Revised Initial Study fails to identify the precise depth of the sewer line (e.g., with the development of the Big Canyon Golf Course in 1971, fill has added to this area that has increased the depth of the sewer to over 40 feet in some areas," Revised Initial Study, p. 3), the quantity of earthen materials that would need to be excavated to assess that sewer line, the width of the resulting sewer trench, and the quantities of materials that would need to be exported from or imported to the site, the public is deprived access to critical information upon which to independently determine the type and intensity of the impacts associated with those improvements or compare the impacts produced by a 1,100-foot project and those associated with a 7,500-foot long sewer line upgrade. All of the above referenced information is needed in order to accurately assess the quantity of criteria pollutants (e.g., fugitive dust) that would be generated during the project's construction phase. In the absence of that information, no factual basis has been provided by the Lead Agency to support its preliminary assessment of construction -term impacts. Under CEQA, the proposed OCSD project must be "tiered" from its previous program -level assessment and a sufficient project -level assessment conducted building upon the analysis contained in that first -tier assessment. Any mitigation measures contained in the PEIR and adopted by the OCSD constitute binding obligations upon all subsequent OCSD projects conducted in furtherance of the "Strategic Plan." Since the City has failed to indicate the existence of that first -tier document, the public has been denied access to the information, analysis, and programmatic mitigation measures presented therein. To the extent that the OCSD's PEIR concluded that the plans, policies, and improvements identified in "Strategic Plan" would produce significant Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 10 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project environmental effects, the presence of those impacts, either prior to or subsequent to the implementation of specific mitigation measures, constitutes substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed sewer line improvements would produce environmental effects which either require specific mitigation measures (in order to reduce those effects to a Tess -than -significant level) or which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance, thus requiring the preparation of a project -level, second -tier EIR for any and all sewer line improvements identified therein. As required under Section 15063(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "all phased of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study of the project! The Lead Agency has, however, further sought to fragment the proposed project by failing to identify and evaluate the potential operational characteristics of the project, focusing only on project construction. Mistakenly, the Revised Initial Study asserts that "the project activities that are the subject of review and analyses of the CEQA document involve those associated with the proposed grading permit and the proposed sewer truck line that the Sanitation OCSD will implement if the Big Canyon County Club project is constructed" (RIS, p. 30). Since the grading permit is intended to result in "the placement of fill materials, within an existing pond" for the purpose of converting the existing pond to an area of more active use (e.g., "the previous draft IS/MND indicated that pond [once filled] would potentially be utilized as a putting green area," Revised Initial Study, p. 29), the change in the operational characteristics of the affected area become both a part of the proposed project (e.g., secondary impacts) and must be addressed in the project's environmental analysis. Although the Lead Agency seeks to characterize the proposed project as the expansion of the driving range and enlargement of the putting green, the Revised Initial Study never asks the question: How would those actions change the type of play, use, or level of use of BCCC if those improvements where to occur? Based on the Lead Agency's broad definition of "no impact," left unexpanded is the statement that "the project does not involve any expansion of the existing golf course" (RIS, p. 29). Could the course modifications allow for future tournament play or change the course's designation? Would such change play allow for television coverage? How would extending the cart path change in manner in which cart use occurs on the property? Let unanswered are a number of basic questions. For example, are there any regulations, restrictions, or prohibitions that would preclude the expanded use of the golf course? What is the current level of play at that facility? How many rounds are played each year? What is the current length of the driving range and how would that expand under the proposed project? Does the type, number, size, or configuration of golf and other ancillary facilities determine the manner in which BCCC is considered within the golf community? What is the existing course and club membership? Would the proposed improvements allow for any change in membership? Most developers approach the permit process with a certain vision concerning the manner in which they see their property, typically defined as a set of improvement plans and some expectations concerning the type and level of use envisioned. The resulting environmental analysis can then focus on the impacts produced by the operation of that land use. In the case of the proposed project, neither the project proponent nor the City have clearly identified the proposed use (e.g., "potential golf course uses of the pond area are disclosed since the BCCC indicated in project application materials what the potential use of the pond area would be following the implementation of the project," Revised Initial Study, p. 29). In the Revised Initial Study, the environmental analysis addresses only the construction term, presenting no reasonably analysis of Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 11 Preliminary Comments • • • /`n BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project any physical changes induced by the project. Apparently, since the City never asked for a site plan, the "project applicant" neglected to submit one. As defined in Section 15358 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "effects" or "impacts" that must be addressed in the Revised Initial Study include both "direct or primary effects which are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place" and "indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time and farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." As further defined therein, secondary effects include "induced changes in the pattern of land use," such as those likely to occur following the filling of the existing pond (e.g., "relocation of the golf course paths near the pond and expanding the depth of the driving range," Revised Initial Study, p. 29). Since the precise nature of the post -project land use is neither clearly described nor graphically illustrated, the Lead Agency must base its environmental assessment upon the possible range of uses that could occur upon the project site. One such use is the storage of golf carts upon the area that once accommodated the lake. As required under Subsection 20.60.105(a) (Use Permit Required) in Section 20.60.105 (Outdoor Storage and Display) of the "City of Newport Beach Municipal Code" (NBMC or Municipal Code), the outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment shall be permitted in conjunction with a permitted or conditionally permitted use with a use permit issued by the Planning Director. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that a "use permit" may be required to•authorize the proposed post -project use. Since that discretionary entitlement is never referenced nor the impacts of golf cart storage addressed in the Revised Initial Study, the Lead Agency appears to seek to authorize that discretionary use absence any CEQA compliance. Such action is in direct violation of CEQA. The Lead Agency's failure to identify the precise nature of the operational characteristics of the project site upon completion of the proposed improvements constitutes a material defect with the City's environmental analysis. To the extent that golf course operations were to be introduced or intensified in proximity to other adjacent land uses, those changes could produce additional environmental impacts (e.g., noise intrusion) that remain unaddressed in the Revised Initial Study. Since the impacts are neither identified nor the changes in the area's operational characteristics described, there exists insufficient information to independently determine the level of significance of those project -related changes to the existing physical environment or to compare the loss of a precious natural resource (i.e., existing pond) with the benefits to be obtained from the development of a paved golf cart storage area. Further evidence of project fragmentation exists with respect to the project's recommended mitigation measures. As required under Mitigation Measure No. 3, "the total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a 'no net loss' minimum ratio" (RIS, p. 16). As required under Section 15126.4(a)(1)(C) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "if.a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measures shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any information concerning the manner in which the project proponent seeks to mitigate the loss of jurisdictional areas or the resulting on -site or off -site impacts that would result from the implementation of that mitigation plan (e.g., additional undisclosed grading). As required under Section 15358(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change." Although likely to produce an additional on -site or off -site Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 12 (7 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project physical change, left unaddressed in the Revised Initial Study is any indication concerning the feasibility, manner, location, or time frame in which the "no net loss" mitigation will be provided. To the extent that that action was to result in additional on -site or off -site grading, introduce additional construction -term traffic, or require long-term monitoring, those additional secondary effects would further compound those direct and indirect impacts associated with the proposed project. By failing to include any information concerning the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the above referenced measure, the City has further denied the affected public access to critical information required to understand the full extend of those environmental impacts likely to result from the proposed project. 2.5 Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations As indicated under Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, where an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the Lead Agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that substantial changes have occurred to the project or new information of substantial importance becomes available. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur, the Lead Agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR or prepare a subsequent negative declaration, addendum, or no further documentation at all. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, it is apparent that one or more previous CEQA documents have been prepared addressing the project site. Those documents may include, but are not limited to: (1) "Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan" (RIS, p. 16); (2) 'Big Canyon Planned Community Tracts 7800, 7788,'and 7809 — Environmental Impact Statement, EIR/ND 72- 003" (RIS, p. 16); (3) "Big Canyon Area 10 Certified Final EIR" (RIS, p. 16); and (4) the OCSD's PEIR. Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any discussion of the relationship of those documents to the project, the presence of any environmental analysis potentially germane to the current project, the findings of the Lead Agency or other Responsible Agencies with respect to those projects, and the presence of any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval that may be applicable to the proposed action. Since it is evident that there has been prior environmental review of the project site (e.g., construction and operation of the golf course), the current environmental assessment must be examined in the context of compliance with those earlier environmental documents. The Lead Agency has, however, failed to identify and disclose any relationships that may exist between those previous studies and the proposed project. As a result, the affected public cannot place the project into an appropriate environmental context, any and all previous commitments concerning the maintenance of the existing environmental setting are ignored, and any mitigation measures established by the Lead Agency or other Responsible Agencies for later actions within those project boundaries are proverbially "sweep under the rug." 2.6 Failure to Fulfill CEQA Requirements Referencing Section 15064(6) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." As required under Section 15063(c)(5) therein, the Lead Agency is obligated to "provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments • April 2001 Page 13 /7 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Throughout the Revised Initial Study, however, the Lead Agency makes unsupported statements absent any factual data or other substantial evidence to the statements make therein. As defined in Section 15064(f)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." Notwithstanding these obligations, the Revised Initial Study contains few independently verifiable statements, lacks any citations to credible source documents from which the Lead Agency's preliminary conclusions or data sources are extracted (e.g., not one footnote appears anywhere in the Revised Initial Study), and lacks any qualitative or quantitative analysis of those topical issues addressed therein (e.g., air quality). The State CEQA Guidelines authorize the use of a negative declaration only when "the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" (Section 15070[a], State CEQA Guidelines; Section 15080[c], CEQA). As required under Section 15064(g)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "if the Lead Agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR. Said another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect." As indicated in Attachment C (Air Quality Analysis), an independent air quality analysis of the proposed project demonstrates that the project's construction -term particulate (PMto) emission levels will exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) threshold of significance criteria, both prior to and following the implementation of those mitigation measures now recommended by the Lead Agency. Since the Revised Initial Study contains no information concerning grading operations and equipment requirements, it was necessary to make reasonable assumptions concerning project construction. Even when the most minimal assumptions are provided, emission projections remain above the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria. As further indicated in Section 15074(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "prior to approving the project, the decision -making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision - making body shall approve the negative declaration if it finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment." Clearly, the comments presented herein, including (but not limited to) Attachment C (Air Quality Analysis), constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that project approval will result in the creation of numerous unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts that have not been mitigated to below a level of significance. Citing Section 15064(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "if the Lead Agency expects that there will be a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse." Referencing Section 15064(h)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "if there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR." In the context of the State CEQA Guidelines, "'shall' identifies a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to follow" (Section 15005[a], State CEQA Guidelines). Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 14 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project As is evident by the information previously submitted on the 2000 Initial Study, incorporated herein by reference, there clearly exists "serious ,public controversy" regarding the project's potential environmental impact's (e.g., destruction of the existing pond and the forfeiture of its biological resource value). As a result of this controversy, the City is obligated under CEQA to immediately commence the preparation of an EIR for the project and is precluded from taking any actions (other than denial) of any discretionary permits prior to certification of that document. As indicated under Section 15064(h)(2) of the, State CEQA Guidelines, "if there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." In order to ensure full public disclosure of project -related and cumulative impacts, the courts in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino stated that when the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, the resulting deficiency in the record may actually enlarge the scope of any fair argument by leading to a "logical plausibility" to a wider range of inferences concerning the significance of those impacts. Pursuant to Section 21005 of CEQA, "the Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency or with substantive requirements of this division may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of Section 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with these provisions." As a result, the information presented herein may be used by the Kliemans and/or by others should issues of CEQA compliance and adequacy be raised in other forums. 2.7 Lead Agency Precluded from Deferring, Environmental Analysis As indicated in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, the court set aside a county approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a sewage treatment plant because the county violated CEQA by approving a project (under a negative declaration) without first resolving uncertainty regarding the project's potential to cause significant environmental effects. Among the conditions of approval were directions to the applicant and planning staff to develop and implement definitive mitigation measures after project approval. For example, the applicant was instructed to prepare a hydrological study evaluating the project's potential environmental effects and propose any necessary mitigation measures. In the above case, the court concluded that, because the success of mitigation was uncertain, the agency could not have reasonably determined that significant effects would not occur. This deferral of environmental assessment until after project approval violated CEQA's policy that impacts must be identified before project momentum reduces or eliminates the agency's flexibility to subsequently change its course of action. Additionally, because the permit authorized the applicant to conduct the required analyses, the agency had violated CEQA's requirement that all environmental analysis must ultimately derive from the decision -making body itself. By approving the project without data showing that a solution was possible, the agency "evaded its responsibility to engage in comprehensive environmental review? Rather than accepting the agency's attempt to defer requisite analysis, the agency was chastised for failing to require the applicant to fully develop the project design. In Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado, the court found that "in the absence of overriding circumstances, the CEQA process Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 15 2-6 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain.& Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project demands that mitigation measures timely be set forth, that environmental information be complete and relevant, and that environmental decisions be made in an accountable arena." Although the project now under consideration is a construction activity and no further CEQA review is proposed beyond that contained in the Revised Initial Study, the Lead Agency has failed to present an adequate environmental analysis but has chosen to defer he preparation of critical environmental and engineering studies to a later time period when the affected public will have no or minimal opportunities to review and comment upon the adequacy and accuracy of those later analyses. For example, although the project is identified as "the approval of a grading permit" (RIS, p. 1), rather than conducting and presenting the results of a site -specific geotechnical investigation (which is critical to determining the feasibility of the project and understanding the current site conditions; the extent of excavation, compaction, and importation/exportation required; and the conditions that must be met to ensure that the project's construction occurs in a manner adequate to withstand existing geologic, geotechnical, and seismic forces), the Lead Agency fails to include that critical information in the Revised Initial Study, instead incorporating that requirement as a mitigation measure for later implementation (i.e., "prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent [and not the Lead Agency] shall submit a geotechnical investigation," Revised Initial Study, Mitigation Measure No. 7, p. 20). The applicant and not the Lead Agency is delegated the responsibility for the preparation of the "geotechnical investigation" for the proposed project. Similarly, although the specific characteristics of the construction program are critical to any assessment of the construction -term impacts of the project, the Lead Agency fails to present any analysis of those impacts and defers the identification and disclosure of the proposed construction program until after the close of the CEQA process (i.e., "prior to the start of construction activities, the project proponent shall submit to the Planning Department & Building Department for review and approval a construction traffic control plan which includes haul routes," Revised Initial Study, Mitigation Measure No. 10, p. 37). The applicant and not the Lead Agency is responsible for the formulation of the "construction traffic control plan" to ensure public safety during construction. Other requisite studies are both absent from the Lead Agency's environmental analysis and are not even identified as mitigation measures. For example, it is the adopted policy of the City to "require hydrologic analysis for all projects located within flood hazard areas" (Land Use Element, Implementation, p. 15). Although "during heavy rains the pond area has experienced flooding," no hydrology or hydraulic studies are presented in the Revised Initial Study. In lieu of that study and/or a corresponding mitigation measure, the text of the Revised Initial Study merely states that "the pipes are to be engineered for sufficient storm water capacity" and "the sizing of the storm water pipes are subject to review and approval by the City engineer" (RIS, p. 27). Although the Revised Initial Study indicates that "the engineering plan for the project site" (RIS, p. 27) is included as an appendix, none of the appendices are so identified and none of the exhibits are so listed. Similarly, the presentation of a single exhibit (which is currently absent from the Revised Initial Study) does not constitute an adequate engineering evaluation, including all associated calculations, that can be independently reviewed by other civil engineers to determine the adequacy of the currently unspecified system to accommodate projected storm flows. Based on an independent hydrology study conducted by Hunsaker & Associates (Attachment D), submitted to the Lead Agency (although noticeably absent from the Revised Initial Study) in Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 16 2� BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline project response to the misrepresentation contained in the 2000 Initial Study and repeated in the Revised Initial Study, an independent engineer concluded: The pipe system as proposed would only carry the flow that would result from a storm with about a 5-year return frequency. Therefore, requiring any flows resulting from a larger storm to drain through the proposed earthen swale. Today's accepted community standards require that a storm drain system located in a low point be designed to accept all of the flow from the 100-year storm. . .The proposed undersized drainage system will cause the storm flows to back up resulting in a small lake to form upstream of the proposed pipe. This will result in storm water pounding on the base of the existing (sic) that have never had water on them before. The effect of the proposed construction will be to pound storm water on a fairly regular basis in an area that has never seen storm flow before. Both of the above would result in the reduction of the stability of the existing slopes along the stream upstream of the proposed construction and may result in slope failure. Notwithstanding the presence of this substantial evidence, the Lead Agency concludes: "With the incorporation of City standard conditions or approval and/or mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. To ensure that storm runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, mitigation measures in compliance with said City regulations will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level" (RIS, p. 26). The "City standard conditions" and "mitigation measures" are, however, never specified in the Revised Initial Study. The need for sufficient environmental analysis is critical since the Lead Agency seeks to approve the project through the use of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) rather than following the preparation of an EIR. Since a MND is only allowed when the Lead Agency can definitive show that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the City must present an environmental record that demonstrates the avoidance of any unresolved significant environmental effects. In lieu of that analysis, the Lead Agency merely offers unsupported conclusions, electing to defer critical analysis to some later date, assuming that the findings of those later technical analyses will be sufficient to fully mitigate any potential (and presently undisclosed) significant environmental impacts resulting from the project's approval. 2.8 Presentation of Illusory Mitigation Measures Many of the mitigation measures presented in the Revised Initial Study constitutes restatements of existing policies that would remain in force and effect notwithstanding their inclusion as mitigation measures in the Revised Initial Study. Because these same conditions already exist as binding obligations upon the project proponent, not only do these supposed measures fail to meet the definition of mitigation under CEQA but they also fail to reduce otherwise significant environmental effects to below a level of significance. As indicated in Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included inthe project- and other measures proposed by the Lead, Responsible or Trustee Agencies or other persons "which are not included" but the Lead Agency determines could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project. From the above excerpt, it is obvious that compliance with existing laws, regulations, and other policies does Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Preliminary Comments Page 17 vi BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project not represent mitigation but constitute already existing project obligations. In that same fashion, the Lead Agency cannot assume that a proposed project violates those same regulations and imposes compliance as a means of avoiding the environmental consequences associated with any assumed noncompliance. For example, as required under Section 15.10.060(H) (Transport of Earth from or to the Project Site), with respect to all proposed grading operations, the following additional requirements "shall apply" to all earth materials which are moved on public roadways from or to the site of an earth grading operation: (1) either water or dust palliative, or both, must be applied for the alleviation or prevention of excessive dust resulting from the loading or transportation of earth from or to the project site on public roadways. The permittee shall maintain all public right-of-ways [sic] used as haul routes free of debris and soil; and (2) access road to the premises shall be only at points designated on the approved grading plan. Although required as part of the grading plan, since the proposed haul routes are not specified, it is not possible to determine the precise nature of any construction -term traffic impacts. Additionally, although "water and dust palliative" measures are now required under the Municipal Code, the Lead Agency seeks to assert that compliance with existing requirements constitutes valid mitigation measures under CEQA (see Mitigation Measure No. 1, Revised Initial Study, p. 11). Of the eleven mitigation measures identified in the Revised Initial Study, not less than nine (over 80 percent) are only restatements of existing obligations that already exist upon the applicant. For example: • Mitigation Measure Nos. 1 and 2 direct the project proponent to "meet" or "comply" with existing SCAQMD's "rules"; • Mitigation Measure No. 3 directs the project proponent to comply with existing ACOE and CDFG requirements; • Mitigation Measure No. 6 directs the project proponent to "comply" with the City's Excavation and Grading Code; • Mitigation Measure No. 7 constitutes a restatement of Section 15.10.060(C) (Plans and Specifications) of the Municipal Code; • Mitigation Measure No. 8 directs the project proponent to "comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System"; • Mitigation Measure No. 9 merely requires the project proponent to "comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code," serving only to restate the requirements established under Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code; • Mitigation Measure No. 10 is only a restatement of requirements already specified under Section 15.10.060(D)(8) of the Municipal Code; and • Mitigation Measure No. 11, requiring coordination of grading with existing utilities, is merely a restatement of the existing "DigAlert" requirements outlined in Section 4216 of the California Government Code (CGC). Mitigation Measure No. 2 further contains provisions that fail to direct the project proponent to take any definitive action (i.e., "phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions"). Since the recommended mitigation measure contains no phasing or scheduling obligations, imposes no specific obligations upon the applicant, specifies no definitive alterations to existing municipal grading plans or policies, and/or contains no performance standards that would then define or otherwise limit the phasing and scheduling of construction activities, the measure is meaningless and will not result in any measurable environmental benefits with regards to reducing construction -term air emissions. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 18 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project The Lead Agency appears to acknowledge that certain mitigation measures constitute only restatement of existing requirements. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec. 15.10.140) will be required as condition [sic) of the grading permit. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize short-term construction -related impacts associated with the project" (RIS, p. 19) and "a mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) requiring compliance with applicable local and State Building codes and seismic design guidelines" (RIS, p. 20). The following mitigation measures require the applicant to "comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance" and "submit a geotechnical investigation! Both obligations constitute existing NBMC or other existing regulatory requirements. Only two mitigation measures (e.g., Mitigation Measure Nos. 4 and 5) potentially represent new obligations upon the project proponent. Of those, however, Mitigation Measure No. 4 merely indicates how the project proponent should demonstrate compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703-711). As such, that measure may also fail to meet the CEQA definition for an adequate mitigation measure. As a result, the Lead Agency has proposed virtually no actual mitigation in response to the project's potential environmental effects. Notwithstanding the manner in which the Lead Agency completed the Checklist, statements in the Revised Initial Study constitute evidence of the Lead Agency's acknowledgement that the proposed project will generate significant or potentially significant environmental effects prior to the imposition of mitigation measures. Since the Lead Agency states the Revised Initial Study has been prepared "in compliance with State law and procedures" (RIS, p. 4), it must be assumed that statements in the Revised Initial Study comply with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Since "mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant" (Section 15126.4[a][2][D], State CEQA Guidelines), it can be concluded that for each topical issue where a mitigation measure has been identified by the Lead Agency, the stated impact would be deemed to be "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated." Since no valid mitigation has been proposed for those significant or potentially significant environmental effects that now contain recommended mitigation measures (i.e., restatements of existing public policy), the Revised Initial Study errors in asserting that those otherwise significant impacts can be effectively mitigated to below a level of significance merely through compliance with existing public policies. If that were the case, there would never exist a need for environmental review since all potential impacts could be discounted merely by stating a project's need to conform to public policies. Since significant environmental effects will obviously remain after the application of the City's recommended "mitigation measures," the City is precluded from utilizing a MND as the environmental basis for CEQA compliance and must immediately commence the preparation of an EIR for the proposed project. 2.9 Selective Applicable of CEQA Requirements Since the manner in which a question is raised leads to and ultimately limits the range of responses formulated, the Lead Agency has sought to ask those questions that lead to predetermined conclusions and neglects to ask those questions that may suggest a totally different response. The most apparent representation of this is contained in the Lead Agency's failure to disclose those thresholds of significance standards that it seeks to use, while at the same time, disregarding the Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Preliminary Comments Page 19 s BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project existence of those thresholds of significance standards contained in the State CEQA Guidelines that would lead the City to a conclusion of significance. For example, the State CEQA Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section I) notes that a project would produce a significant environmental effect should it substantially damage scenic resources and/or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. By failing to analysis the proposed destruction of a City -identified "priceless" aesthetic resource with regards to those standards, the Lead Agency concludes that the project will create "no [aesthetic] effect." Similarly, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would produce a significant environmental effect if the project were to produce: (1) 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 CDFG or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); (2) a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS; and/or (3) have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section IV). If those standards were applied, the proposed "placement of fill materials within an existing pond" (RIS, p. 1), absent any definitive mitigation plans, and the project's impacts upon those "species of concern" ("due of [sic] reduction of suitable habitat and both localized and statewide population declines, any State and/or Federal Species of Concern may be regarded as endangered, threatened or rare by the Department for purposes of CEQA compliance," Revised Initial Study, Appendix D, correspondence from CDFD) that presently utilize that resource would produce a finding that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Since those State recommended standards are never disclosed, the Lead Agency seeks to skirt the determination of significance by failing to apply those thresholds of significance criteria specifically referenced in the State CEQA Guidelines. The presence of these and other threshold standards, as extracted from both the State CEQA Guidelines and other credible sources, and the declarations of the Lead Agency with respect to the potential impacts that will likely result from the project's implementation (e.g., "placement of fill materials within an existing pond") constitute substantial evidence that the project will produce significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts. That determination mandates that the Lead Agency discard the proposed MND and commence preparation of an EIR. 2.10 Lack of Consistent Project Description Citing County of lnyo v. City of Los Angeles, "an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." Although the referenced case addressed deficiencies with an EIR, the same standards would logically apply to a proposed MND. Throughout the document, there exist internal inconsistencies in the manner in which the project is described. For example, with respect to the sewer line improvements, although the City indicates that "the replacement portion would be from manhole 19 to 14, which includes approximately 1,100 feet of 12-inch VCP" (RIS, p. 3), the Lead Agency subsequently states that "the new sewer truck will replace an existing sewer line that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length" (RIS, p. 39). It is, therefore, unclear whether the proposed MND is intended to authorize the construction of a 1,100-foot or 7,500-foot long sewer line upgrade. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 20 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project With respect to the proposed alignment of the sewer line upgrade, the Lead Agency states that "the new sewer trunk line will be placed approximately 10 to 12 feet below the surface in the same area of the existing line" (RIS, pp. 17-18). From this statement, it is reasonable to infer that the Lead Agency is stating that the new sewer line will be installed within the existing OCSD easement. However, the Revised Initial Study subsequently states: (1) "if the alignment were changed a new easement would be required" (RIS, p. 26); and (2) "the alignment of the new pipe may be changed to provide better access for maintenance or conflicts with the filling of the pond" (RIS, p. 40). In addition, the exhibit entitled "Orange County Sanitation District Sewer Trunk Line" (RIS, Appendix B) suggests that the sewer project will occupy a different alignment. As a result, the Revised Initial Study lacks a consistent description of the area of direct physical effect. Throughout the Revised Initial Study, there exist numerous inconsistencies relative to the manner in which the project and/or project site is identified. For example, the Revised Initial Study states that "the 160-acre private 18-hole golf course was developed approximately 30 year ago" (RIS, p. 2). In contrast, the Revised Initial Study identifies the BCCC as a "191.13 acre facility" (RIS, p. 30). Since the City has failed to provide a consistent description of the project site, it is not possible to fully understand the existing environmental setting in which the project is now proposed or the magnitude of the project in the context of the project site. Similarly, as indicated in the Revised Initial Study, the only "Responsible Agency" identified is the "Orange County Sanitation District" (RIS, p. 1). In contrast, the Checklist identifies the ACOE, CDFG, and RWQCB (RIS, Checklist, p. 2). Since the text of the Revised Initial Study is not consistent with the Checklist, it is not possible to know which of the two documents presents the more accurate representation of the project. It should be noted that the written comments submitted to the Lead Agency (e.g., "public comments were submitted to the City of Newport Beach in response to the public review of the previous draft IS/MND [dated May 26, 2000)," Revised Initial Study, p. 29) and included in Appendix D of the Revised Initial Study were provided in response to a different project than that now being analyzed by the City (e.g., "the previous draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration [May 2000] characterized the project as a storm drain improvement project," Revised Initial Study, p. 27). Since the current project is not the same project as examined in the 2000 Initial Study but is substantially greater in size and magnitude than previously identified, it cannot be assumed that the submitted comments directly relate to the project now under consideration. Since the project is of greater magnitude, any project -related or cumulative impacts identified in those comments would be expected to be greater than assumed by each commentor. To, therefore, suggest or infer that the written comments included in the Revised Initial Study constitute the full extent of public and agency concerns with respect to the current project (e.g., "no significant project concerns and/or issues have been raised by any public agencies in relation to the project," Revised Initial Study, p. 39) is clearly a mischaracterization of not only the comments received to date but the positions of those (and other) agencies with regards to the new project addressed in the Revised Initial Study. Since the written comments contained in Appendix D were submitted in response to a different project, the Revised Initial Study is internally inconsistent in that it defines the current project in one manner and includes written comments provided upon a different project and suggest that the comments bear a relationship to the new project description. 2.11 Failure to Provide Adequate Environmental Notice Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any evidence that the City provided notice of its availability and of the Lead Agency's intent to adopt a MND for the project examined therein. Since the project Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 21 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project addressed in the Revised Initial Study (e.g., inclusion of OCSD facility improvements) is not the same project as addressed in the 2000 Initial Study (e.g., "the previous draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration [May 2000] characterized the project as a storm drain improvement project/' Revised Initial Study, p. 27), the City cannot rely upon any previous environmental notice(s) as evidence of the Lead Agency's compliance with Sections 21080.3(a), 21092, and 21092.3 of CEQA and Sections 15072 and 15073(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. As required under Section 15073.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "notice of recirculation shall comply with Sections 15072 and 15073" of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 21092.3 of CEQA requires that notice by posted with the County Clerk (i.e., "the notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be posted for a period of 20 days"). Since the current development proposal is substantively different from that represented in the 2000 Initial Study, no evidence of proper noticing exists with respect to the current proposal. Additionally, if notice is to be provided to "the owners and occupants of contiguous property" (Section 21092, CEQA), the contiguous property would be all properties adjoining the "160-acre private 18-hole golf course" (RIS, p. 2), otherwise described as the "191.13 acre facility" (RIS, p. 30). Since the end use of filling the pond is an expansion of golf course facilities (and potentially the number of users), all properties contiguous with the golf course need to be noticed. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was filed/posted at the Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder on May 26, 2000 and also posted at and [sic] the nearby project site on May 27, 2000" (RIS, p. 3). As further indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "state and federal agencies, utility and service organizations have been contacted regarding the project in conjunction with the previous draft IS/MND (May 25, 2000)" (RIS, p. 39). Noticeably absent from the Revised Initial Study are any statements that a new NOI was prepared, published, disseminated, and posted with the County Clerk as required under CEQA. In the absence of those actions, the Lead Agency has failed to demonstrate compliance with CEQA's mandatory noticing requirements and has prevented meaningful participation in the CEQA process. The City asserts that "no significant project concerns and/or issues have been raised by any public agencies in relation to the project" (RIS, p. 39). Although that statement is clearly inconsistent with the information now in the project's administrative record (e.g., see June 26, 2000 letter from the CDFG), a likely reason for the lack of such comments is the failure on the part of the City to provide effective notice of the proposed project to both the general public and all affected public agencies. 3.0 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY As indicated in Section 21082.2(e) of CEQA, "statements in an environmental impact report and comments with respect to an environmental impact report shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment." When applied to the Revised Initial Study, statements made by the Lead Agency are not, in and of themselves, determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The determination of significance must be based on the entire administrative record of the project. The following specific comments are presented with regards to the statements contained in the Revised Initial Study and address or response to the specific statements contained therein. To facilitate agency response, the section headings presented below correspond with the section headings presented in the Revised Initial Study. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 22 Preliminary Comments BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project 3.1 Environmental Checklist Referencing Section 15144 of the State CEQA Guidelines: "Drafting an EIR or preparing a negative declaration necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best effects to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." In the City's Checklist, the Lead Agency is directed to categorize each potential impact under one of the following four categories: (1) potentially significant impact; (2) potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated; (3) less than significant impact; or (4) no impact. For the overwhelming majority of issues identified in the Checklist, the Lead Agency asserts that the project will produce "no impact." Webster defines "no" as meaning "no respect or degree, not any." It is, therefore, apparent from the manner in which the Checklist has been completed that the City has failed to reasonably assess the presence and magnitude of the project's environmental consequences. Since any project will likely produce some semblance of environmental impacts, to suggest the absence of gm impact is both unreasonable and evidences both the City's inability or unwillingness to present a factual assessment of the proposed project and failure to present a thorough, objective analysis of the proposed project and its potential environmental effects (e.g., "CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced," Section 15003U] State CEQA Guidelines). As indicated in Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data/' By suggesting that the project will result in the total absence of any impact, the Lead Agency has failed to present a fact -based analysis of the proposed project. For example, although "the pond will be filled and no longer will exist" (RIS, p. 6), the City asserts that the physical changed associated with the total destruction of that existing wetland will produce "no impact" with respect to three of the four aesthetic issues identified in the Checklist (i.e., have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, substantially damage scenic resources, create a new source of substantial light or glare). Similarly, although the Revised Initial Study contains no discussion of cumulative impacts, the Lead Agency states that the proposed project will produce "no impact" with regards to any cumulative increase in ahy criteria pollutant. Although mitigation measures are formulated to reduce construction -term air emissions, the Lead Agency states that "the small amount of project -related emissions will have no impact on regional particulate levels" (RIS, p. 10). Based on the non -attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) (i.e., "the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin that is,a designated non -attainment area," Revised Initial Study, p. 11), any contribution of particulate emissions will produce an incremental effect on air quality throughout the air basin. The SCAB is currently out of attainment for both ozone (03) and PM10 particulate matter. Construction and operation of cumulative projects located throughout the SCAB will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality within the SCAB. In accordance with the SCAQMD's analytical methodology, any project that produces a significant air quality impact that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level in an area that is out of attainment adds to the cumulative impact. As indicated herein, the project will result in the creation of significant construction -term air quality impacts. Notwithstanding the Lead Agency's own acknowledgment that mitigation is required for project construction (i.e., Revised Initial Study, Mitigation Measure Nos. 1-2, p. 11), the Revised Initial Study asserts that the project will produce "no [cumulative air quality] impact" (RIS, p. 11). Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 23 • • .'X BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project In order to produce "no impact," there would have to be no participate emissions of any kind generated by the project. Since the project will dearly produce construction -term emissions (e.g., "the demolition activities will result in short-term air quality impacts [e.g., dust]" and "the dust generated by such activities is considered a local nuisance," Revised Initial Study, pp. 10-11), the Lead Agency demonstrates both the presence of an incremental contribution and the lack of substantiation for its own preliminary "no impact" conclusions. By suggesting the total absence of an impact when some or a significant level of effect can be reasonably predicted, the Lead Agency has failed to meet its obligations under CEQA. As required under Section 15003(j) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced? The inference that the project will result in the avoidance of any impacts neither demonstrate the City's objectivity nor commitment to present a balanced environmental assessment of the proposed project. 3.2 Project Description As indicated in the NOI, "comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts." The Lead Agency has, however, failed to provide sufficient information concerning the precise nature of the proposed project to allow the presentation of meaningful comments thereupon. As required under Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." As indicated in the Discussion following Section 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the determination of significance is one of the key decisions in the CEQA process" since it will direct agencies to explore feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce or avoid those significant effects. Referencing Section 15063(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Revised Initial Study is required to "provide documentation of the factual basis for the findings in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA further mandates that "the Lead Agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record" (Section 21082.2, CEQA). As indicated in Section 15080(c) of State CEQA Guidelines, "substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." Although unsubstantiated opinions is not substantial evidence, the Lead Agency has elected to base its preliminary determination of the project's potential environmental impacts, as contained in the Revised Initial Study, on unsubstantiated opinions (mistakenly asserted as facts) and has failed to provide sufficient factual evidence in support of the preliminary findings presented therein. As a result, the affected public is required to due the job that CEQA requires be the responsibility of the Lead Agency. Referencing Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado, "a paramount consideration is the right of the public to be informed in such a way that it can intelligently weigh the environmental consequences of any contemplated action and have an appropriate voice in the formulation of any decisions." As a result of the Lead Agency's failure to Recirculation of Revised Initial Study Si Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 24 Preliminary Comments >9 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project provide a sufficient description and analysis of the proposed project, the public's "right" to be informed has been denied and its "rights" violated. The Lead Agency states that "on February 24, 2000, the Big Canyon Country Club submitted an application request for approval of a grading permit required for the proposed project" (RIS, p. 2). As further indicated in the NOI, "the application is a request to permit the approval of a grading permit." Grading activities within the City are subject to the provisions of Section 15.10,060 (Grading Permit Requirements) of the Municipal Code. As required under Section 15.10.060(C) (Plans and Specifications) thereih, "each application for a grading permit or building permit shall be accompanied by two sets of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology report, or other needed documents. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer when required by the Building Official. Within the Newport Bay drainage catchment area, a grading and erosion control plan is required unless waived in writing by the Building Official." The project site is located within the "Newport Bay drainage catchment area" and the Revised Initial Study contains no statement indicating that the City's Building Official has waived any of the City's submission requirements. Referencing Section 15060(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "a lead agency is allowed 30 days to review for completeness applications for permits or other entitlements for use. While conducting this review for completeness, the agency should be alert for environmental issues that might require preparation of an EIR or that may require additional explanation by the applicant. Accepting an application as complete does not limit the authority of the lead agency to require the applicant to submit additional information needed for environmental evaluation of the project." Since the environmental review process could not commence prior to the City's receipt of a 'request for a discretionary approval (e.g., application for a grading permit), in accordance with the adopted policies of the City, the application for a,grading permit must include (at a minimum) detailed plans and specifications, a soils engineering and engineering geology report, and a grading and erosion control plan. Absent from the Revised Initial Study, however, is any information concerning the applicant's compliance with those requirements, any information concerning the precise nature of the requisite "plans and specifications," copies of or reference to the "supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology report," and the proposed "erosion control plan." As further indicated in Section 15.10.060(D) (Information on Plans and Specifications) of the Municipal Code, "plans shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will conform to the provisions of this [Municipal] Code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations! The NBMC specifies that the plans "shall include the following information": General vicinity of the proposed site; Property limits, permit area limits, accurate contours of existing ground, details of terrain, and area drainage; • Limiting dimensions, elevations or finish contours to be achieved by the grading, and proposed drainage channels and related construction. In a fioodplain zone, information concerning habitable floor elevations and flood protection designs shall be included; Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of the proposed work, together Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 25 ->n BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project with a map showing the drainage area and the estimated runoff of the area served by any drains; • Detailed plans for temporary (during construction) and/or permanent sediment and pollution control facilities. The Building Official may require the inclusion of pollutant traps on the plans and specifications to intercept pollutants draining from the project; • Detailed plans for temporary (during construction) and/or permanent sediment and erosion control facilities; • Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures or slopes on land of adjacent owners which are within fifteen (15) feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations; • Any additional plans, drawings, calculations, environmental impact information, or other reports required by the Building Official. If the grading project includes the movement of earth material to or from the site, the Building Official may require a description of the haul route to be submitted for approval; • Soil Engineering Report. The soil engineering report required by subsection (C) of this section shall include data regarding the nature, distribution, strength consolidation characteristics of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures when necessary, and opinions and recommendations covering adequacy of sites to be developed by the proposed grading. These listings shall not be interpreted to prevent the Building Official from requiring other information required to produce a safe and stable condition. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the Building Official shall be incorporated into the grading plans or specifications; • Engineering Geology Report. The engineering geology report required by subsection (C) of this section shall include an adequate description of the geology of the site, including necessary maps and illustrations showing geographic distribution of the features described related to the proposed development, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed by the proposed grading. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the Building Official shall be incorporated into the grading plans and specifications. In accordance with City requirements, by commencing the preparation of the Revised Initial Study, the Lead Agency has deemed the application (including the OCSD's plans for the proposed sewer line improvements) "complete" and should have in its possession all of the above referenced items. So where in the Revised Initial Study has the Lead Agency presented a graphic clearly delineating the "property limits, permit area limits, accurate contours of existing ground, details of terrain, and area drainage"? Where in the Revised Initial Study are the "limiting dimensions, elevations or finish contours" presented? What is the "floodplain zone" designation for the site? Where are the "detailed plans" of the proposed improvements? Where is a "map showing the drainage area and estimated runoff of the area served by any drains"? Where are the "detailed plans for temporary and/or permanent sediment and pollution control facilities"? Where is the map illustrating the location of all buildings "within fifteen feet of the property"? Where in the Revised Initial Study is the "soil engineering report" referenced? Where in the Revised Initial Study are the findings of the "engineering geology report" summarized? Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 26 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Although the project is identified as "the approval of a grading permit" (RIS, p. 1), absent from the Revised Initial Study is anything even closely resembling a grading plan or the information which the Municipal Code requires to be included as part of the application process. As required under Section 15.10.140(B) of the Municipal Code: "Grading in commercial and industrial areas, tracts, or potentially hazardous areas and all grading in excess of five thousand (5,000) cubic yards shall be performed in accordance with the approved grading plan prepared by a civil engineer." As further indicated in Section 15.10.140(C) therein: "For engineered grading, it shall be the responsibility of the civil engineer who prepares the approved grading plan to incorporate all recommendations from the soil engineering and engineering geology reports into the grading plan" and "soil engineering and engineering geology reports shall be required as specified in Section 15.10.060." As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "it is estimated that the project will involve 500 cubic yards of excavation, 18,000 cubic yards of embankment, and 17,500 cubic yards of fill material" (RIS, p. 19). Since the Lead Agency seeks to utilize the proposed MND as the environmental basis for the "grading plan," each of the informational items required under the Municipal Code must be included in the project's CEQA documentation and cannot be deferred until an unspecified date after the closure of the CEQA process. In the absence of a.detailed description and graphic illustration of "grading plan," the Revised Initial Study provides no factual basis for "the approval of a grading permit." Since no information is presented to identify the precise nature of the proposed project or allow an understanding of the potential impacts that may result therefrom, the Lead Agency has failed to provide a sufficient project description upon which the environmental analysis is then based. Where in the Revised Initial Study is the proposed "grading plan" presented? In the absence of "soils engineering and engineering geology reports," where in the Revised Initial Study are the civil engineers "recommendations" presented? As a proposedmitigation measure for the project, the Lead Agency states: "Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent (Big Canyon County Club) shall submit a geotechnical investigation that includes compaction criteria and soil specifications to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval" (Mitigation Measure No. 7, Revised Initial Study, p. 20). Based on that measure and the absence of any detailed information in the Revised Initial Study, it must be assumed that at the time the Revised Initial Study was prepared, the City had neither requested nor received from the applicant the above referenced information but has elected to defer the preparation and presentation of that critical information until after the completion of the CEQA process when such information will have little if any benefit with regards to informing the affected public about the nature of the project, its geologic and geotechnical feasibility, how to mitigate its potential adverse environmental effects, or the presence of alternative means available to the City or others to accomplish environmental mitigation. Additionally, since the above referenced mitigation measures relates only to the "Big Canyon Country Club/' the City has intentionally elected not to impose those same submission obligations (e.g,, submit a geotechnical investigation) on the OCSD with regards to the proposed improvement of their sewer line. Is a sewer line identified as an "essential" or "critical" public facility that must continue to function during and following a significant seismic event? Why would the City require -a geotechnical report for a putting green but fail to impose that same requirement upon a major sewer trunk line? Recirculation of Revised Initial study & Mitigated Negative. Declaration April 2001 Page 27 Preliminary Comments �J/ • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project The Revised Initial Study states that 'the project will involve exporting and importing materials in relation to construction activities" (RIS, p. 37). As required under Section 15.10.060(H) (Transport of Earth from or to the Project Site) of the Municipal Code, with respect to all proposed grading operations, the following additional requirement "shall apply' to all earth materials which are moved on public roadways from or to the site of an earth grading operation: "Access road to the premises shall be only at points designated on the approved grading plan." Although required as part of the grading plan, since the proposed haul routes are not specified, it is not possible to determine the precise nature of any construction -term traffic impacts, including (but not limited to) public safety hazards to children playing on those same streets. In the absence of the above referenced information, insufficient information concerning the proposed project has been presented by the Lead Agency to: (1) allow a clear understanding of the proposed action now under consideration; (2) allow the public or other affected public agencies to independently determine the project's potential environmental consequences; (3) determine the appropriateness or efficacy of the identified mitigation measures; (4) determine the need for further mitigation; and/or (5) provide a factual basis upon which to validity (or invalidate) the Lead Agency's environmental assessment. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency is not allowed to "hide behind" its failure to provide sufficient information concerning its proposed actions and then to: (1) base its actions upon its own, self- imposed failure to provide a factual basis to support its preliminary environmental determinations; and (2) reject valid public and agency comments submitted in response to a clearly inadequate CEQA document because those comments fail to provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will, in fact, result in the creation of significant, unmitigable environmental effects. If the City fails to provide sufficient information concerning the proposed project and fails to adequately respond to the public's repeated requests for that critical information, the Lead Agency cannot reject those comments that are received because they may not provide additional environmental information about an inadequately described project. Under CEQA, the Lead Agency is required to "provide more meaningful public disclosure" (Section 21002.1 [ej, CEQA). Additionally, since "a public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA" (Section 15020, State CEQA Guidelines), the Lead Agency is precluded from deferring an analysis of potentially significant project -related impacts until after the project is approved or conditionally approved. This failure to examine potential impacts associated with the pending project is clearly inconsistent with the agency's CEQA obligation to "focus on the significant effects on the environment" (Section 15143, State CEQA Guidelines). As required under Section 15063(d)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study shall include "a description of the project including the location of the project." The Revised Initial Study states the project's regional location "is depicted on Exhibit 1 and the project vicinity on Exhibit 2" (RIS, p. 1). Neither of those exhibits, however, accurately illustrates the location of the "approximately 1,100 feet of new 12-inch VCP" sewer that will be replaced as part of the project purported addressed in the Revised Initial Study. Similarly, the Revised Initial Study states that "the Big Canyon Truck Sewer currently is contained within a 15-foot easement. If the alignment were changed a new easement would be required and the old easement would be abandoned" (RIS, p. 26). From that statement, it is not even possible to identify the area of potential impact. Since the Revised InitialStudy purports to be the CEQA Preliminary Comments Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 28 -,2 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project analysis for the "approval of a grading permit" and for the "partial replacement of an Orange County Sanitation OCSD 15-inch sewer line" (RIS, p. 1), the Lead Agency must now know and must fully disclose the precise location of the project, including the need for any new or expanded easements that would be required for the project's effectuation. In the absence of a reasonably accurate representation of the project site (e.g., "the sewer line improvements will require the rehabilitation and replacement of at least 6 manholes," Revised Initial Study, p. 1), it is not possible to understand the project now under consideration nor the potential impacts that may result therefrom. By misrepresenting the location of the proposed project, the Lead Agency's actions thwart the presentation of meaningful comments on the Revised Initial Study and misrepresent to other proximal property owners the potential extent of the project's environmental effects. Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any discussion or statement suggesting that the denial of the proposed project would create an economic hardship Upon the project proponent or that the project is proposed, at this time, to eliminate the existence of a hazardous condition. Other than general statements, no site plan is presented illustrating the precise nature of the post -project use of the project site. In the absence of an economic hardship, emergency condition, and in the absence of a site plan depicting the proposed use of the project site, no factual basis has been established to support the destruction of the existing on -site wetlands. As indicated in CDFG's "Draft Staff Report Regarding Mitigation/Compensation Ratios" (CDFG, Environmental Services Division, November 16, 1995), it is the policy of the CDFG that conservation of threatened habitats and listed species involves the following three strategies which may stand alone but often are used in combination: (1) avoid impacts to the greatest extent practicable on important core habitat areas and habitat linkages; (2) conserve habitat on -site consistent with achieving conservation goals and project goals; and (3) compensate for the Toss of conservation or habitat value at an off -site location to compensate for impacts to habitats and species. Since the Revised Initial Study contains no discussion of the potential avoidance of impacts to on -site wetlands, the project proponent should be required to submit factual evidence stating the overriding reasons why the applicant is unable to avoid the loss of that valuable on -site resource and must proceed with the project in the manner now proposed. The only reasons stated in the Revised Initial Study is the project proponent's plans to create a larger driving range and putting green (e.g., "it is anticipated that pond will be replaced with a putting green area compatible with the existing golf course uses and the depth of the driving range expanded to provide additional distance," Revised Initial Study, p. 10). The Lead Agency is presented with a choice: Does the benefit to be gained from a larger putting green off -set the long- term environmental costs associated with the destruction of one of the last remaining wetlands in the City? In order to answer that question, the Lead Agency's decision -making and advisory bodies must be provided with sufficient information to compare the environmental benefits associated with preservation verse the environmental, economic, or other benefits to be obtained by eliminating a valuable habitat area and sensitive natural resource. Left unaddressed in the Revised Initial Study is the OCSD's proposed plans to maintain adequate sewer facilities during the construction process. Since "a portion [from manhole 19 to manhole 14] of the existing sewer line will be replaced" (RIS, p. 1), for an unspecified time period, that sewer line may be removed from service. Since it is evident that the existing sewer line currently serves to transport untreated effluent from its service area into other downstream segments of that system, 4, • • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 29 Preliminary Comments 7 4 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project the affected residential and other areas that now discharge to that line may be without sanitary sewer service for all or a portion of the construction period. The Revised Initial Study needs to be augmented to address the OCSD's proposed plans for maintaining existing service levels during project construction (e.g., construction of the new line prior to the removal of the existing line). What is the number of homes and other customers that now discharge to the "Big Canyon Truck Sewer," including all lines tributary thereto? During construction, how will the affected properties be assured of continuing service and what form will that service take (e.g. port -a -potties)? 3.3 Background and History As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "on February 24, 2000, the Big Canyon Country Club submitted an application request for approval of a grading permit required for the proposed project" (RIS, p. 2). Although the OCSD is also identified as a "project proponent" (RIS, Mitigation Measure Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9), the Lead Agency fails to state the date and manner in which the OCSD also submitted a request for a discretionary permit from the City (e.g., "the Orange County Sanitation OCSD indicated that in conjunction with the proposed Big Canyon Country Club project, the OCSD proposes to replace an existing sewer trunk with a new sewer line," Revised Initial Study, p. 3). Since "among the comments received" was some form of communique from the OCSD, why was that communique not included among the written comments provided to the Lead Agency and included in Appendix D of the Revised Initial Study? Pursuant to the provisions of Division 20 of the California Water Code: "A district may acquire, construct, and operate facilities for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage, waste, and storm water of the district and its inhabitants" (Section 71670). Notwithstanding that authority and the autonomy of the OCSD, was a formal application received from the OCSD and, if so, what was specifically requested in that permit application? What discretionary permits, if any, are required from the City for OCSD's sewer improvement project? Could the OCSD proceed with its improvement project under the authority of its own OCSD-issue permits? In the City, is the OCSD subject to the same permit requirements as any other non -pubic agency conducting grading activities and installing infrastructure improvements? Were any engineering studies submitted to the City by the OCSD and, if so, why were those studies not referenced in the Revised Initial Study? What type of engineering review has the City performed with respect to the OCSD improvement project? The Revised Initial Study indicates that the NOI was "filed/posted at the Office of the County Clerk — Recorder on May 26, 2000 and posted at and the nearby [sic] project site on May 27, 2000" (RIS, p. 2). The document, however, fails to note whether the Revised Initial Study and current NOI were also forwarded to the State Clearinghouse, posted with the County Clerk, published in a newspaper of general circulation, and/or posted on or near the project site. On what date and in what manner was notice of the availability of the Revised Initial Study and currently proposed MND provided? If no renewed notice was provided, the City has failed to comply with CEQA and has prevented the submittal of public and agency comments on the Revised Initial Study. 3.4 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons As required under Section 15020 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "a public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 30 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project private citizens as a substitute for work CEQA required the lead agency to accomplish." There is sufficient evidence in the Revised Initial Study indicating that the City failed to conduct its own independent review of the project and the project's potential impacts and has presented a CEQA record based upon an over -reliance on information submitted by the project proponent. As indicated therein, the project's engineer and biologist are both represented as "Psomas" (RIS, p. 4). It is, however, obvious from the cover of the two documents prepared by Psomas and,contained in Appendix C of the Revised Initial Study (i.e., "Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources" and "Big Canyon Country Club jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States") that Psomas is under contract directly to "Big Canyon Country Club" and not to the Lead Agency. Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any evidence that the Lead Agency independently verified the information contained therein, performed any independent review of the two Psomas reports, or directed the project proponent to revise the referenced reports in any fashion to ensure their adequacy. This lack of independent review by the Lead Agency is further evidenced by the following except from the Revised Initial Study: "The evaluation and information presented in this section are based on the biological report contained in its entirety in the appendix of this document" (RIS, p. 12). Did the Lead Agency conduct an independent third -party review of the Psomas reports and where in the administrative record is evidence of that review? In light of the CDFG's comment that "the Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to provide the level of detail necessary for the Department to consider issuing an SAA" (RIS, Appendix D, CDFG), what requests were made by the City to the applicant for supplemental information? Following receipt of the CDFG letter, what actions did the City take to determine the precise informational needs of the CDFG with respect to the proposed project? Since "the lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document" (Section 15020, State CEQA Guidelines), precisely how was the 2000 Initial Study supplemented in response to the CDFG's stated concerns? How does the City reconcile CDFG's declaration with the statement that "no project concerns and/or issues have been raised by any public agencies in relation to the project" (RIS, p. 39)? The Revised Initial Study indicates that "the Big Canyon County Club improvement project provides the OCSD the opportunity to replace a portion of the OCSD's sewer. This will allow the OCSD to raise the sewer and replace it with a new pipe" (RIS, p. 3). It is unclear, however, whether the proposed sewer line improvements will be undertaken by BCCC, by contractors working under BCCC's supervision, or directly by the OCSD through its own contractor selection process and procedures. Will be sewer line improvements be performed under contract to OCSD or BCCC? Will the permit for those improvements, if any, be issued to BCCC or to the OCSD? Since the improvements appear to be to OCSD facilities, project -specific or general design standards and specifications may have already been developed by the OCSD for those facilities. No reference to or presentation of those design standards or specifications can be found anywhere in the Revised Initial Study. Since standards and specifications would logically be assumed to exist with respect to all OCSD improvements, why has the Lead Agency failed to include or reference that information in the Revised Initial Study? Pursuant to Section 2.12.100 (Public Works Department) of the Municipal Code, "the functions of the Public Works Department shall include: (A) Planning, design, preparation of plans, and administration of contracts for the construction of public works, including street, storm drain, i Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 31 Preliminary Comments BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project sewer, water, harbor, street lighting, and other public facilities" and "(I) Engineering planning for water, sewer and electrical systems." If it is the Public Works Department's responsibilities for the planning, engineering, and permitting of sewer lines, where in the Revised Initial Study are detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies for that sewer line presented? Since "the OCSD is currently conducting -flow monitoring to more accurately determine the current flows and predict future flows in the trunk sewer" (RIS, p. 40), what current information did the Lead Agency utilize to independently determine the adequacy of the proposed improvements from an engineering perspective? 3.5 Incorporation by Reference The Revised Initial Study states that "certain documents are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. These documents are identified on page 16 of the Initial Study Checklist" (RIS, p. 5). The mere statement that "certain documents are incorporated by reference" fails to meet CEQA's requirements for "incorporation by reference/ As a result, no documents can be considered to be thus incorporated into or be assumed to be part of the Revised Initial Study. The mere reference to every document contained in the "source list" (Checklist, pp. 16-17) fails to fulfill the minimum CEQA requirements for "incorporation by reference." As required under Section 15150(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "where an EIR or negative declaration uses incorporated by reference, the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described." Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any attempt to "summarize" the documents contained in the "source list," any explanation of their relationship to the proposed project (e.g. relationship between the referenced EIRs and the proposed project), or which sections of those documents are relevant to the current environmental review (e.g., previously adopted mitigation measures which are binding on the proposed project). In the absence of that information, the Lead Agency fails to meet the minimum standards allowing any of the referenced documents to be "incorporated by reference" into the Revised Initial Study. Conversely, if, as the Lead Agency asserts, a number of other EIRs are "incorporated by reference" (e.g., Newport Dunes), then the City has entered into the administrative record for the proposed project the declaration that one or more cumulative environmental impacts (e.g., air quality) can be anticipated based on reasonably foreseeable development that is occurring in the general project area. The City, therefore, clearly errors in asserting the absence of those effects (e.g., "no cumulative impacts are anticipated," RIS, p. 43). As a result, since the project will incrementally contribute to and exacerbate those impacts, the project's contribution must be fully addressed. The concept of "incorporation by reference" is not synonymous with "tiering." Although a number of previous CEQA documents are cited in the "source list" and may address the project site, in order to assert that the environmental analysis contained in those studies constitutes a part of Lead Agency's current analysis (as contained in the RIS), the City would need to explicitly state that the Revised Initial Study is "tiered" from those earlier investigations (e.g., "when tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations shall refer to the prior EIR," Section 15152[g], State CEQA Guidelines). Since no such reference is included in the Revised Initial Study, the current CEQA document constitutes a "stand-alone" assessment and is precluded from either deferring environmental analysis or relying upon any of the information contained in those prior documents. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 32 7� BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project 3.6 Aesthetics As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the site does contain wetlands" (RIS, p. 16) and "the project site is visible from locations within and around the immediate area" (RIS, p. 7). The Revised Initial Study, however, erroneously asserts that "the project site is not a local, state, or federal designated scenic vista" (RIS, p. 6). Absent from the Revised Initial Study, however, is any definition for "scenic vista? As a result, that definition must be derived from other sources. Under the Keene-Nejedly California Wetlands Preservation Act, "wetlands" are defined as "streams, channels, lakes reservoirs, bays, estuaries, lagoons, marshes, and the lands underlying and adjoining such waters, whether permanently or intermittently submerged to the extent that such waters and lands support and contain significant fish. wildlife, recreational, aesthetic, or scientific purposes" (Section 5812, PRC). It is, therefore, a public policy that wetland constitute significant aesthetic resources. As further indicated in the City's "Recreation and Open Space Element" (R&OSE), "environmentally sensitive areas are those passive open space areas possessing unique environmental value which may warrant some form of protection or preservation. Such areas include, but are not limited to: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution or otherwise sensitive. Riparian areas. Freshwater marshes. Intertidal areas. Other wetlands. Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities" (R&OSE, p. 1-11). As indicated therein, it is the City's adopted policy to "preserve and enhance the City's environmentally sensitive areas" (R&OSE, Policy 9.1, p. 3-17). As indicated in the City's "Ecological Survey of Aquatic & Terrestrial Resources" (Ecological Survey), "freshwater marshes, lake and wetland habitats, either natural or artificial, are limited to a few specific areas of limited extent in Newport Beach. Sites where such associations may be found include: (1) Big Canyon. ..Of these Big Canyon. ..are the most significant freshwater habitats remaining in the city. ..these habitats represent priceless aesthetic, recreational and natural resources" (Ecological Survey, pp. 6, 7, and 8). The "City of Newport General Plan" (General Plan), therefore, identifies the "existing pond" (RIS, p. 1) as both an "environmental sensitive area" and a "priceless" aesthetic resource. As further indicated in the Land Use Element (LUE), it is the policy of the City that "the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public Views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alternation of natural land forms" (LUE, Development Policy, p. 8). Because of the scarcity of freshwater ponds and wetlands within the City, the existing pond clearly constitutes a "unique natural resource" within the meaning and intent of the General Plan. Since "the pond will be filled and no longer will exist" (RIS, p. 6), the project proponent seeks to destroy a federal and State designated significant aesthetic resource and a locally designated ESA possessing a "priceless" aesthetic value. Since the existing pond constitutes an important aesthetic resource both within the City and the nation, any view of that area must, by definition, constitute an important "scenic vista? Referencing Section 15064(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "in evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project." As further indicated under Section 15358(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change." As further indicated in Section 15382 therein, "'significant effect on the Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 33 • • • 5Y • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Pill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions with the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance." Based on the above referenced citations, the existing pond clearly constitutes an area of "aesthetic significance? Referencing the Revised Initial Study, "the view nearby residences currently experience will change from a water feature (pond) to a use consistent and allowed per the previously approved golf course use. The project applicant has indicated that a putting green will replace the existing pond" (RIS, p. 6). As a result, the Lead Agency acknowledges the project will result in the destruction of a "priceless" aesthetic resource and its replacement by a putting green (an area possessing no identified scenic value). The project will, therefore, replace a scenic resource (i.e., scenic vista) with a non -scenic resource (i.e., non -scenic vista). Since it is the policy of CEQA to "take all actions necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities" (Section 21001[b], State CEQA Guidelines), the Revised Initial Study errors in asserting that the destruction of an existing wetland area will produce "no impact" (RIS, p. 6) upon the area's aesthetic resources. The Lead Agency's sole basis for that determination is that "the project is compatible with the existing land use" (RIS, p. 7). Under the assumption that compatibility is the single determination of the significance of an environmental impact, then the Lead Agency would also conclude that the filling of Upper Newport Bay (Back Bay) for residential development would not constitute a significant aesthetic impact since the future residential uses would be compatible with those existing residential uses that now overlook the Back Bay. Since compatibility does not address the issue of the significance of the resulting "physical change," compatibility alone does not constitute a valid threshold standard against which to assess the significance of an aesthetic impact. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section I), a project will normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project will: (1) have a substantial adverse effect on a • scenic vista; (2) substantially damage scenic resources; (3) substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and/or (4) create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Noticeably absent from the threshold standards presented in the State CEQA Guidelines is "compatibility" (i.e., "the project is compatible with the land use designation," Revised Initial Study, p. 8). How can the Lead Agency assert compliance with CEQA when it ignores the threshold of significance standards presented therein and nominates its own set of standards for the sole purpose of avoiding the disclosure of the presence of significant environmental effects? Since the Revised Initial Study indicates that "the project will result in a modification to the existing visual character" (RIS, p. 6), it is necessary to determine the type and significance of the "modification" proposed, comparing the physical change between the pre- and post -project environment. In describing the resulting "modification," the Lead Agency indicates that "the pond will be filled and no longer will exist" (RIS, p. 6). It is unreasonable to suggest that the total elimination of a physical feature (particularly one described as a "priceless" aesthetic resource) represents only a "modification" to the existing wetlands that now exist on the project site. Upon project completion, no wetlands or other riparian areas will exist on the project site. The resulting physical change must, therefore, be described as significant and not diminished through selective word placement ("modification"). Webster defines "modification" as "a limited change in something." How does total destruction constitute a "limited change"? Recirculation of Revised Initial. Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 34 Preliminary Comments BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project The project meets at least three of the above referenced threshold standards (i.e., have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; substantially damage scenic resources; and substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings). As such, the project (which lacks any aesthetic mitigation) must be considered as producing a significant environmental effect. Although the Revised Initial Study states that "the project does not propose any new lighting" (RIS, p. 8), since no site plan is included in the Revised Initial Study and no reference to any specific project details is presented, it is not clear whether any electrical service will be extended into the construction area. Have any electrical or other improvement plans been submitted to the City and, if not, what is the factual basis for the City's statement? Will the Lead Agency impose a prohibition on "any new lighting"? Under the Checklist inquiry whether the project will produce new sources of light or glare, the Lead Agency's response fails to answer the question raised. For example, if heavy equipment will be brought to the site, does the introduction of metallic surface produce conditions now absent from the project site? Will golf carts be introduced into the improvement area? Do golf cart contain surfaces that may produce reflective glare? Is there any lighting that now exists in the area of the putting green and driving range? Without first answering those questions, what basis exists to asserting that the project will produce "no impact" with respect to light or glare? 3.7 Air Quality As indicated in SCAQMD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (Handbook), a mitigated negative declaration "should identify all emissions associated with construction activities, including site preparation, construction of new facilities, or modifications of the existing facility or site. Demolition, clearing, grading, excavating, using heavy equipment or trucks on unpaved surfaces and loading/unloading of trucks creates large quantities of fugitive dust. Heavy equipment required for demolition, grading, and construction generates and emits exhaust emissions, The vehicles of commuting construction workers and trucks hauling equipment or materials (mobile source emissions) are another source of emissions which should be quantified" (Handbook, p. 7-2). Although the Handbook does include "screening tables" (e.g., Table 6-2) it is both unreasonable and inappropriate to base a project's air quality assessment exclusively upon those tables when: (1) comments submitted in response to the 2000 Initial Study contained substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the smaller project examined therein would produce significant air quality impacts (e.g., NOx emissions); (2) information contained in the "Newport Dunes Resort Final Environmental Impact Report" (RIS, Checklist, p. 16), which is purported "incorporated by reference" into the Revised Initial Study, demonstrates the presence of cumulatively significant air quality impacts; (3) only a limited additional review by the Lead Agency would demonstrate the presence of significant construction -term emissions; and (4) since the project examined in the Revised Initial Study is substantially larger in size and magnitude than that presented in the 2000. Initial Study, continued reliance upon that earlier analysis may underestimate the air quality implications of the current project. As indicated in the Handbook, "Table 6-2 does not cover all proposed projects or situations. If site - specific information is available, the MAAQI model or emission calculation procedures discussed in Chapter 8 of this Handbook can be used to estimate emission totals to determine significance" (Handbook, p. 6-2). Separate "screening tables" have been developed for both construction (i.e., Table 6-3) and operational impacts (i.e., Table 6-2). As indicated in Table 6-3 of the Handbook, the • • • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 35 (G� BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project construction screening table addresses only "quarterly thresholds of potential significance for air quality" (Handbook, p. 6-12). The Handbook states "for daily threshold, divide thresholds by 65" (Handbook, p. 6-12). The Revised Initial Study, therefore, misrepresents and/or misinterprets the SCAQMD's "screening tables." In order to derive daily threshold standards, the Lead Agency is directed to divide the 177 acres (i.e., "construction related grading activities as 177.00 acres/day," RIS, p. 9) by 65 in order to derive the corresponding daily standard. Under that procedure, any project involving the grading of 2.7 acres/day would be deemed to produce a significant air quality impact. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the pond is approximately 28,000 square feet in size" (RIS, p. 10) or approximately 0.64 acres. Although unspecified (e.g., the limits of grading are never disclosed), it is reasonable to assume that the edge of grading will extend beyond and encompass additional areas beyond the limits of the "waters of the United States." Since the Lead Agency has not provided any information, a 50 percent or greater increase in the area of disturbance is assumed (i.e., 0.32 acres). As indicated in Mitigation Measure No. 3, "a total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a 'no net loss' minimum ratio" (RIS, p. 16). From this statement, it is readily apparent that the project will result in physical modifications to an additional 0.64 acres (or more) at another on -site or off -site location. At minimum, those modifications will require some form of additional grading (e.g., recontouring of the area upon which the mitigation is proposed to create or accommodate the introduction of riparian and/or wetland areas). Since the Revised Initial Study contains no information concerning the location, timing, or mariner in which this mitigation measure will be performed, the estimated area of disturbance must include the additional 0.64± acres of on -site or off -site area that will be directly impacted through the implementation of the above referenced mitigation measure. The Revised Initial Study indicates that "17,500 cubic yards of import fill material" (RIS, p. 19) will be required for project implementation. The "borrow site" from where the imported materials will be excavated and transported, represents a component of the project and the area that comprises that site must be considered in the calculation of total area of disturbance. Since the Lead Agency presents no information of any kind concerning that site, it is not possible to identify the exact acreage of disturbance associated with the borrow site. For the purpose of this analysis, an area of only 0.1 acres is assumed. Since excavation of the sewer line may occur at depths of up to 40 feet (e.g., "fill has added to this area that has increased the depth of the sewer to over 40 feet in some areas," Revised Initial Study, p. 3), it must be assumed that an average width of disturbance of not less than 10-feet wide would be impacted by grading operations (e.g., "the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer currently is contained within a 15-foot easement," RIS, p. 26). By assuming a sewer length of 7,500 linear feet (e.g., "the existing 15-inch sewer line is part of the Big Canyon Off -Site Truck Sewer that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length," RIS, p. 1), an additional 1.72 acres of grading would be anticipated. When added together (0.64 + 0.32 + 0.64 + 0.1 + 1.72 = 3.42 acres), the potential area of daily disturbance substantially exceeds the SCAQMD's threshold of significance standard (i.e., 2.7 acres/day). As a result; the Lead Agency is precluded from using the "screening tables" contained in the Handbook and must present a more detailed assessment of construction - term air quality impacts. Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any information regarding the project that would refute the reasonableness of these assumptions. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Preliminary Comments Page 36 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project quality" (Handbook, p. 6-12). The Handbook states "for daily threshold, divide thresholds by 65" (Handbook, p. 6-12). The Revised Initial Study, therefore, misrepresents and/or misinterprets the "screening tables" formulated by the SCAQMD. In orderto derive daily threshold standards, the Lead Agency is directed to divide the 177 acres (i.e., "construction related grading activities as 177.00 acres/day," Revised Initial Study, p. 9) by 65 in order to derive the corresponding daily standard. Under that procedure, any project involving the grading of 2.7 acres/day would be deemed to produce a significant air quality impact. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the pond is approximately 28,000 square feet in size" (RIS, p. 10) or approximately 0.64 acres. Although unspecified (e.g., the limits of grading are never disclosed), it is reasonable to assume that the edge of grading will extend beyond and encompass additional areas beyond the limits of the "waters of the United States." Since the Lead Agency has not provided any information, a 50 percent or greater increase in the area of disturbance is assumed (i.e., 0.32 acres). As indicated in Mitigation Measure No. 3, "a total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a 'no net loss' minimum ratio" (RIS, p. 16). From this statement, it is readily apparent that the project will result in physical modifications to an additional 0.64 acres (or more) at another on -site or off -site location. At minimum, those modifications will require some form of additional grading (e.g., recontouring of the area upon which the mitigation is proposed to create or accommodate the introduction of riparian and/or wetland areas). Since the Revised Initial Study contains no information concerning the location, timing, or manner in which this mitigation measure will be performed, the estimated area of disturbance must include the additional 0.64± acres of on -site or off -site area that will be directly impacted through the implementation of the above referenced mitigation measure. The Revised Initial Study indicates that "17,500 cubic yards of import fill material" (RIS, p. 19) will be required for project implementation. The "borrow site" from where the imported materials will be excavated and transported, represents a component of the project and the area that comprises that site must be considered in the calculation of total area of disturbance. Since the Lead Agency presents no information of any kind concerning that site, it is not possible to identify the exact acreage of disturbance associated with the borrow site. For the purpose of this analysis, an area of only 0.1 acres is assumed. Since excavation of the sewer line may occur at depths of up to 40 feet (e.g., "fill has added to this area that has increased the depth of the sewer to over 40 feet insome areas," Revised Initial Study, p. 3), it must be assumed that an average width of disturbance of not less than 10-feet wide would be impacted by grading operations (e.g., "the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer currently is contained within a 15-foot easement," RIS, pe 26). By assuming a sewer length of 7,500 linear feet (e.g., "the existing 15-inch sewer line is part of the Big Canyon Off -Site Truck Sewer that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length," RIS, p. 1), an additional 1.72 acres of grading would be anticipated. When added together (0.64 + 0.32 + 0.64 + 0.1 + 1.72 — 3.42 acres), the potential area of daily disturbance substantially exceeds the SCAQMD's threshold of significance standard (i.e., 2.7 acres/day). As a result, the Lead Agency is precluded from using the "screening tables" contained in the Handbook and must present a more detailed assessment of construction - term air quality impacts. Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any information regarding the project that would refute the reasonableness of these assumptions. • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 36 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Although the Lead Agency states that "existing golf cart paths near the pond will be demolished and relocated" (RIS, p. 29), since the Lead Agency has failed to disclose, discuss, or otherwise illustrate the extent of that proposed action, the additional area of disturbance associated with the demolition of the existing golf cart path has not been factored into the project acreage. To the extent that a new parallel sewer line will be constructed proximal to the existing sewer line and connected at both ends prior to the excavation and removal of the existing sewer line, the area of potential disturbance would, in fact, be at least twice as great as would be expected if the existing line were to be removed and a new line installed within the same easement. Although the Revised Initial Study suggests that work will be confined to the existing easement (e.g., "the new sewer trunk line will be placed approximately 10 to 12 feet below the surface in the same area of the existing line," Revised Initial Study, pp. 17-18; "excavation associated with placement of the new sewer truck will not require exportation since the trenched area will be filled with the same earth material following installation of the line," Revised Initial Study, p. 19; "the project will not require subdivision of the property," Revised Initial Study, p. 28), two references to a new easement (i.e., "if the alignment were changed a new easement would be required," Revised Initial Study, p. 26; "the alignment of the new pipe may be changed to provide better access for maintenance or conflicts with the filling of the pond," Revised Initial Study, p. 40) and the exhibit entitled "Orange County Sanitation District Sewer Trunk Line" included in Appendix B (illustrating a parallel alignment) suggests that the sewer project will occupy a different alignment and/or will be implemented in two distinct phases (i.e., construction of a new parallel sewer, removal of the existing sewer line). As such, the area of impact would be substantially greater than assumed above (e.g., the existing alignment and the proposed new alignment both constitute areas of disturbance that need to be factored into the environmental analysis). What type of shoring will be required to excavate a 40-foot deep sewer line (e.g., "the existing sewer truck is over 40 feet below the surface in some locations," Revised Initial Study, p. 17) within a 15-foot easement? Will construction activities (including material storage) extend beyond the existing 15-foot easement? Where will excavated materials be stockpiled during construction? Where will materials be stored during construction? How will those activities increase the area of potential disturbance? Why has the Lead Agency failed to consider mitigation for the earthen stockpile that will be created during the construction process? While not clearly stated, the Revised Initial Study does indicate that "this environmental document includes recommended mitigation measures that will significantly reduce air quality impacts associated with the construction activities. The potential impacts are 'short-term' and can be mitigated to a level of less than significant" (RIS, p. 11). Since the Lead Agency has not qualified the level of emissions resulting from the project, there exists no factual data to assess the efficacy of the recommended mitigation measures or to determine the post -mitigated level of emissions ("the percentage of emission reductions that can be expected from implementation of mitigation measures is identified as the measure's control efficiency," Handbook, p. 11-4) resulting from the implementation of those measures. Although the Revised Initial Study states the project does not exceed the construction -term grading acreage indicated in "Table 6-3" (RIS, p. 9), the Lead Agency has failed to indicate whether the project also meets the screening levels outlined in Table 6-2. Since that table contains no category addressing either the golf course or sewer improvement project, the Lead Agency has failed to provide any evidence that the project meets both construction -term and operational emission standards formulated by the SCAQMD. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 37 (.G7 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project The Revised Initial Study states that "the SCAQMD's low threshold for significant impacts is not particularly representative of the significant impact [of the proposed project] except in the context that this is a severe non -attainment basin" (RIS, p. 10). What is unclear is how the Lead Agency can assert compliance with SCAQMD standards and then reject the use of the SCAQMD's own thresholds of significance? In addition to emission magnitude, the SCAQMD recommends that relevant "secondary" evaluation criteria be applied in assessing a project's air quality impacts. In accordance therewith, a project will normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project will have the potential to create or be subjected to objectionable odors over 10 dilution to threshold (D/T) that could impact sensitive receptors. As indicated in the 2000 Initial Study, "the project applicant has indicated that the request to place fill material in the pond is due to the considerable build up of algae in the pond and the resulting noxious odors emitted" (2000 Initial Study, p. 6). Based on the presence of odor -causing agents within the existing pond, the draining of that waterbody would logically produce additional odors beyond existing levels than exist with the pond filled with water. Absent from the Revised initial Study, however, is any acknowledgement of this condition or the project's potential to produce a significant odor impact during the construction process. Since the Lead Agency previously indicated that the request to fill the pond was the result of "noxious odors" (thereby acknowledging that noxious odors now exist on the project site), it is unreasonable for the City to now ignore the existence of those same emissions that purportedly previously served as the primary reason for the proposed grading project. Although no odors may exist following construction, since the focus of the Revised Initial Study is only upon construction -term impacts, the Lead Agency errors in not including an analysis of the odor impacts that can be anticipated once the pond is drained and before any organic materials within and adjacent to the pond are removed. What factual basis exists to support the unsubstantiated statement that "these effects are not considered significant" (RIS, p. 12)? What is the anticipated D/T produced by draining the pond and disturbing existing soil areas? How were those levels determined? Will those activities expose near -site receptors to higher concentrations of noxious odors? As indicated under Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." Since the Lead Agency has failed to conduct a reasonable assessment of the project's construction -term air quality impacts, the affected public is required to conduct the analysis that CEQA requires that the Lead Agency itself perform. As indicated in Attachment B (Additional Comments on the Revised Initial Study) and Attachment C (Air Quality Analysis), it is dearly demonstrated that construction - term air quality impacts will result in an exceedance of SCAQMD threshold of significance criteria, both before and following the implementation of the City's recommended mitigation measures. As a result, the Lead Agency is presented with substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will produce significant unmitigable environmental impacts. The presence of those impacts either necessitates the introduction of additional mitigation measures (including the Lead Agency's supportable analysis of the control efficiency of those additional measures) or the immediate commencement of an EIR. Should the Lead Agency elect to impose new mitigation measures or other conditions of approval upon the project, the introduction of those new measures would require the recirculation of the Revised Initial Study so that the public could Preliminary Comments Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 38 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project further comment upon those recommended changes to the project and the efficacy of any additional mitigation measures and/or conditions of project approval. 3.8 Biological Resources As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "a biological resources assessment and wetlands delineation was conducted by Psomas. The reports dated April 12, 2000 and April 13, 2000 are presented in the appendix of this document" (RIS, p. 12). Based on the above statement, it is obvious that the "biological resource assessment" is nearly a year old and may, in fact, be older based on the dates that the previous single field survey (i.e., April 6, 2000) was performed. It is a widely accepted policy that biological studies more than six -months old are unreliable and cannot be utilized as a factual basis to assess project -related impacts upon an area's biological resources. Since conditions change over time, a one-year old study may not accurately reflect those conditions now evident on and near the project site. Similarly, a single field survey of unspecified duration may be insufficient to accurate determine the presence or potential presence of those animal and plant species that may exist on the project site throughout the rest of the year. The need for updated and expanded field surveys is highlighted by the Lead Agency's recognition that "42 sensitive or special status species of animals and 21 sensitive or special status species of plants that occur within the general region of the proposed project" (RIS, Appendix C, p. 4) could potentially exist on the project site. Since those species are never identified, it is not possible to independent determine the potential presence of these unspecified species on or near the project site. If a "database search" was conducted, why was that information not included in technical appendix of the Revised Initial Study? Specifically what sensitive or special status species were identified in that search? Are there any City, CDFG, or USFWS policies and/or procedures with regard to the currency of biological assessments? After what time period should a biological survey be updated to ensure that it accurately reflects current conditions and from what source is that determination derived? Neither the "biological resources assessment" nor the "wetlands delineation" include an assessment of the area of direct and secondary impact associated with the proposed OCSD sewer line improvement project. As a result, there exists no documentation addressing the presence/absence of any sensitive biological resources within or adjacent to that area. In the absence of any such assessment, no factual data is presented by the Lead Agency in support of the statement that "the proposed sewer truck component of the project will not result in any significant biological impacts" (RIS, p. 15). Referencing correspondence submitted to the Lead Agency by the CDFG (dated June 26, 2000) and included in Appendix D of the Revised Initial Study, "due of [sic] reduction of suitable habitat and both localized and statewide population declines, any State and/or Federal Species of Concern may be regarded as endangered, threatened or rare by the Department for purposes of CEQA compliance" (RIS, Appendix D, CDFD). Although the "Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources" (Psomas, April 13, 2000), included in Appendix C of the Revised Initial Study, identifies "plants and animal species observed in or near the pond," the Lead Agency fails to identify: (1) any additional species that were not observed during the single site visit (April 6, 2000) but which could potentially occur on the project site or utilize the existing pond and golf course for all or a portion of their habitat requirements; and (2) the State and federal status of all observed and potentially occurring species (i.e., "database searches showed 42 sensitive or special status species Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 39 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project of animals and 21 sensitive or special status species of plants that occur within the vicinity of the proposed project," Revised Initial Study, Appendix C). Since the "database searches" are not provided for public review or the species identified through those "database searches" listed in the Revised Initial Study, the public is denied access to critical information regarding the type of species known to exist in the general project area and to independently determine their potential or likelihood of site utilization. In the absence of that information, neither the affected public nor the project's decisionmakers are provided sufficient information to fully ascertain the type and magnitude of the project's potential impacts upon localized or area -wide biological resources. The entire analysis of impacts upon protected species is comprised of a single sentence: "Because of the lack of suitable habitat in the already existing development (a golf course), it is not expected that any of the special plants or animals are present at the proposed project site" (RIS, Appendix C). Again, the CDFG refutes that statement (e.g., "the removal of existing trees, cattails and bulrushes are a part of the proposed Big Canyon project and will result in a permanent degradation of habitat for numerous plant/animal species( Revised Initial Study, Appendix D, CDFG). As further indicated in correspondence from the CDFG: The Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration must fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the [streambed alteration] agreement. Project modifications may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to provide the level of detail necessary for the Department to consider issuing an-SAA at this time. Based on this statement, it is readily apparent that the Lead Agency has presented an inadequate and/or incomplete assessment of project -related and cumulative biological impacts. Since the CDFG cannot rely upon the Revised Initial Study as an adequate environmental basis for those discretionary actions required from that State agency (e.g., Section 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement), additional CEQA documentation will be required prior to the issuance of other non - local permits and approvals. Since the Lead Agency has been made aware of the technical deficiencies with its environmental review record, why has the City not initiated formal consultation with the CDFG or attempted to correct those deficiencies so as to allow the CDFG to utilize the resulting documentation for its own CEQA compliance? If the BCCC project were not to proceed, would the OCSD sewer line improvement project impact any State or federal jurisdicational areas? Has the OCSD elected to convey its own obligations under Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code and Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA to BCCC? As required under Section 15020 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "each public agency is responsible for complying with CEQA and these Guidelines. A public agency must meet itsownresponsibilities under CEQA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or private citizens as a substitute for work CEQA requires the lead agency to accomplish. For example, a lead agency is responsible for the adequacy of its environmental documents. The lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct defects in the document." 1 • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 40 Preliminary Comments • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project The CDFG is both a Responsible and Trustee Agency under CEQA and has notified the Lead Agency that the City has produced a deficient and defective environmental document. Rather than attempting to correct those defects, the City has failed to response to CDFG's concerns and released the same applicant -prepared analysis without any attempt to correct those technical defects. As a result, the Lead Agency is in violation of its CEQA obligations. As further indicated by the CDFG, "due to reduction of suitable habitat and both localized and statewide population declines, any State and/or Federal Species of Concern may be regarded as endangered, threatened or rare by the Department for purposes of CEQA compliance (CEQA, Section 15380). . .Adverse impacts to sensitive species should be minimized and mitigated fully" (RIS, Appendix D, CDFG). In response to this comment, why have no additional biological studies been conducted or additional mitigation measures (beyond those contained in the 2000 Initial Study) been conducted or formulated by the Lead Agency? As indicated in Section 21001(e) of CEQA, it is the policy of the State to "create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations." In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant environmental effect if the project will: (1) 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 CDFG or USFWS; (2) have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS; (3) have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; (4) 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; (5) conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and/or (6) conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section IV). None of the above threshold criteria are, however, identified in the Revised Initial Study. If applied, the project would be deemed to produce a significant impact upon biological resources (e.g., have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands). It, therefore, appears that the Lead Agency has selectively sough to apply those CEQA provisions that support its predetermination (i.e., less -than -significant impact) and has sought to ignore or disregard those CEQA provisions that would support a conclusion of significance. Why were the above referenced threshold standards, as excerpted from the State CEQA Guidelines, not applied in the assessment of project -related and cumulative impacts. As indicated in Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "if a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." As further indicated in Section 15126.4 therein, mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 41 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond All, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project As mitigation for the project's impacts, the Lead Agency indicated that the project proponent is required to provide replacement riparian resources (i.e., "the total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a 'no net loss' minimum ratio( Revised Initial Study, Mitigation Measure No. 3, p. 16). Absent from the Revised, Initial Study, however, is any indication concerning how, where, or when that mitigation will occur. Since there are no additional lakes within the BCCC area, mitigation may be required at some unspecified off -site location. Mitigation for wetlands and riparian habitat is often difficult since resource areas are limited in number and comparable man-made habitat is both difficult to create and may require years to mature, Since no candidate sites have been identified, the Lead Agency has failed to demonstrate the feasibility of the referenced mitigation measure and had failed to consider any off -site impacts (e.g., additional construction impacts; multi -year maintenance obligations). that may result therefrom. Notwithstanding any inference by the Lead Agency to the contrary, "riparian" and "wetland" areas are not synonyms terms. The Lead Agency, however, appears to suggest that wetland habitat is identical to riparian habitat, such that no wetland habitat needs to be provided as compensation from the project's proposed destruction of the existing pond. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the pond appears to have been constructed along or adjacent to a 'blue -line' stream as shown by the USGS topographical maps, which would mean that the pond is considered 'Waters of the United States' and as such, falls under federal jurisdiction" (RIS, Appendix C, p. 5). As further indicated therein, "this water feature constitutes a federally jurisdictional wetland with the boundary being the top of the Ordinary High Water mark" (RIS, Appendix C, p. 7). Since the "USGS topographic map" is not included in the Revised Initial Study (although clearly within the possession of the Lead Agency), the Lead Agency has withheld information illustrating the location of the affected "blue -line stream" that would indicate any additional federal jurisdiction impacted by the proposed 7,500-foot long sewer line improvement project. The term "waters of the United States" includes: (1) all waters which are currently used, were used, in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) all other waters, such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (a) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes, or (b) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce, or (c) which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce, (d) all impoundments of waters•otherwise defined as waters of the United States, (e) tributaries of any of the above described waters, (0 territorial seas, and (g) wetlands adjacent to any of the above described waters (33 CFR 328.3[a], 40 CFR 230.3[s]). "Wetlands" are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CRF 328.3[b]). Activities resulting in this type of discharge are subject to ACOE permitting requirements (i.e., nationwide or individual permit). In contrast, the USFWS defined "riparian areas" as "plant communities contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface hydrologic features of perennial or intermittent lotic [running water] and lentic [still water] water bodies (rivers, streams, lakes, or drainage ways). Riparian areas have one or Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Page 42 Preliminary Comments BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project both of the following characteristics: (1) distinctly different vegetative species than adjacent areas, and (2) species similar to adjacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or robust growth forms. Riparian areas are usually transitional between wetland and upland" (USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory: A System for Mapping Riparian Areas in the Western United States, December 1997). That same publication defines "wetlands" as "lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water." As evidence of the distinction between "riparian" and wetland" areas, the USFWS states: The procedures described in this document are for mapping riparian areas for resource inventory purposes only, and have no relationship to any wetland regulatory program. These mapping conventions do not supplant the procedures for identifying wetlands subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as described in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Corps of Engineers 1987) or other Federal, State, or local wetland programs. The ACOE implements the federal policy embodied in Executive Order (EO) 11990 (42 FR 26961) requiring each agency to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. This EO is intended to result in "no net loss" of wetland values or acres. The Lead Agency's proposed mitigation (i.e., "no net loss") is, therefore, merely a restatement of adopted public policy and constitutes an existing obligation upon the Lead Agency that would otherwise exist notwithstanding the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 3 (RIS, p. 16) in the Revised Initial Study. Since the provision of "0.64 acres of riparian vegetation" (RIS, Mitigation Measure No. 3, p. 16) is not the same as the provision of 0.64 acres of replacement wetland habitat, the recommended mitigation measure fails to provide adequate compensation for the project -induced loss of "waters of the United States." As defined in Section 15370(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "mitigation" includes "compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." Since "riparian" habitat is not comparable to "wetland habitat," the Lead Agency has failed to formulate a mitigation measure that would provide "substitute resources" for the project's identified impacts. Since the proposed resource is not comparable to that which will be destroyed by the proposed project, the post -mitigated impacts of the project must be assumed to remain significant with regards to the loss of on -site wetland areas. Absent from the 2000 Initial Study and Revised Initial Study is any evidence that the USFWS and the ACOE were provided notice of the proposed project or that any formal or informal consultation was conducted with those federal agencies. Since no distribution list is presented, it is likely that neither federal agency was notified with regards to the proposed destruction of "waters of the United States." As such, the absence of comments from those agencies cannot be assumed to constitute factual evidence of their concurrence with the proposed absence of mitigation for project -related impacts to federal jurisdictional waters. 3.9 Geology & Soils The Lead Agency states that "the site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features" (Revised Initial Study); however, the Ecological Survey states that "wetland habitats" constitute "priceless aesthetic, recreational and natural resource" (Ecological Survey, pp. 6 and 8). Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Preliminary Comments Page 43 rLS BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project The on -site wetlands, therefore, must be assumed to be unique physical features, worthy of both identification in the Revised Initial Study and preservation as a public policy. The Revised Initial Study states that "it is estimated that the project will involve 500 cubic yards of excavation, 18,000 cubic yards of embankment, and 17,500 cubic yards of import fill material" (RIS, p. 19). In the absence of a grading plan or geotechnical report, how were these material quantities calculated? Are these figures inclusive of all grading operations associated with the replacement of the Big Canyon Truck Sewer line and, if not, what is the estimated amount of earthwork required for the removal and replacement of that sewer line? How was that figure determined? What level of compaction is assumed for all fills and was compaction factored into the derivation of fill quantities? As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "Final EIR/GPA 82-2 (page 37-41) includes a comprehensive discussion of existing conditions, impacts, and City policy and requirements pertaining to geology and soils" (RIS, p. 19). Absent from the Revised Initial Study, however, is any summary or overview of the information that is purportedly contained in that document. Similarly, none of the documents cited in the "source list" (RIS, Checklist, pp. 16-17) even closely contain a title like "Final EIR/GPA 82-2," thus preventing the public from identifying, requesting, and reviewing the document which purports to contain important information concerning the project's geologic, geotechnical, and seismic setting. Based on new evidence derived over the last few years (e.g., existence of blind thrust faults), reliance upon a ten-year old study may fail to accurately characterize known information concerning actual on -site and near --site seismic conditions. Specifically, in 1990 the State Legislature passed the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Act), codified in Chapter 7.8 in Division 2 of the PRC, which became operative on April 1, 1991. The purpose of the Act is to protect public safety from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and other hazards caused by earthquakes. In accordance therewith, the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) is required to delineate the various "seismic hazard zones" located throughout the State. Under the Act, the State Mining and Geology Board was further charged with the mandate to prepare additional regulations, policies, and criteria, to guide cities and counties in their implementation of the law. The resulting guidelines seek to accomplish the following objectives: (1) to assist in the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake -related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations; and (2) to promote uniform and effective Statewide implementation of the evaluation and mitigation elements of the Act. As required under the Act, the CDMG has identified and mapped seismic hazards within the general project area. These maps allow local agencies to undertake "screening investigations" to assess the potential presence of seismic hazards and ascertain the need for further project -specific investigation. The purpose of screening investigations for sites within zones of required investigation is to evaluate the severity of potential seismic hazards or to screen out sites included in these zones that have a low potential for seismic hazards. If a screening investigation can clearly demonstrate the absence of seismic hazards at a project site and if the lead agency concurs with this finding, the screening investigation will satisfy the site -investigation report requirement of the Act and no further investigation will be required. If the findings of the screening investigation cannot demonstrate the absence of seismic hazards, then the more -comprehensive quantitative evaluation needs to be conducted. • • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 44 —71 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project As indicated in the CDMG's "Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones — Laguna Beach Quadrangle" (April 15, 1998), which should be on file with the City since it serves as a basis for information presented in the General Plan, the entire project site is specifically identified as containing: (1) areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Section 2693(c) of the PRC would be required; and (2) areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Section 2693(c) would be required. Notwithstanding the presence of these known on -site hazards, the Revised Initial Study states that "no impact" will occur with respect to liquefaction and landslides (RIS, pp. 20-21). The State's minimum criteria required for project approval within zones of required investigation (such as the project site) are defined in Section 3724, in Title 14 of the CCR. As required under Section 3724 (Specific Criteria for Project Approval) therein: The following specific criteria for project approval shall apply within seismic hazard zones and shall be used by affected lead agencies in complying with the provisions of the Act: (a) A project shall be approved only when the nature and severity of the seismic hazards at the site have been evaluated in a geotechnical report and appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed. (b) The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist, having competence in the field of seismic hazard evaluation and mitigation. The geotechnical report shall contain site -specific evaluations of the seismic hazard affecting the project, and shall identify portions of the project site containing seismic hazards. The report shall also identify any known off -site seismic hazards that could adversely affect the site in the event of an earthquake. The contents of the geotechnical report shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (1) Project description. (2) A description of the geologic and geotechnical conditions at the site, including an appropriate site location map. (3) Evaluation of site -specific seismic hazards based on geological and geotechnical conditions, in accordance with current standards of practice. (4) Recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures as required in Section 3724(a) above. (5) Name of report preparer(s), and signature(s) of a certified engineering geologist and/or registered civil engineer, having competence in the field of seismic hazard evaluation and mitigation. (c) Prior to approving the project, the lead agency shall independently review the geotechnical report to determine the adequacy of the hazard evaluation and proposed mitigation measures and to determine the requirements of Section 3724(a) above, are satisfied. Such reviews shall be conducted by a certified engineering geologist or registered civil engineer, having competence in the field of seismic hazard evaluation and mitigation. Although the project site is identified as containing both liquefaction and earthquake -induced landslide hazards, absent from the Revised Initial Study is any reference to the Act or to the geotechnical report specified under Section 3724(c) of the CCR which is required "prior to approving the project." Similarly, as required under the Act, the Lead Agency is required to adopt appropriate mitigation. As defined in Section 2693(c) of the PRC, "mitigation" means those measures that are consistent with established practice and that will reduce seismic risk to acceptable levels." Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 45 // BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Despite the presence of these hazards and the mandatory obligations imposed under the Act, the Lead Agency has elected to defer the formulation of mitigation measures and the preparation of geotechnical report until after the completion of the CEQA process. The findings of that report, including an assessment of the feasibility of the project (as determined by a certified engineering geologist and/or registered civil engineer), would thus not be available to the affected public and would not be considered by the Commission or the Council. Since the report's findings could indicate the need for substantial remedial grading, beyond the limits now assumed in the Revised Initial Study (particularly with respect to the major sewer line improvements that are purported to be part of the proposed project), the Lead Agency does not presently have sufficient information in its possession to determine the extent of grading required for the project (e.g., "the project will require minimal site preparation," Revised Initial Study, p. 21) and the corresponding traffic, air quality, and noise impacts associated with those activities. In the absence of any factual analysis, the Lead Agency has presented a dearly deficient and defective environmental assessment of the proposed project. Similarly, the Lead Agency has withheld critical information in its possession indicating the nature of those potential impacts affecting the project site. As indicated in Section 21005(a) of CEQA, "the Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that noncompliance with the informational disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of Sections 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with those provisions." It is evident that the City's actions (e.g., non -disclosure) constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion. 3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Golf course operators have typically used large quantities of fertilizer and pesticides in order to keep those facilities in good playing conditions. Increased concern about environmental hazards has increased attention on the environmental effects of chemical applications to turfgrass and other landscaped areas. Possible adverse environmental affects of pesticides, herbicides, and other related products include the potential harmful effects of exposure to humans, adverse impacts on wildlife, destruction of non -target organisms, and the elevation of non -pest species to pest status. Unlike pollutants from point sources, pollutants from non -point sources often enter the water in sudden pulses and large quantities as rain, irrigation, and other types of runoff that mobilize and transport contaminants into surface and ground waters. Examples of non -point sources include lawn and yard chemicals, household and automotive care products, fertilizers and pesticides, and sediment that erode from construction sites. For non -point source pollutants, the RWQCB integrates non -regulatory and regulatory programs. Emphasis is placed on pollution prevention through careful management of resources and the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). Major contributors to pollution in runoff not attributed to a single point source are sediments, nutrients, and pesticides. Phosphorus and nitrogen are the fertilizer elements most often linked with non -point source pollutant. Eutrophication and subsequent deterioration of surface water quality is associated with phosphorus contamination of surface waters. In correspondence submitted to the Lead Agency from the RWQCB, issues of water quality are raised and a formal request submitted for the incorporation of specific analysis (e.g., "controls for soil characteristics related to water quality and impacts of toxic substances handling and/or disposal Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 46 • • 'L 1 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project should be addressed," Revised Initial Study, Appendix D, RWQCB), mitigation measures (e.g., "mitigation for the loss of the wetland pond value [e.g., captures first flush from rain storms, roosting sites for birds] should be addressed" and "construction equipment should not be stored within the streambeds," Revised Initial Study, Appendix D, RWQCB), or project conditions (e.g., "appropriate best management practices [BMPs] should be developed and implemented during site preparation, excavation, and construction to control the discharge of pollutants, prevent sewage spills, and to avoid tracking of sediments into the streets, storm water conveyance channels, or waterways," Revised Initial Study, Appendix D, RWQCB). Although the RWQCB is a Responsible Agency (i.e., "the site is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for issues related to water quality," Revised Initial Study, p. 24), each of their informational, analytical, and mitigation requests have been ignored by the Lead Agency. During construction, when soil is exposed to the action of wind and water, considerable erosion may occur. Erosion is a selective process with respect to particle size and density. Runoff has greater potential to carry smaller and lighter particles to surface waters. Finer particles have higher capacity per unit surface area to absorb organic nitrogen, absorbed or adsorbed phosphorus, and adsorbed pesticides. These absorbed nutrients and pesticides will be concentrated by erosionary water transport in relation to bulk soil. When these nutrients are contained in surface runoff and transported into water bodies, algae growth can be triggered, resulting in reduced water clarity, creation of odors, oxygen depletion, and potentially fish kills (or impacts on other aquatic life) in receiving waters. As indicated in the City's Ecological Survey, as a result of "the construction of the golf course, there is likely to be an increase in the amounts of fertilizers applied to this drainage area" (Ecological Survey, p. 94). As a result, "algal growth of considerable extent can now be detected increasingly from storm drains around the Upper Bay" (Ecological Survey, pp. 94-95). The 2000 Initial Study acknowledges the presence of algae in the existing pond (e.g., "the project applicant has indicated that the request to place fill material in the pond id due to•the considerable build up of algae in the pond," 2000 Initial Study, p. 6). From this statement, it can be concluded that the existing pond not only receives nutrient -rich fertilizer and other sediments from the adjoining golf course but serve an important water quality function of trapping materials that drain from the golf course, thus preventing the discharge of those materials directly into the Back Bay (i.e., "currently, the pond flows into anexisting storm drain system than then carries the water to the bay," Revised Initial Study, p. 25). That benefit is clearly identified in correspondence received from the RWQCB (i.e., "capture first flush from rain storms," Revised Initial Study, Appendix D, RWQCB). With the elimination of the existing pond, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials would discharge directly into the Back Bay. The potential detrimental effects associated with golf courses include, but are not limited to: (1) contamination of surface waters with sediment and nutrient; (2) potential contamination of runoff water and ground water with applied nutrients and pesticides; (3) development of pest populations with increased resistance to chemical control; (4) potential negative impacts of chemical management on beneficial soil and non -target organisms; and (5) potential toxic effects of applied chemicals to non -target plants and animals. High levels of exposure to some fertilizer nutrients have been reported to be detrimental to humans The primary concern is that the nitrogen fertilizer would be transported by surface runoff from the area of application before it is absorbed and utilized by the vegetation. The majority of nitrogen Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Preliminary Comments Page 47 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project that is transported to surface water sources consists of sediment -bound nitrogen. The increased nitrogen delivered to a surface water body can serve as a nutrient enrichment, causing stimulation of aquatic plant growth and, possibly, increased eutrophication of the water body. Greens typically receive more intensive chemical treatment that fairways or roughs. Although application rates and frequencies vary with the course and condition, greens typically receive fertilizer application between eight and twenty times per year, whereas fairway application typically range from twice to eight times annually. Golf course greens are fertilized regularly, and other areas of the golf course fertilized on an as needed basis. Typical yearly application rates are I pound/1,000 square feet for rough, 3 pounds/1,000 square feet for fairways, and 5 pounds/1,000 square feet for tees and greens. Greens, more than any other area of the golf course, represent potential sources for water contaminants. In order to assess pesticide runoff rates, the University of Georgia, on plots with a 5 percent slope and a sandy clay soil, applied pesticides and a 1-inch simulated rainfall event occurred 24 and 48 hours afterward. Under these conditions, only very small amounts of chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos could be detected in the runoff; however, between 10 and 13 percent of the 2,4-D, MCPP, and dicamba ran off the plots over an 11-day period, producing a relatively high level of contamination. About 80 percent of this total moved off the plots with the first rainfall event. Based on the findings of this study, it is evident (in the absence of the pond), a substantial percentage of all fertilizers and pesticides applied to the project site could be transported off the site and ultimate discharge into the Back Bay. Unaddressed anywhere in the Revised Initial Study, however, is the potential change in surface water quality that would potentially occur should the existing pond be removed. Referencing the Ecological Survey, "it is obvious that the increasing urbanization and construction activity in the watershed of the Upper Bay are causing quantities of silt to be moved to it through storm drains" (Ecological Survey, p. 93). As further indicated in the Ecological Survey (pp. 95 and 100): The major environmental problems of Upper Newport Bay all relate to water quality, essentially in respect to materials brought in by the flows entering from the San Diego Drain, the Delhi Ditch and the urban/terrestrial run-off. These materials include: (a) Silt and materials in suspension. (b) Nutrients, which stimulate plant growth. (c) Floating materials and trash. (d) Toxic materials such as herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, oil, etc. derived from domestic and industrial activity. Since the RWQCB has directed the Lead Agency to formulate "mitigation for the loss of the wetland pond value (e.g., capture first flush from rain storms)," the City is required to both determine the role and associated benefits the pond currently plays with regards to water quality and determine how the loss of that resource would or could negatively impact downstream water quality. In lieu of that analysis, the Revised Initial Study merely states that "instead of water flowing though the existing pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed underground and above the surface in the area of the pond" (RIS, p. 25). Although the above statement indicates that a physical change will occur, the Lead Agency fails to present any discussion of the water quality implications of that change. In addition to potential impacts on surface water quality, the project has a potential to adversely impact groundwater quality. As the primary component of turf grass fertilizer, nitrogen poses • • • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 48 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project potential groundwater quality concerns to the extent that there is excess nitrogen that is not utilized by the vegetation. Nitrogen losses to subsoils and groundwater are in the form of nitrate which can contribute to human health problems (associated with drinking water) and general degradation of water quality. Nitrogen loss to groundwater occurs once nitrogen that is not taken up by the plant, absorbed by the soil, or volatilized has seeped past the root zone of the turf grass, and slowly migrates to groundwater. Sandy tees and greens (the most heavily fertilized area of the golf course) are especially susceptible to subsurface nitrogen leaching. Studies indicate that riparian areas provide significant nitrate -nitrogen removal via vegetative uptake and dentrification in the wet, creekside soils. Typical rates of nitrate -nitrogen removal are in the range of 20 to 60 Ibs/year/acre of riparian vegetation. With the elimination of the existing pond, any nitrate -nitrogen removal benefits of that wetland and riparian area would be eliminated, thus potentially increasing leachate into the groundwaters beneath the project site. Absent from the Revised Initial Study, however, is any reference to or analysis of this potential impact. Notwithstanding the potential environmental hazards associated with fertilizer and pesticide use and the elimination of the existing pond that clearly serves an important role with regards to minimizing the discharge of a broad range of pollutants to the Back Bay, other than the statement that "golf course operations involves the use and or [sic] hazardous substances or highly combustible materials associated with the maintenance of the golf course greens" (RIS, p. 22), the Lead Agency presents no discussion of those impacts and the role now being served by the existing pond. What is presented, however, is the unsubstantiated and unsupported conclusion that "the project itself does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment" (RIS, p. 22). As indicated in the City's General Plan, "to prevent any further deterioration, such as pointed out in the "Ecological Survey" report, environmental impact reports will be required for any project which may have an adverse effect on water quality, and appropriate mitigation measures will be required (Conservation of Natural Resources, p. 15). Based on the above information, including the comments presented by the RWQCB, it is reasonable to assume that the project will adversely impact surface water quality (including the water quality of the Back Bay). In accordance with adopted City policies, the Lead Agency is required to either augment and recirculate the Revised Initial Study to address these concerns and to demonstrate that surface and groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project or to immediately commence preparation of an EIR for the proposed project. Again, citing Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, the Lead Agency's failure to study an area of possible environmental impact, enlarges the scope of any fair argument by leading to a "logical plausibility" to a wider range of inferences concerning the significance of the project's potential impacts. As required under Section 21092.6(a) of CEQA, "the lead agency shall consult the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code to determine whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any list...The lead agency shall specify the list and include the information in the statement required pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, in the notice required pursuant to Section 21080.4, a negative declaration, and a draft environmentalimpact report." As defined in Section 15005(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "'shall' identifies a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to fol low." Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 49 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Although the Revised InitialStudy states that "the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites" (RIS, p. 23), absent from the "sources list" (RIS, Checklist, pp. 16-17) is any evidence that the Lead Agency consulted any State list or providedthe requisite notice. The City's statement, unsupported by any collaborative data or other factual evidence, neither demonstrates compliance with the above requirements nor provide a supportable basis for the Lead Agency's preliminary conclusions. On what date did the Lead Agency consult any "list" of hazardous material sites and, specifically, what list or lists were consulted? Where in the Revised Initial Study is evidence of that consultation provided? In what "notice" did the Lead Agency explicitly document compliance? Since the project involves construction activities "within an existing operational private golf course" (RIS, p. 37) and includes not only the filing of the existing, pond -but the construction of a 7,500-foot long sewer main that traverses the golf course (e.g., "the sewer trunk line will replace an existing trunk line within the golf course property," Revised Initial Study, p. 39), workers may be subjected to unusual hazards (e.g., errant golf balls) throughout the construction process. Absent from the Revised Initial Study, however, is any reference to or discussion of those potential hazards, or the golf course operator's current plans to minimize such hazards. As indicated in a January 25, 2000 article appearing in WebMD National News Center: A new report suggests a stray ball also can be an epilepsy hazard. Researchers at The Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Liverpool, England, write about four young people who were struck by golf balls. According to Paul Eldrige, the report's lead author, a stray golf ball can reach speeds up to 130 mph. Eldrige points to the case of an 11-year-old boy who was struck in the right temple and then suffered two seizures three hours after the incident. In another case, a 16-year-old boy hit in the head suffered a seizure about four hours, after he was struck. Eldrige says tests showed the blood clot in the boy's head was about the shape of a golf ball. And in two other cases, a 5-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy experienced seizures up to four years after they were initially hit by stray golf balls. Golf balls "are able to transmit considerable mechanical energy at a small site of impact" Eldrige and co-authors write in the January issue of "Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry." Since workers may be placed in hazardous conditions, for which the City may bear some liability, the Revised Initial Study needs to be augmented to address worker safety concerns and present the applicant's plans to minimize such hazards during the construction process. 3.11 Hydrology & Water Quality There are four types of non -point source pollutant impacts which would likely occur from the proposed project: (1) golf course facilities; (2) nitrogen loading from irrigation and golf course fertilizers; (3) pesticide and herbicide use; and (4) construction activities. None of these sources are, however, identified or addressed in the Revised Initial Study. These non -point sources are neither identified in the Revised Initial Study nor the potential water quality impacts attributable to each addressed therein. For example, although the proposed expansion includes the introduction of new paved surfaces, the Lead Agency fails to acknowledge that runoff from those areas can be expected to contain non -point source pollutants (e.g, pollutants typically associated with paved areas include oil and grease, heavy metals, other petroleum derivatives coming from engine drippings, and wearing of tires, brake linings and asphalt pavement). • • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 50 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project In lieu of any reasonable water quality impact analysis, the Lead Agency asserts that mere compliance with the County's NPDES permit will eliminate any water quality issues to below a level of significance (i.e., "the project proponent shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System," Revised Initial Study, Mitigation Measure No. 8, p. 26). If this, in fact, were the case, there would never exist a need to conduct a water quality assessment for any type of project since all agencies could then merely indicate that the NPDES process will resolve all water quality problems. Orange County's municipal NPDES permits require: (1) "AII new developments and existing facilities with significant redevelopment, irrespective of size, must develop individual, comprehensive, long-term post construction storm water management plans, incorporating structural and non-structural BMPs"; and (2) "All industrial/commercial construction operations that result in a disturbance of one acre or more of total land area (or smaller parcel of land which is part of a large common development) and residential construction sites that result in a disturbance of five acres or more of total land area (or smaller parcel of land which is part of a larger common development) shall be required to develop and implement BMPs" (Order 90-71, pages 18 and 19). The requirement for storm water quality management applies equally to private and public projects. Although no Best Management Practices (BMPs) are identified, the Revised Initial Study concludes that "with the implementation of standard conditions of approval including compliance with NPDES requirements Best Management Practices, it's not anticipated that the project will result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site" (RIS, p. 27). Since no BMPs have been identified, no factual basis has been established to ascertain the efficacy of those unknown and unspecified measures. In the absence of any analysis of the project's potential impacts, the Lead Agency has presented insufficient information to determine the nature or feasibility of those measures. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the OCSD conducted a video inspection of the sewer line in December 1999. The inspection revealed defects including cracks, sags, infiltration, mineral deposits, and offset joints" (RIS, p. 25). As a result of this statement, it can be concluded that the existing sewer line is discharged untreated effluent into those soil areas located in proximity to the sewer line and potentially into the area's groundwater resources. The discharge of untreated sewage from defective sewer lines may be responsible for the recent closures of public beaches in the City of Huntington Beach. The March 20, 2001 edition of the Los Angeles Times (Section B, p. 1) reported: Huntington Beach officials on Thursday threatened to withdraw their guilty pleas for allowing massive amounts of sewage to leak from aging pipes unless a judge agrees to label the crimes misdemeanors instead of felonies. The dispute developed a day after the city admitted in court that it knowingly violated state water laws by discharging pollutants from the sewage system.. ."We considered the conduct to be felony conduct," [Assistant District Attorney] Gannon said. It is unclear how the situation in Huntington Beach differs from that in the City. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, the City is clearly aware that untreated sewage is being discharged to the groundwater basin from those defective sewer lines that lie beneath the project site. Although the Lead Agency seeks to define the project as only a 1,100-foot segment of that line, under CEQA, the proposed sewer improvement project must be defined in the broadest possible fashion (e.g., remediation of all defective sewer lines). Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any evident that Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Preliminary Comments Page 51 <17 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project the known defects with the Big Canyon Truck Sewer Line ends at 1,101 feet (thus allowing the project to be defined as only a 1,100-foot segment of that line). By allowing untreated sewage to continue to be discharged from existing sewer lines throughout the City, the Council may be exposing the City to the same legal actions as now being pursued in Huntington Beach. Since neither the "OCSD's Strategic Plan" nor its accompanying EIR are included among the list of documents cited, it is not possible to determine to what extent the OCSD has sought to investigate this issue and what, if any, mitigation may have been formulated to prevent the continuing discharge of untreated effluent though those "cracks." Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any discussion of existing groundwater contamination attributable to the leaking sewer line. Effluent that leaks from sewer lines is generally untreated raw sewage. It may contain industrial waste chemicals. When leaking sewer lines are located deep underground below the biologically active portion of the soil, the sewage can enter groundwater directly. This can result in the introduction of chlorides, microorganisms, organics, trace metals and other chemicals that may cause disease and foul tastes or odors in drinking water. Contaminants found in wastewater include, but may not be limited to: (1) bacteria and viruses, some of which can cause disease in humans; (2) suspended solids, particles that are more dense or less dense (scum) than water (e.g., grease and fats are some of these suspended solids); (3) biochemical and chemical oxygen demand (wastewater with excess oxygen demand can cause problems for soil -absorption fields, groundwater, streams and lakes by reducing oxygen levels); (4) organic solvents from cleaning agents and fuels may not be degraded or removed through treatment and can pass along with the wastewater back into the water supply; and (5) nutrients (most notable are nitrogen from human wastes and phosphorus from machine dishwashing detergents and some chemical water conditioners). Seepage of wastewater into water resources can lead to disease from the ingestion of microorganisms such as E coli (enter water supplies from the direct disposal of waste into streams or lakes), Ciardia (enters the water supply via contamination by fecal material), Cryptosporidium• parvum (a protozoan parasite that causes cryptosporidiosis), Hepatitis A (which can be transferred through contaminated water), and helminths (parasitic worms that grow and multiply in sewage and wet soil). Absent from the Lead Agency's environmental analysis is any discussion of the need for remedial action to remove fecal or other materials from the area of the pipeline which may currently be discharging untreated effluent through "cracks" in that sewer line. Are the identified "defects" with the Big Canyon Truck Sewer impacting groundwater quality and what factual information exists to support the Lead Agency's assessment of that issue? Will the redeposition of those soils (Le., "excavation associated with placement of the new sewer truck will not require exportation since the trenched area will be filled with the same earth materials following installation of the line," Revised Initial Study, p. 19) serve to create a continuing source of groundwater contamination? Referencing Section 21001(b) of CEQA, it is the declared policy of the State to "take all actions necessary to provide the people of this State with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental quality of the State." In compliance therewith and as indicated in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project will: (1) violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; (2) substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on the site or off • • • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 52 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project the site; (3) substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on the site or off the site; (4) create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; (5) substantially degrade water quality; (6) place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flow; and/or (7) expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section VIII). Although "the project will result in a change to the drainage pattern of the site," the Revised Initial Study concludes that "this change is not considered significant" (RIS, p. 27). The Lead Agency offers this conclusion in the absence of any City or applicant -prepared hydrology or hydraulic analysis and directly contradicts the findings of Hunsaker & Associates' independent drainage report (Attachment D) which concludes: (1) the pipe system, as proposed, would only carry the flow that would result from a storm with about a 5-year return frequency; (2) by removing the existing pond, any peak -flow reduction associated with that lake will be eliminated, thus reducing the frequency storm that the existing drains can handle; (3) the proposed undersized drainage system will cause the storm flows to back up, resulting in the formation of lake upstream from the proposed pipes; and (4) the undersized drainage system will create conditions resulting in the reduction of stability of the existing slopes along the stream upstream of the proposed construction. The Hunsaker & Associates report constitutes substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will produce significant or potentially significant environmental effects (e.g., result in substantial erosion, result in flooding of the site, exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems) that remain undisclosed by the Lead Agency. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the IS/MND appendix includes the engineering plan for the project site" (RIS, p. 27). No exhibit entitled "engineering plan" is provided in the Revised Initial Study. Similarly, none of the exhibits contain detailed engineering information. If the City or the applicant has prepared a hydrology/hydraulic analysis, that document must be clearly referenced in or attached to the Revised Initial Study so that the affected public can review the Lead Agency's basis for its conclusions and subject that study to independent peer review. Data that is sequestered by the Lead Agency and withheld from the public has little benefit in demonstrating "to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its actions" (Section 15003[d], State CEQA Guidelines). 3.12 Land Use and Planning As indicated in OPR's "Thresholds of Significance: Criteria for Defining Environmental Significance" (OPR, CEQA Technical Advisory Service, September 1994, p. 6): A note of caution regarding the use of general plan policies: remember that a threshold represents that point at which a project's potential environmental effects are considered significant. The focus of the threshold is on actual limits to significant environmental impacts. When general plan policies or standards do not actually limit the potential impact of a project to a particular level they are not effective measures of significance. Accordingly, at least two courts have held that 'conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Preliminary Comments Page 53 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain SiSewer Transmission Pipeline Project can be fairly argued that the project will generate a significant environmental effect'" Several cases have considered and rejected the application of existing laws and regulations in lieu of thresholds of significance. Compliance with such laws does not automatically render impacts insignificant (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado). Compliance with adopted plans and policies has also been held not to be an adequate basis for concluding that a project will not cause significant impacts. The project must be evaluated based on its impact on the existing environment (see also Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado and City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors). The determination of whether the proposed project will produce a significant land ute impact, therefore, cannot be based solely upon whether the project is consistent with City plans and policies (e.g., "the proposed project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and designated use of the property," Revised Initial Study, p. 30). As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the City's Local Coastal Program identifies environmentally sensitive areas. These areas are mostly water -associated habitats, such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas" (RIS, p. 30). The proposed project, therefore, appears to conflict with those policies of City's Local Coastal Program adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Revised Initial Study further states that "the proposed project complies with the City's General Plan and Zoning regulations" (RIS, p. 29). In support of that conclusion, the Revised Initial Study identifies the following policy, as extracted from the R&OSE: "Maintain a recreation and open space system which meets the recreational needs of the citizens of Newport Beach and which enhances the unique recreational and environmental resources of the City" (RIS, p. 30). As indicated in the Ecological Survey: "Freshwater marshes, lake and wetland habitats, either natural or artificial, are limited to a few specific areas of limited extent in Newport Beach. ..these habitats represent a priceless aesthetic, recreational and natural resource" (Ecological Survey, pp. 6 and 8). As indicated in the General Plan, the existing on -site wetland constitutes an identified "recreational and natural resource." The proposed modifications to the golf course (e.g., "putting green area, the driving range modification, and relocation of golf cart path," Revised Initial Study, p. 29), however, do not include elements identified as a "Unique recreational and environmental resource" in the General Plan. As a result, the proposed destruction of the existing wetlands violates the policies the R&OSE adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environnental effect. Similarly, a number of additional policies can be cited indicating that the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan. Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any reference to the following General Plan policies: ■ The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alternation of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs (LUE, Development Policy, p. 8); • Restrict and control development in flood hazard areas (LUE, Development Policy, p. 15); ■ Require hydrologic analysis for all projects located within flood hazard areas (LUE, Implementation, p. 15); • To prevent any further deterioration, such as pointed out in the "Ecological Survey" report, environmental impact reports will be required for any project which may have an adverse effect • • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 54 co BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project on water quality, and appropriate mitigation measures will be required (Conservation of Natural Resources, p. 15); • All street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City will be designed, constructed, and maintained in such manner as to minimize adverse impacts on water quality (Conservation of Natural Resources, p. 16); • It shall be the policy of Newport Beach to take the lead in .promoting the above -mentioned proposals to correct past deficiencies as well as to control future development (Conservation of Natural Resources, p. 17); and • With increasing urban development, the amounts of water derived from domestic run-off are increasing and should be quantified. The significance of this urban/domestic run-off lies in its content of fertilizers, detergents and the products of automobile use, as discussed later. Once accurate estimates are available of the quantity of water involved it will be possible to suggest ways by which the content of unwanted material can be controlled, the run-off treated, and its disposal considered (Ecological Survey, p. 102); and • Virtually all freshwater flows entering the Bay are nutrient rich, to a greater or lesser extent. The continued well-being and indeed existence of the Bay as a habitat depends upon the extent to which nutrient materials entering are controlled, because unwanted growth in aquatic habitats leads to oxygen depletion (Ecological Survey, p. 103). A project is consistent with the general plan only "'if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment" (Corona -Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona, quoting an advisory general plan guideline from OPR). The proposed project appears not to conform to any of the above referenced policies, each of which were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In addition, the LUE states: "Big Canyon Country Club — This golf course with related facilities is located within the Big Canyon Planned Community and is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space to allow the continuation of this 191.13 acre facility. Maximum development permitted is 65,000 sq. ft." (Land Use Element, p. 71). Nowhere in the Revised Initial Study does the Lead Agency define "permitted" development nor indicate the total permitted development that now comprises the Big Canyon Planned Community. The Revised Initial Study erroneously states that the "proposed project is consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element" (RIS, p. 31). The Lead Agency, however, neglects to reference Policy 9.1 (R&OSE, p. 3-17) which states that: Environmentally sensitive areas are those passive open space areas possessing unique environmental value which may warrant some form of protection or preservation. Such areas include, but are not limited to: [1] Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution or otherwise sensitive. [2] Riparian areas. [3] Freshwater marshes. [4] Intertidal areas. [5] Other wetlands. [6] Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities" (R&OSE, p. 1-11). As further indicated therein, it is the City's adopted policy to "preserve and enhance the City's environmentally sensitive areas (ESA's). It is, therefore, the adopted policy of the City to "preserve and enhance" the City's precious ESA's, which include the on -site wetland are located on the BCCC. Based on the above policy, it is evident that the project is not consistent with the General Plan and that the Revised Initial Study presents a deficient assessment of both General Plan consistent and the project's potential land use impacts. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 55 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond All, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project 3.13 Noise As indicated under Section 21001(6) of CEQA, it is the policy of the State to "take all actions necessary to provide the people of this State with dean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetics, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise." In accordance with the standards included in the State CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project will: (1) expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; and/or (2) produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section XI). Although the Lead Agency acknowledges that "the project will result in short-term construction related noise impacts" (RIS, p. 33), the City fails to conduct a reasonable assessment of construction -term impacts. For example, although asingle•family residential" are located to "the north of the pond" (RIS, p. 1), the Lead Agency never discloses the distance between the nearest residential receptor and the project site. Disclosure of that distance is critical to any assessment of construction -term impacts. As required uhder Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) of the Municipal Code, allowable exterior noise levels in single-family residential areas (defined as Noise Zone I) are defined as 55 dB(A) between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and 50 dBA between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. As further required under Section 10.26.025(B) therein, "it is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed either of the following: (1) The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen -minute period; (2) A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A -weighted slow response)? Pursuant to Section 10.26.025(D) of the Municipal Code, "noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property" are deemed to be exempt from the above standard. That exemption, however, does not constitute a supportable basis for the Lead Agency to fail to present a reasonable acoustical analysis of construction noise as part of the Revised Initial Study and to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, any significant environmental effects that may result from the project's implementation. Throughout the Revised Initial Study, the Lead Agency identifies "mitigation measures" for numerous impacts that the City deems to be either "less than significant" prior to mitigation or for which "no impact" is anticipated (e.g., "due to the limited size of the project site and type of construction activities, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant traffic impacts. However, a mitigation measure is recommended," Revised Initial Study, p. 37). The Revised Initial Study, therefore, contains a precedence to include mitigation notwithstanding the absence of any significant environmental effects. In that same context, in order to provide internal consistency throughout the Revised Initial Study, the Lead Agency is required to formulate reasonable mitigation measures for the project's anticipated construction -term noise impacts. As required under Section 21001(6) of CEQA, it is the policy of the State Legislature that agencies shall "take all actions necessary to provide the people of the state with clean air and water, • • • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 56 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise." Since "a lead agency for a project has authority to require changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment" (Section 15041[a], State CEQA Guidelines), the Lead Agency is precluded from deferring a reasonable analysis of noise impacts merely by asserting that project -generated noise is exempt from analysis merely because the Municipal Code exempts construction noise conducted during specific hours. The need for such analysis is further demonstrated by the Lead Agency's own statement that "the project will result in short-term construction -related noise impacts" (RIS, p. 33). Since the Revised Initial Study fails to include any ambient noise measures conducted in the general project area, it must be assumed that the existing noise environment currently conforms to the City's noise ordinance (e.g., 55 dBA between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM). It is then within that existing environmental setting that noise associated with construction activities must be evaluated. As indicated in the State CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project will produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section XI). The Revised Initial Study states that "noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high noise levels" (RIS, p. 34). The greatest noise levels associated with construction activities are typically generated by large earth -moving equipment. The noise produced by an assemblage of heavy equipment typically range up to about 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance. Assuming that the nearest residential receptor is 100 feet from the project site (i.e., source of construction noise), noise levels at that receptor location would be predicted to be about 83 dBA or 28 dBA higher than under existing ambient conditions. As indicated in the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) "Noise Technical Analysis Notes," "outside of controlled environments, changes of 2 to 3 dBA are required before a difference can be discerned" (Noise Technical Analysis Notes, March 12, 1991, p. 2000-12). Clearly, a 28 dBA increase in noise levels constitutes a substantial increase and would, therefore, represent a significant environmental effect (i.e., "a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project," Section 15002[g], State CEQA Guidelines). Noise mitigation should, therefore, be included to reduce those noise levels to the maximum extent feasible (e.g., "CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible," Section 15021[a], State CEQA Guidelines). 3.14 Utilities and Service Systems It is not until the very end of the Revised Initial Study that the City acknowledges that "infrastructure improvement plans (water and sewer) have not been finalized" (RIS, p. 39). That statement, however, appears to contradict the earlier assertion that "the IS/MND appendix includes the engineering plan for the project site" (RIS, p. 27). No such plans, however, were included in the Revised Initial Study. In the absence of those plans and based on the Lead Agency's own declaration that plans are only in "'draft' form" (RIS, p. 39), insufficient information concerning the existing environmental setting in which the project is proposed (e.g., as would be contained in a Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 57 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill; Storm Drain& Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project project -specific geotechnical report), the precise character of the proposed project (e.g., need for any additional utility easements), or the project's construction characteristics (e.g., extend of site disturbance required for construction) is available to allow for any meaningful assessment of project -related and cumulative environmental effects. For example, in the absence of reasonably complete development plans for the proposed sewer line improvements, the Lead Agency lacks any supportable basis to conclude that construction -term impacts will be less than significant. Since "the OCSD is currently conducting flow monitoring to more accurately determine the current flows and predict future flows in the trunk sewer" (RIS, p. 40), it is apparent that requisite engineering studies have not been completed for the project. In the absence of those studies and their presentation as part of the project's environmental review, insufficient information is now available to determine existing flow rates within the sewer line, to determine remaining capacity in those lines, and to accurately size any replacement facilities. It is, therefore, premature to issue permits for sewer line construction when the studies needed for the design of those facilities have yet to be completed. Referencing Section 15004(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "choosing the precise time for CEQA compliance involves a balancing of competing factors. EIRs and negative declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment." In the above context, "meaningful information" would constitute a reasonably precise description of the proposed project, a clear understanding of the discretionary actions now under consideration, and information sufficient to allow a quantitative assessment of the project's potential environmental effects. If that information is in the possession of the Lead Agency, it has yet to work its way into the Revised Initial Study. As a result, the Revised Initial Study fails to provide sufficient information concerning the proposed project to service as an adequate project -level assessment of the proposed action, Paraphrasing Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a MND "on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be" a MND "on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy." That level of detail, however, is currently absent both from the Revised Initial Study and the Lead Agency's environmental assessment. The Lead Agency erroneously asserts that "no significant project concerns and/or issues have been raised by any public agencies in relation to the project" (RIS, p. 39). That statement is clearly inconsistent with the statements contained in correspondence submitted to the Lead Agency from the CDFG and RWQCB and included in Appendix D of the Revised Initial Study. Referencing correspondence from the RWQCB, dated June 30, 2000, numerous defects have been identified with the 2000 Initial Study that have yet to be addressed in the Revised Initial Study. Those defects include, but are not limited to: (1) "impacts and removal of habitat and vegetation should be discussed and mitigated"; (2) "mitigation for the loss of the wetland pond value should be addressed"; (3) "appropriate best management practices should be developed and implemented during site preparation, excavation, and construction to control the discharge of pollutants, prevent sewage spills, and to avoid tracking of sediments into the streets, storm water conveyance channels, or waterways"; and (4) "controls for soil characteristics related to water quality and impacts of toxic substances handling and/or disposal should be addressed" (RIS, Appendix D, RWQCB). As further indicated in correspondence submitted by the CDFG, dated June 26, 2000, "the Draft Initial Study Recirculation of Revised Initial Study& Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April'2001 Page 58 • • • • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project & Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to provide the level of detail necessary for the Department to consider issuing an SAA at this time" (RIS, Appendix D, CDFG). The above statements clearly refutes the City's unsupported statement than no concerns or issues have been raised by any public agency with regard to the proposed project. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "the OCSD conducted a video inspection of the sewer line in December 1999. The inspection revealed defects including cracks, sags, infiltration, mineral deposits, and offset joints" (RIS, p. 25). Absent from the Initial Study is any indication whether the identified defects are limited to the 1,100-foot long sewer line improvement project purportedly addressed in the Revised Initial Study or whether other sewer lines in the City may also contain similar sewer defects. Referencing an April 1, 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times, "Orange County agencies have identified at least $2 billion in needed sewer upgrades in coming years" (Los Angeles Times, Section B, p. 1). The Lead Agency never acknowledges to what extend the City's sewer system is in need of repair, to what extend the City is monitoring that problem, the level of disclosure that has occurred with the RWQCB and other resource agencies, what plans have been formulated for localized and area -wide improvements (including capital improvement plans), the level of groundwater contamination suspected as a result of those localized and area -wide defects, and the secondary impacts resulting from that contamination. Since "the term 'project' has been interpreted to man far more than the ordinary dictionary definition of the term" (Section 15002[d], State CEQA Guidelines), since the Revised Initial Study discloses the presence of a sewer system that may contain "cracks, sages, infiltration, mineral deposits, and off joints" extending far beyond the 1,100-foot segment addressed in the Revised Initial Study, any project undertaken to correct those defects must first be examined in the context of the area -wide, City-wide, and regional problems that the project seeks to resolve. For example, absent from the Revised Initial Study is any reference to the City's or OCSD's capital improvement projects and which additional segments of the City's sewer system are planned to be improved over the next couple of years. Those additional infrastructure improvement projects constitute related projects that have the potential to added to the project's cumulative impacts (e.g., "the cumulative impact form several projects is the change in the environment which. results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects," Section 15355[b], State CEQA Guidelines). What additional infrastructure improvement projects have been identified in the City's and in OCSD's current and future year capital improvement programs (CIP)? Does inclusion of a project in a CIP constitute a commitment of intended commitment of funds to implement those activities identified therein? Are the infrastructure improvement projects listed in a CIP "reasonably foreseeable probable future projects" within the context of CEQA? 3.15 Mandatory Findings of Significance As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, "no cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. . .The project will not result in environmental effects that are cumulatively considerable based on evaluation of projected growth and planned projects for the project area know as of the date of this analysis" (RIS, p. 43). Absent from the Revised Initial Study is any reference to or listing of either "other" or "planned projects." Similarly, absent from the Revised Initial Study is any "evaluation of projected growth." As a result, absent disclosure and a reasonable analysis, the Lead Agency has failed to establish a factual basis for the above assertion. Since the affected public would have no way of ascertaining or independently developing a list of Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 59 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project "other projects" or other "planned projects," the City's failure to identify the list of projects that were considered in the evaluation of cumulative impacts has prevented the affected public from submitting meaningful comments with regards to the potential significance of the projects cumulative impacts. As indicated in the "Public Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Dunes Resort" (NOA) "construction emissions from airborne dust and heavy equipment will result in short-term adverse impacts. Also‘ operation of the proposed hotel and time-share resort will result in significant cumulative contributions of vehicle and operational emissions in a non -attainment area." From this statement, it is evident that other reasonably foreseeable future projects know to the City will generate cumulatively significant air quality impacts. Since the Lead Agency asserts that the "Newport Dunes Resort Final Environmental Impact Report" (RIS, Checklist, p. 17) is "incorporated by reference;' the Lead Agency's own record demonstrates that no factual basis exists for the assertion that "no cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects." What "planned projects" were identified by the Lead Agency in "Newport Dunes Resort Final Environmental Impact Report" (RIS, p. 17) and what, if any, cumulative environmental impacts were identified therein? Does the OCSD's "Strategic Plan" contain a list of other sewer system improvements beyond the 1,100-foot segment addressed in the Revised Initial Study and, if so, what additional improvements are identified therein? As required under Section 15064(i)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "when a project might contribute to a significant cumulative impact, but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through the mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable." Despite this requirement (i.e., "shall"), absent from the Revised Initial Study is any explanation of the Lead Agency's rationale supporting its determination that "the project will not result in environmental effects that are cumulatively considerable." 3.16 Appendices Included in Appendix D of the Revised Initial Study is a letter, dated June 23, 2000 from Homer L. Bludau, City Manger to Dr. and Mrs. Klieman. Although its inclusion is appreciated, the Lead Agency's rationale for adding that letter to the Revised Initial Study is unclear since; (1) the Kliemans letter to the City is itself not included; (2) the letter from the City Manager does not specifically relate to the environmental process; and (3) other letter more or equally relevant to the project are noticeably absent from the Revised Initial Study (e.g., "among the comments received, the Orange County Sanitation OCSD [OCSD] indicated that in conjunction with the proposed Big Canyon Country Club project, the OCSD proposes to replace an existing sewer truck with a new sewer line. The City of Newport Beach reviewed all comments received on draft IS/MND (5/26/00) and taking into consideration the OCSD's request, determined that the draft CEQA document should be revised and recirculated for public review," Revised Initial Study, p. 3). The referenced letter, however, states that "the final document will incorporate responses to comments from the public and other agencies and will recommend changes and/or additional mitigation measures." Since the letter is from the City Manager, the above statement must be construed as a binding commitment on the part of the Lead Agency of its intent to prepare written Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 60 6,0 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project "responses" to all comments submitted to the City in response to the dissemination of the Revised Initial Study. The Kliemans appreciate that commitment and look forward to receipt of the City's written response to each of the issues, items, and inquires raised both herein and in any other correspondence submitted "from the public and other agencies." As further indicated by Mr. Bludau, "the City's discretion to deny a grading permit is very limited — we can only do so if the project proponents fail to comply with the grading requirements as outlined in Chapter 15.10 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code." Based on the statements contained in the Revised Initial Study, it must be assumed that a "grading permit" constitutes a discretionary and not a ministerial action in the City. Under a discretionary action, the permitting agency has broad discretion to deny, condition, or substantially modify the requested permit. Is a "grading permit" deemed to be a discretionary or ministerial action? Absent from the project's administrative record is any evidence of the applicants' compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code (e.g., compliance is required as a mitigation measure). A mitigation study, such as a geotechnical investigation, conducted after project approval will inevitably have a diminished influence on sound decision -making (see Sundstrom v. City of Mendocino). Since compliance cannot yet be demonstrated, based on the above statement from the City Manager, the Lead Agency lacks the authority to approve the requested grading permit at this time. Since compliance with the submission requirements outlined in Chapter 15.10 of the Municipal Code cannot be deferred until some unspecified date following the completion of the CEQA process (e.g., beyond the 30-day statute of limitations), the Lead Agency cannot approve the grading permit based on a requirement that the information required under Section 15.10.060(D) (Information on Plans and Specifications) be submitted and reviewed independently of the project's requisite environmental review. The City has both the authority and responsibility to deny a request for a grading permit if the requested action is contrary to the policies of the City (such as those contained in the General Plan) and/or if the Lead Agency fails to first demonstrate compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Since the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and since the Lead Agency has failed to prepare an adequate CEQA analysis, the City is required to either deny the requested permit or first prepare and certify an EIR prior to any consideration of the approval or conditional approval of the proposed project. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS In the absence of new environmental notice, including (but not limited to) posting in the Office of the County Clerk and preparation and publication of a new NOI, there exists substantive defects with the Lead Agency's procedural obligations under CEQA. As a result of those procedural defects, the public and other governmental agencies have been denied full access to the environmental process. The City is, therefore, required to provide new notice and to recommence the CEQA process. Both the City and other Responsible Agencies are precluded from taking any action on the proposed project (except denial) pending completion of the CEQA process. Since the project examined in the Revised Initial Study is substantially different from that addressed in the 2000 Initial Study, the City is precluded from modifying and recirculating the 2000 Initial Study as the environmental basis for its assessment of the current development proposal. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments April 2001 Page 61 �. 1 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project As evidenced by the comments presented herein, the Lead Agency has failed to prepare an adequate environmental record for the proposed project, definitively demonstrating that all potential impacts resulting from the project's construction and operation can be mitigated to below a level of significance. These comments, in combination with other information in the project's administrative record, contain substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will produce one or more significant, currently unmitigated environmental effects. As a result, both the Lead Agency and other Responsible Agencies are now precluded for using a MND as the environmental basis for those discretionary actions that may be required from those agencies. The Lead Agency has before it, two available actions: either deny the project outright or immediate commence the preparation of an EIR for the proposed "pond fill, storm drain & sewer transmission pipeline project." Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary, Comments • • • April 2001 Page 62 to BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Attachment A CURRICULUM VITAE Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Attachments BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Resume Peter Lewandowski, AICP Education Masters of Urban and Regional Planning, CalPoly, Pomona Graduate Program, Architecture, CalPoly, Pomona Certificate Program, Construction Management, University of California, Irvine BA, Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine Experience Principal, Environmental Impact Sciences (1998 - present) With over 25 years of experience as a planning professional, Mr. Lewandowski possesses a detailed understanding of planning, environmental review, and development process. Mr. Lewandowski's experience includes the preparation of over 500 environmental impact reports, negative declarations, and focused technical studies ranging from small-scale projects to master plan communities of over 20,000 units. This project experience includes both hands-on involvement and overall project management. Mr. Lewandowski possesses a detailed understanding of a broad variety of professional disciplines, including land use, traffic engineering, earth sciences, hydrology, biology, archeology, historic preservation, and real estate economics. Mr. Lewandowski possess extensive experience in all facets of current and advanced planning, environmental sciences, as well as the State and federal entitlement process. As Principal of EIS, Mr. Lewandowski is responsible for preparing CEQA/NEPA documents for public and private projects and developing and implementing environmental compliance strategies for public and private -sector clients, including management of technical subconsultants. Mr. Lewandowski is often called upon to perform independent third -party review and to servesas an expert witness involving CEQA/NEPA litigation. President, The Hydro Company (1998 - present) As President of THC, Mr. Lewandowski is responsible for overseeing the entitlemeht of a 500-megawatt advanced pumped storage project in Riverside County, including Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) coordination, preparation of NEPA/CEQA documents, management of technical consultants and subconsultants, and procurement of permits from the United States Forest Service (USFS). Multi -agency coordination, including ongoing negotiations with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), USFS, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Principal, Ultrasystems Environmental Incorporated (1994 - 1998) As Principal of UEI, Mr. Lewandowski prepared and processed CEQA/NEPA documents for a wide range of projects, including specific and master plan, community facility districts, infrastructure improvement projects, street improvement projects, water, wastewater, and solid waste facilities, community recreational facilities, major residential and commercial development projects, and energy facilities. Mr. Lewandowski prepared technical third -party reviews of planning and environmental documents, prepared and processed permit through various local, State, and federal agencies, including the ACOE, CDFG, and RWQCB. Mr. Lewandowski also prepared conceptual design plans for wetland creation and enhancement, conducted presentations before Boards of Supervisors, City Councils, Planning Commissions, and environmental review boards, and monitored compliance with permit conditions. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix A April 2001 Page A-1 nn • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Director of Planning and Environmental Services Ultrasystems Engineers and Constructors (1987-1994) At UE&E, Mr. Lewandowski was response for the overall management of 22 planners, engineers, scientists, design professions, and technical staff. Mr. Lewandowski prepared comprehensive specific plans, ranging in size from 2,500 to over 10,000 units, prepared and processed general plan amendments, zone change applications, CUPs, and tentative subdivision maps. Mr. Lewandowski conducted presentations before Boards of Supervisors, City Councils, Planning Commissions, and other advisory committees and commissions. He managed and prepared comprehensive NEPA/CEQA documents for major capital improvement projects, master planned communities, residential subdivisions, commercial, institutional, industrial, and energy projects. Program Director, Community Development Commission (1982-1987) At the CDC, Mr. Lewandowski managed the Los Angeles County's Rehabilitation and Marketing Program, responsible for commercial revitalization activities, seismic retrofit of commercial and multi -family residential projects, and residential rehabilitation and new construction projects. His responsibilities included all real property acquisition, preparation of development plans, architectural drawings, proformas and cost estimates, permit processing, and public financing. Mr. Lewandowski was responsible for coordination with appraisers, real estate agents, structural engineers, other technical consultants, Housing Authority representatives, and lenders. As Program Director, Mr. Lewandowski managed the marketing of County assets to investors and first-time home buyers. Managed a staff of 7 architects, agents, and inspectors. Assistant to the City Manager/Planning Director, City of Avalon (1981-1982) At the City of Avalon, Mr. Lewandowski prepared budget documents and was responsible for grantsmanship and current planning activities. Coordinated planning projects with the City Council. Prepared special purpose legislation, including presentation before a State Senate Committee. Conducted community outreach activities, including informational requests to the City Manager. Prepared the City's Local Coastal Plan and updated the City's Housing Elements. Secured federal funds for the construction of affordable housing projects. Processed environmental documents for major private development projects and public infrastructure projects. Associate Planner, City of Laguna Beach (1975 -1981). At the City of Laguna Beach, Mr. Lewandowski prepared the City's LCP, updated general plan elements, and prepared performance -based zoning standards and ordinances. Prepared and processed subdivision maps, CUPs, and zoning variances. Prepared staff reports and made presentation to the City Council and Planning Commission. Community and County liaison for all CDBG and related HUD activities. Prepared rehabilitation guidelines and procedural manual for single- and multi -family rehabilitation activities. Managed the City's environmental review program, prepared public noticing, and coordination with California Coastal Commission. Affiliations American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Association of Environmental Professions (AEP) References Earlier employment history, salary information, work samples, and professional references provided upon request. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix A April 2001 Page A-2 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project • • Attachment B ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE REVISED INITIAL STUDY • Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Attachments %Z • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The following comments are submitted in response to the City of Newport Beach's (City or Lead Agency) release of the "Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration - Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project" (Initial Study) and are submitted within the comment period established by the Lead Agency for written comments thereupon. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), codified as Section 21000 et seq. in the Public Resources Code (PRC), and the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines), codified as Section 15000 et seq. in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the Lead Agency is required to consider all comments received on the Initial Study as part of its deliberations concerning the proposed project (e.g., Section 15074[bj, Guidelines). The comments presented herein are intended to assist the advisory and decision -making bodies of the Lead Agency in those deliberations. As indicated in Section 15074(b) of the Guidelines, "the decisionmaking body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment" [emphasis added]. As evidenced by these comments, there exists substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Big Canyon County Club Storm Drain Project (project) will produce significant unmitigable environmental effects. These comments serve to demonstrate that more environmental review of the proposed project is required. There exists substantial evidence that the project, as now proposed, will produce significant adverse environmental consequences; therefore, pending further environmental review, the Lead Agency is precluded from adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the City is now required to commence the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) addressing the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project. As indicated in Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (3`d Dist., 1981, the "requirement of a detailed statement helps insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." As this stage of the environmental process, the goal of CEQA is to ensure full and objective disclosure of the project's environmental effects. At the public hearings concerning the discretionary actions that may follow, opportunities will exist to express support or opposition to the proposed project. As a result, the following comments are not intended to declare support or opposition to the project but are only intended to ensure the adequacy of the project's environmental review. Only through the preparation of a project -specific EIR can all relevant information concerning the project's impacts be presented for public and agency review. Only when presented with that information can the Planning Commission (Commission) and City Council (Council) be fully aware of the project's environmental implications and make an informed decision concerning the project. It is, therefore, the purpose of these comments to encourage the Lead Agency to immediately commence the preparation of an EIR based upon a revised Initial Study that attempts to accomplish more than to minimize the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 1 0 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project What benefits would occur through the preparation of an EIR? In addition to a more detailed, technical analysis of the proposed project (e.g., hydrology/hydraulic analysis), one of the most important benefits associated with the commencement of an EIR relates to the Lead Agency's obligation to consider other alternative means of accomplishing the applicant's undisclosed objectives (e.g., expansion of the golf course). As indicated under Section 15002(a)(3) of the Guidelines, one of the "basic purposes" of CEQA is to "prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible" [emphasis added]. The following statement can be found in the text of the Initial Study: "The project applicant has indicated that the request to place fill material in the pond is due to the considerable build up of algae in the pond and the resulting noxious odors emitted" (p. 6). Filling in the lake seems an extreme solution merely to address art existing algae problem. Are there other solutions available to the applicant to eliminate that existing problem? Has the City received any odor complaints concerning the "noxious odors emitted" from the lake? If, in reality, the golf course's expansion and/or the elimination of algae is the primary motivating reasons for the proposed development application, then the resulting EIR would consider other ways that expansion could occur at a lesser environmental cost while at the same time accomplishing the applicant's objectives. Since no alternative analysis is contained in the Initial Study, there exists no evidence that either the applicant or the City considered other available means of accomplishing those desired end results. The City is precluded under CEQA from: (1) authorizing environmental destruction merely by stating (without supporting documentation) that the total destruction of a valuable resource area is less than significant; and (2) avoiding any discussion of potential project alternatives merely by erroneously asserting thata MND is the appropriate form of CEQA compliance. Should the City mistakenly elect not to commence the preparation of an EIR for the proposed project, based on the project's highly controversial nature, the extent of deficiencies now evident in the Initial Study, and the presentation of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will in fact produce one or more significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects, it is formally requested that the Lead Agency prepare formal detailed, written responses to each of the comments, issues, inquiries, and specific questions raised herein and to provide the commentor with a copy of the Lead Agency's draft written response thereto prior to any action by the City's advisory or decision -making bodies concerning the proposed development application. As required under Section 15064(c) of the Guidelines, "the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected.' As further required under Section 15086(b) of the Guidelines, "the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving the reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be a good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice" [emphasis added]. In accordance with that obligation, the Lead Agency is directed to either incorporate these comments and the analysis requested herein into the project's environmental documentation or to formally state the Lead Agency's factual basis for its failure to undertake the actions specified. By submitting these comments within the established comment period for the project, this document becomes part of the environmental review record for the project and can be used by the commentor Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 2 • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project or others should further actions be required to ensure the Lead Agency's compliance with its environmental review and disclosure obligations under CEQA and the Guidelines. 1.2 Authority to Comment The following comments are submitted to the City pursuant to the authorization provided under Sections 21000(a), 21003.1, 21082.1(b), 21091(b), and 21092(b) of CEQA and Sections 15002(j), 15022(a)(5), 15044, 15064(c), 15074(b), and 15204(b) of the Guidelines. As required under Section 15204(b) in the Guidelines, "in reviewing negative declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify.he specific effect, (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant." In accordance therewith, the following comments describe the commentor's.reasons for asserting the Lead Agency's obligations to immediately commence the preparation of an EIR (and not the proposed draft MND) in fulfillment of the City's CEQA requirements. 1.3 Lead Agency Responsibilities As required under Section 15020 of the Guidelines, "each public agency is responsible for complying with CEQA and these Guidelines. A public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or private citizens as a substitute for work CEQA requires the lead agency to accomplish. As further indicated under Section 21005(a) of CEQA, "the Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the State that noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of Sections 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with those provisions." In order to ensure full public disclosure of project -related and cumulative impacts, the courts in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1St Dist., 1988) stated that when the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, the resulting deficiency in the record may actually enlarge the scope of any fair argument by leading to a "logical plausibility" to a wider range of inferences concerning the significance of those impacts. For example, absent from the Initial Study is any discussion, of any kind, addressing the indirect (e.g., operational) and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, limiting the environmental analysis exclusively to the direct physical changes to the project site. As a further example of the Lead Agency's failure to fulfill its own obligations under CEQA, a reader needs only to examine the manner in which the proposed project is described. The project description presented in the applicant's own "Big Canyon County Club Evaluation of Biological Resources" (Biological Study), included as Appendix B in the Initial Study (see Appendix B, p. 1), is repeated virtually verbatim in the Checklist (see Checklist, p. 1) and again in the Initial Study (see Initial Study, p. 1). No attempt has been made to elaborate thereupon; rather, the Lead Agency appears to merely parrot the information, analysis, and self -promotional findings that have been formulated by or directly under contract by others working on the applicant's behalf. It is, therefore, not surprising that very little information is, in fact, presented concerning the precise nature of the proposed project and even less Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 200D Page 3 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project information and analysis is,provided concerning the project's potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Since the proposed project and the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting therefrom are not adequately described or evaluated in the Initial Study, it is not possible to fully evaluate those potential environmental effects and to submit a.complete set of comments thereupon. The failure on the part of the Lead Agency to present an adequate environmental assessment of the proposed project cannot be used as the basis to exempt the project or the agency from future challenges to the adequacy of the environmental process. As a result of the City's failure to provide sufficient information concerning the project and its potential impacts, the public has been deprived access to information critical to the project's understanding which is either in the possession of the Lead Agency or could be known to the City as a result of the agency's obligations to fulfill its own CEQA obligations. The public does not have the opportunity to consult with the applicant or those Responsible Agencies from whom subsequent entitlements may be required and must base its comments on the information that the Lead Agency chooses to disclose. As a result, any defects in these comments originate from the defects in the Lead Agency's own actions and analysis and cannot serve as a shield behind which the agency can now seek to hide. 2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 2.1 Mischaracterization of the Project As indicated in the Initial Study, the proposed action is identified as a "storm drain improvement project" (Initial Study, cover). Although there are no project objectives identified in the Initial Study (e.g., implement an engineering solution addressing existing drainage deficiencies), any project so identified is clearly an infrastructure improvement project wherein the issues of hydrology and hydraulic are important and critical considerations. Storm drain improvement projects that are designed with insufficient capacity may, in fact, create greater flooding hazards than no project at all since water could back-up and flood upstream areas or bypass the inadequately sized conduit and flood adjoining areas. Any flood control project would, therefore, be both expected and required to include a detailed civil engineering analysis conducted in accordance with City and County of Orange flood control standards. In accordance therewith, the methodology contained in the "Orange County Hydrology Manual" (OCHM) would constitute the appropriate analytical basis for the analysis of any existing flooding hazards and the sizing of any proposed storm drain facilities. Absent from the Initial Study, however, are any engineering studies which: (1) demonstrate the presence of existing deficiencies in the storm drain system (e.g., identification of need); (2) quantify pre- and post - project flows, including an identification of the entire watershed from which storm flows originate; (3) present an independently verifiable engineering analysis addressing the size of the proposed drainage pipes (e.g., "improvements include drainage pipes," Checklist, p.1); andl(4) examine alternative means ofaccomplishingthe project's undisclosed objectives. Similarly, the Initial Study contains no reference to a site -specific and project -specific hydrology/hydraulic analysis or to the OCHM. In the absence of that information, as an analogy, the approach now proposed by the Lead Agency is similar to the City's initiation of a street improvement project absent a.detailed traffic study. Without a clear understanding of existing deficiencies and future need, how can an agency determine whether Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 4 1 • -1G BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project the proposed infrastructure improvements adequately respond to existing and future needs? How can a project characterized as a "storm drain improvement project" be prepared and processed absent a detailed hydrology/hydraulic study? In the absence of that information, how has the Lead Agency documented and disclosed the size (e.g., "instead of water flowing through the existing pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond," p. 16) of the proposed drainage facilities that will be installed should the project be approved as now proposed? Since a "storm drain improvement project" is proposed absent a storm drain improvement study conforming to the OCHM and since no mitigation measures are now proposed requiring such a study, it is immediately apparent that the project now under consideration is being intentionally misrepresented either by the Lead Agency or the project proponent for the sole purpose of camouflaging the project's true intent (e.g., destruction of wetlands, Toss of jurisdictional waters, and elimination of those biological resources dependent thereupon), inferring a need for infrastructure improvements when no such need has yet to be established, turning public and agency attention away from the project's true environmental impacts, and seeking to avoid the preparation and level of analysis otherwise required in an environmental impact report (e.g., "an initial study is neither intended nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR," Section 15063[a][3], Guidelines). Where in the Initial Study has the Lead Agency documented that "storm drain improvements" are either necessary or required to address an existing drainage deficiency? Since no such need has been established, in reality, the project has little to do with the conveyance of storm waters and merely constitutes a veiled attempt to expand "the driving range depth" (p. 1) for the benefit of a few members of a private country club. The benefits to be obtained by those few golfers are, however, at the expense of the diminishing biological resources of the area and the wildlife that are dependent thereupon. The environmental costs of the project (e.g., diminution of regional biological resources) must, therefore, be borne by all County residents for the sole benefit of a very few. As required under Section 15063(a)(1) of the Guidelines, "all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study of the project." Although a portion of the project may, in fact, include a "storm drain improvement" component, in actuality, the applicant's motivation may have less to do with addressing undisclosed drainage concerns than in expanding the use of the existing golf course. To, therefore, call the project a "storm drain improvement project" would be the same as attempting to categorize the proposed action as either a "landscape restoration project" (e.g., "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped," p. 2) or a "landslide remediation project" (e.g., "the Public Safety Element fo the City's General Plan does designate the project area as a high potential for landslides," p. 12) or a "migratory bird habitat enhancement project" (e.g., "the biological assessment includes a recommendation that mature trees be relocated on other ponds in the vicinity to reduce potential impacts to the black -crowned night heron," p. 7). The manner in which the project is described has important implications in the focus of the resulting analysis. Even if defined as a "storm drain improvement project," the Lead Agency has presented a woefully inadequate analysis of the drainage needs of the area upon which the project is purportedly based. If the project were more correctly characterized as a golf course expansion project, the resulting analysis would logically address the impacts associated with that expansion. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion concerning whether the proposed expansion would or could increase the number of Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 5 1, BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project individuals that could be on the project site at any one time. Therefore, one of the possible direct impacts of the project (Le., intensification of use) is never even addressed. Since that direct impact is never disclosed, the indirect impacts (e.g., increased traffic, noise, air pollution) are themselves virtually ignored. As required under Section 15004(b)(3) of the Guidelines, "with private projects, the Lead Agency shall encourage the project proponent to incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and, planning at the earliest feasible time." As defined in Section 15005(a) therein, "'shall' identifies a mandatory element which.all public agencies are required to follow." As further defined in Section 15364 "'feasible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful mannerwithin a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." If the project is correctly described as a golf course expansion project, those "environmental considerations" incorporated into the "conceptualization, design, and planning" of the proposed project would focus on the preservation of the area's biological and aesthetic resources and would examine other means of accomplishing the same objectives at a lesser environmental cost. As now presented, there exists no evidence that either the applicant considered or the Lead Agency required the incorporation of "environmental considerations" as part of the proposed action. As mandated under CEQA, how has the Lead Agency sought to incorporate "environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and [project] planning"? 2.2 Failure to Describe the Environmental Setting As required under Section 15063(d)(2) of the Guidelines, an initial study "shall" contain "an identification of the environmental setting." Although the physical characteristics of the project site are briefly discussed in various sections of the Initial Study, totally absent is any discussion of the operational characteristics of both the project site and the golf course itself. Since the project involves the "expansion" of the golf course, in order to understand the long-term impacts and implications of the project beyond the mere alternation of the project site, it is first necessary to understand the operational' characteristics of the existing golf course, including any limitations or constraints to play that may be eliminated or reduced through the project's implementation. Only by understanding the existing conditions is it then possible to identify and evaluate the changes thereto that may result from the project's implementation. Not only does the Initial Study fail to address the manner in which the project site is presently utilized (which cannot be discerned from the Initial Study since the physical boundaries of the project are never disclosed) but the Initial Study also lacks any discussion of the golf course's current operation. In order to provide information beneficial in assessing the project's potential impacts, that discussion must include both a detailed description of the existing driving range and putting green (including their current defects which are purportedly the reasons behind the proposed project) and a more general discussion of the entire operation of the golf course. That latter discussion should include an overview of the number of members and rounds of golf played, number of buckets of driving range balls purchased, number of individuals that can be accommodated on the existing putting green, and number and type of annual golf events now scheduled at the facility. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000' Page 6 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project What is never disclosed is the motivation behind the project. The request to eliminate a valuable biological resource merely to extend an existing driving range so that a limited number of "heavy hitters" can drive their golf balls a few feet farther seems to hide a larger objective that may encompass some operational changes in the manner in which the golf course itself is utilized. Only by understanding the "baseline" condition, as well as any existing constraints that may limit golf course operations, is it possible to fully assessing the impacts that may ultimately result from the project's development. 2.3 Failure to Identify Physical Changes to the Site and to Golf Course Operations CEQA focuses upon physical changes to the environment and, based on the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts attributable to those physical changes, to determine whether the difference between pre- and post -project conditions are "significant." As defined under Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines, "a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project" [emphasis added]. As further defined therein, "'significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance" [emphasis added]. Although the term "substantial or potentially substantial adverse change" is not defined under CEQA, "Webster's New World Dictionary" defines "substantial" as "considerable; ample; large" and "with regard to essential elements." Clearing, the total destruction of the existing pond (e.g., "filling pond," p. 6), the elimination of any water features upon the project site, the elimination of a natural element and its replacement with pavement, the elimination of any habitat value, the removal of all riparian vegetation, the conversion from a passive resource to an active area, and the resulting change in the site's use (e.g., from presently inaccessible for human use to intensely utilized) all constitute "substantial" changes. To suggest otherwise would be to disregard both the intent of CEQA and the literal meaning of the English language. If the total destruction of a freshwater habitat is considered not to be significant, under the City's own logic, why would the filing of the Back Bay not also be considered as not "substantial"? Before the Big Canyon area was developed, what was the total quantity of wetland areas and other jurisdictional waters that were located on the project site and how was that figure determined? As now exists thereupon, what is the total area of wetlands and jurisdictional waters and how was that figure determined? Was the existing lake provided as partial mitigation for the loss of then existing resources? Does the existing lake serve to mitigate, in whole or part, for the historic loss of wetland and jurisdictional waters that may once have existed on the project site? If the existing lake now serves as a replacement resource or if the lake has functioned as a viable habitat area for an extended time period, it now serves a valuable resource role whether of natural creation or artificial creation. Its historic development (e.g., "artificial pond," p. 1), therefore, may have less importance than its current functional value (e.g., "the pond is surrounded by ornamental planting with some native plant species," p. 7). What is the Lead Agency's definition of a "substantial adverse change"? Why would the total destruction of the existing pond (e.g., "filling the pond," p. 1) not constitute a "substantial adverse change"? What examples can be cited as to what would constitute a "substantial adverse change"? Are there any specific quantitative limitation (e.g., size, n umber of individuals effects) which must be exceeded before a physical change is considered to be "significant"? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 7 7S BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project CEQA obligates the Lead Agency to present an objective analyses of a proposed action (e.g., "CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced," Section 15003[j], Guidelines). To suggest that the substitution of a lake for asphalt, and a total destruction of a viable habitat area for a site with no habitat value does not constitute "a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project," suggests either the Lead Agency's failure to conduct an analyses which conforms to CEQA (e.g., "CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment," Section 15003[f], Guidelines) or predetermination wherein the Initial Study merely presents window-dressing for a back -room decision that has already been made. As used in Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines, the term "change in the physical conditions" should not be so narrowly defined as to artificially limit the project's environmentalanalysisto only the changes to the physical environment. Beyond the direct physical changes that will occur to the project site (e.g., filling the lake), it is apparent that other indirect physical changes will occur in the manner in which the golf course is itself utilized. Nowhere in the Initial Study, however, is there any discussion of any intensification of golf course or facility use or the operational changes that may result from the "expansion" of the driving range and relocation of the putting green. While these changes may outwardly seem minor, should those changes to the physical environment allow an intensification of course use or alternation in the type, manner, or frequency of activities thereupon, the operational changes to the course could potentially create other significant impacts beyond the substantial and permanent loss of a valuable habitat area. The Initial Study is, therefore, seriously defective by failing to include not only a discussion of the project's existing operational setting but also a discussion and analysis of the operational changes (which themselves constitute a "physical change") that could manifest from the physical alterations of the project site. 2.4 Failure to Articulate the Lead Agency's Threshold of Significance Standards The primary roles of CEQA are to inform public agencies and the general public about the effects of public and private actions affecting the environment, to create a formal mechanism to receive public input as a mean of assisting those public agencies to understand the impacts of their actions, to explore ways to mitigate significant adverse effects, and to determine whether there are alternatives to the proposed action that could reduce or avoid identified significant environmental effects. Under CEQA, agencies are asked to drawing a "line in the sand" beyond which any impact would be deemed to be "significant" Although guidance is provided under CEQA, except where other State or federal regulations take precedence, the threshold determination ultimately rests with the Lead Agency. The yardstick that the Lead Agency utilizes, however, must be fully disclosed and consistently applied so that all participants can understand, the basis used to determine significance, establish mitigation measures, and address project alternatives (e.g., "the basic purposes of CEQA are to. .inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities," Section 15002[a][1], Guidelines). Judgments of "significance" are made at three different points in the CEQA process: (1) in determining whether a project may have a significant effect and thus require an EIR (Section 21082.2[a], CEQA); (2)-in the EIR's discussions of which environmental impacts are significant and warranting mitigation (Section 15126.4[a][4], State CEQA Guidelines); and (3) in making findings following EIR completion on whether a project's significant environmental effects have been avoided or substantially reduced (Section 21081[a], CEQA). At this stage in the CEQA process, the determination of whether an impact • • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 8 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project is significant is critical since that determination dictates whether the Lead Agency can prepare a MND for the project or must commence the preparation of an EIR. As indicated under Section 15064.7(a) of the Guidelines, "each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significant of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant." As further indicated under Section 15064(h)(3) of the Guidelines, "for the purposes of this subsection a 'standard' means a standard of general application that is all of the following: (A) a quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in a statute, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other standard of general application; (B) adopted for the purpose of environmental protection; (C) adopted by a public agency through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency; (D) one that governs the same environmental effect which the change in the environment is impacting; and, (E) one that governs within the jurisdiction where the project is located." Has the Lead Agency developed and published threshold of significance standards and, if so, on what date were those standards adopted and in what document are those criterion contained? Where in the Initial Study has the Lead Agency clearly defined the threshold of significance standards that it has applied in evaluating the project's environmental impacts? In the absence of clearly defined standards, what factual basis has the Lead Agency utilized to determine the significance of pre- and post -mitigated environmental effects? For each of the topical issues addressed in the Initial Study, what quantitative, qualitative, or performance -based standard has been used to assess significance? How does the Lead Agency's failure to identify its threshold standards serve to demonstrate the City's objective consideration of the proposed project? 2.4.1 Threshold Standard for Commencement of an EIR Under CEQA, the standard to be used by a Lead Agency as the basis for commencing the preparation of an EIR is substantially lower that the threshold used by that same agency once an EIR has been commenced for determining whether a potential environmental effect will be significant and, therefore, predicating the formulation of mitigation measures and project alternatives. Negative declarations can only be prepared when, after completing an initial study, an agency determines that a project "does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment" (Section 21080[c], CEQA). Such a determination can only be made if "there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" [emphasis added]. As further indicated in Section 15064(f)(1) of the Guidelines: "If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR. Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect" [emphasis added]. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 9 0/ BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB • Storm Drain Improvement Project As further indicated in Section 15073.5(d) of the Guidelines, "if during the negative declaration process, there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project." Additionally, "the lead agency shall be guided by the following principal: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an E1R" (Section 15064[g], Guidelines). When a "fair argument" is presented to the Lead Agency that significant effects "may" occur, CEQA obligates the agency to commence the preparation of an EIR, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. EIRs are necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and "to substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation" (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles [1975]). Where the environmental record includes "substantial evidence" supporting a "fair argument" that significant effects may occur, the decision to prepare an EIR is not dependent upon whether such evidence is persuasive. In order to require the preparation of an EIR, the agency need not find the argument compelling but only that the argument has been made and is supported by substantial evidence (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward [1" Dist., 1980]). The general public lacks the resources which are available to the Lead Agency to conduct a detailed environmental assessment of the project. Similarly, the affected public lacks access to information critical to an understanding of the proposed project and, based on the comment period established by the Lead Agency, Iacks sufficient time to conduct independent technical studies. As such, the standard that the City must apply in determining whether to prepare an EIR as opposed to a negative declaration relates to the presentation of conflicting expert opinion (as presented herein) and the existence of some uncertainty (i.e., "may") concerning the project's environmental effects. In recognition of the above constraints, these comments, as well as such other comments that may be submitted to the Lead Agency under separate cover, present substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will, in fact, produce a significant environmental effect. Based upon the lower threshold standards established under CEQA for the commencement of an EIR, the Lead Agency is obligated to prepare an EIR for the proposed project. 2.4.2 Threshold of Significance Criteria The determination of whether an impact is significant or insignificant rests, in whole or in part, upon the yardstick against which significance is determined. Nowhere in the Initial Study does the Lead Agency present the standards against which the project's impacts are being judged. In the absence of an articulated, measurable set of criterion, no factual basis is presented to support the agency's preliminary determination that an identified impact is either significant or less than significant. In Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (4th Dist., 1985), the court held that, although the use of a checklist was permissible, an initial study must "disclose the data or evidence upon which the person(s) conducting the study relied. Mere conclusions simply provide no vehicle for judicial review." Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 10 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Since the Lead Agency has failed to identify the threshold standards that it seeks to utilize as the basis for assessing the significance of the project's environmental effects, even assuming the adequacy of the resulting analyses, no basis is provided to determine whether the impact is significant and whether mitigation is required. From the Initial Study, it is evident that the Lead Agency has sought to require mitigation even when it concludes that the post -project impact remains less than significant in the absence of those measures. As indicated in the document's cover, the CEQA document under review herein is referenced as a "mitigated negative declaration." Section 21064.5 of CEQA defines a MND as "a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions to the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where dearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." From this definition, it must be construed (although not evident from the information presented in the Initial Study) that the project would result in significant unavoidable adverse effects unless mitigation measures or other revisions to the project were to occur. Since the document is represented as a MND, by definition one or more of the topical issues addressed therein would be impacted to a significant or potentially significant level (i.e, exceed the Lead Agency's threshold 'of significance standards). When the Checklist is examined, only one topical issue (i.e., "substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands," Checklist, p. 5) is so identified. If the Lead Agency's own analysis is assumed to be correct (which is obviously not the case based on the comments presented herein), in order to substantiate the continued use of the MND, the recommended mitigation measures must be sufficient to demonstrate that, through their implementation, the post-project's impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance. While three mitigation measures (i.e., Mitigation Measure Nos. 3-5) are identified in the Initial Study under this topical issue, only one of those measures (i.e., Mitigation Measure No. 3) deal specifically with the project's impacts on "federally protected wetlands." Rather than presenting a definitive plan demonstrating the manner in which those impacts will be reduced or eliminated, including the identification of a conceptual mitigation plan illustrating the location where mitigation will occur, the Lead Agency merely states that the applicant shall obtain "all required permits/agreements" from the "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game" (Mitigation Measure No. 3, p. 7). Since the Lead Agency "must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA" (Section 15020, Guidelines), the City is precluded from avoiding the preparation of, at minimum, a conceptual mitigation plan that demonstrates the manner in which mitigation will occur and the feasibility of such actions. Since the receipt of requisite permits and approvals from those agencies is a preexisting obligation that would otherwise exist in the absent of the above referenced mitigation measure, in actually, no valid mitigation for this identified significant impact has been formulated. As a result, this unmitigated impact remains significant and the Lead Agency is obligated to either formulate and present its mitigation plan or commence the preparation of an EIR. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 11 P'3 1 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 2.4.3 Mandatory Findings of Significance Section 21083,of CEQA and Section 15065 of the Guidelines contain certain "mandatory findings of significance." These mandatory findings exist because both public agencies and project proponents have an inevitable incentive to understate the significance of project impacts to escape the time and expense of preparing EIRs and the diminished discretion that occur when projects are subject to the mandatory project modifications policy of Section 21002 of CEQA. As indicated in the Discussion following Section 15065 of the Guidelines, "this section is necessary to insure that public agencies follow the concerns of the Legislature in determining that certain effects shall be found significant and then take the actions at different stages of the processthat are required with significant effects." As further required under Section 15065 of the Guidelines: A lead agency shall find'tfiat a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where any of the following conditions occur: (a) The project has 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (b) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. (c) The project has potential environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. ..(d) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Since many of these mandatory threshold standards are exceeded by the proposed project, the Lead Agency is obligated to immediately commence the preparation of an EIR addressing the proposed action. Each of the above referenced "mandatory findings of significance" are repeated below and the project's potential exceedance of those standard$ briefly illustrated. As required under CEQA, the Lead Agency is mandated to commence the preparation of an EIR when the project has the potential to: • Substantially degrade the quality of the environment. As indicated under Section 21001(c) of CEQA, the State Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the State to "prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of major periods of California history." As indicated in the Biological Study, "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat fro one or more common migratory bird species that are protected by the California Fish and Game Code and Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act" (Appendix B, p. 4). In fact, a protected bird species (i.e., black -crowned night heron) was observed on the project site. Project implementation will result in the total destruction of that existing, viable, occupied habitat. Once developed, the site will possess none of its existing characteristics and will no longer serve any role or function as a habitat area for that or any other protected species. Since the site's habitat value will diminish to near zero, from a biological perspective, the project's development will substantially and permanently degrade the quality of the existing. environment. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2000 Preliminary Comments Page 12 • • • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project • Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The mandate of Section 15065 of the Guidelines are expressed in Mira Monte Homeowners Association v. Ventura County (2"d Dist. 1985) which involved impacts to wetlands containing a protected plant species. In that case, the court rejected the respondent agency's argument that substantial evidence supported its expert's view that the impact in question was insignificant. Instead, the court reasoned that the impact was significant "by definition," treating the issue as a pure legal question in which no deference to agency experts was proper. As indicated in the Biological Study, "as presently designed, the project will also require removal of the trees that provide roosting site for the black -crowned night heron. The black - crowned night heron is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act...Removal of these roosting trees will potentially impact individuals of this species. This impact would occur regardless of what time of year the work is done because although the black -crowned night heron is migratory and winters as far south as South America, southern California is included in the northern parts of its winter range as well as its summer breeding range, so that there are some birds here all year round" (Appendix B, pp. 4-5). As mitigation for this impact, the Lead Agency merely recommends that a pre -construction nesting survey be conducted and that the trees and vegetation around the project site be relocated (see Mitigation Measure Nos. 4-5). Clearly, these feeble attempts at mitigation fail to compensate for the lost of a value habitat area which is comprised of more than a assemblage of trees and shrubs and includes the existing lake and the habitat that surrounds that water feature. The Lead Agency would have the public believe that the mere relocation of a limited number of trees is all that is required to support the habitat requirements of a protected species. If habitat requirements could be addressed merely through the planting of specific trees, the nation's endangered species problems could be effectively solved by planting a sufficient number of trees. It is naive to assume that the agency's mitigation measures will have anything other that "PR" value. The Lead Agency has failed to demonstrate that the recommended measures will either fully compensate for the project's biological impacts (e.g., "this impact would occur regardless of what time of year the work is done") or result in the replacement of a viable habitat area conducive to the habitat requirements of not only the black -crowned night heron but other protected species (e.g., "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory bird species," Appendix B, p. 4). • Achieve short-term to the disadvantage of Tong -term environmental goals. Proposed is the elimination of a viable, occupied habitat and the replacement of that natural or naturalized area with a golf course putting green expansion of the course's existing driving range. As a public trade out, the City is being asked to exchange a sustainable biological resource which has been provide to support a population of protected species for the short-term enjoyment of a limited number of golfers. Since the golf course is already in place, sports enthusiasts already have an opportunity to play at that facility. By extending the driving range a few yards, those that may be able to drive a golf ball that distance may experience some enjoyment for those few extra yards. In exchange for that brief sense of exhilaration, all other parties (be they residents of the site or merely members of the human race) must access a diminishment in the biological diversity and natural (or naturalized) resources that now exist and support a diminishing wildlife population. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 13 •nC BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project The flight of protected wildlife able to survive in the southern Califomia area must be balanced against the few extra yards that a single golf ball may fly. The preservation of the region's bio- diversity (long-term environmental goals) must, therefore, be given greater credence that the needs of a few recreationalists (short-term benefit). • Produce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As proposed, the project will result in the elimination of an existing wetland area that now supports a diversity of riparian plants and supports the habitat needs of protected wildlife. Although the Initial Study recommends the off -site provision of a substitute resource, the resulting resource will not have the same habitat value for a number of years, if at all. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the nationwide loss of these resource areas. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) indicates that "recent estimates of wetlands trends on non-federal lands indicate a loss rate between 70,000 to 90,000 acres annually. ..In addition to these losses, many other wetlands have suffered degradation of functions, although calculating the magnitude of the degradation is difficult. These losses, as well as degradation, have greatly diminished our nation's wetlands resources; as a result, we no longer have the benefits they provided" (America's Wetlands: Our Link between Land and Water). Although the Lead Agency seeks to examine the project in isolation of this national trend, in reality, the project constitute a component of the 70,000 to 90,000 acres of wetlands that will be lost this year alone. The cumulative impacts of that loss include, but are not limited to: (1) Because many species depend on wetlands, whatever harms wetlands harms these species; the well-being of waterfowl populations is tied directly to the status and abundance of wetland habitats; (2) if wetlands are lost or degraded, the ability to control flooding is diminished; and (3) destroying or degrading wetlands results in lower water quality (USEPA, Wetlands Factsheet: Consequences of Losing or Degrading Wetlands). Like the ostrich, the Lead Agency seeks to bury its head in the sand and ignore the project's contribution to those cumulative environmental effects. • Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. As indicated by the USEPA: Wetlands are among the most biologically productive natural ecosystems in the world. They can be compared to tropical rainforests and coral reefs in the diversity of species they support. Wetlands are vital to the survival of various animals and plants. ..The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that up to 43% of the threatened and endangered species rely directly or indirectly on wetlands for their survival. For many other species. . .wetlands are primary habitats. For others, wetlands provide important seasonal habitats where food, water, and cover are plentiful. Because wetlands are so productive and because they greatly influence the flow and quality of water, they are valuable to us. ..Wetlands often function like natural tubs or sponges, storing water (floodwater, or surface water that collects in isolated depressions) and slowly releasing it. Trees and other wetland vegetation help slow floodwaters. This combined action, storage and slowing, can lower flood heights and reduce the water's erosive potential. Wetlands thus Initial Study & Mitigated'Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 14 • • Y / BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project - reduce the likelihood of flood damage to crops in agricultural areas; help control increases in the rate and volume of runoff in urban areas; buffer shorelines against erosion. Wetlands help improve water quality, including that of drinking water, by intercepting surface runoff and removing or retaining its nutrients,processing organic wastes, and reducing sediment before it reaches open water (USEPA, Wetlands Factsheet: Value and Function of Wetlands). It is apparent that wetlands serve a value role and function which both directly and indirectly affects mankind. Since the Lead Agency has yet to demonstrate that the project's proposed mitigation will not allow for the provision of a comparable resource that provides the same benefits that currently accrue from the on -site lake, the loss of that resource would produce a substantial adverse impact on not only the project site but the nation's natural resources. 2.5 Failure to Address the Project's Cumulative Impacts As indicated in Section 15065(d) of the Guidelines, "a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where any of the. ..project has potential environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the cumulative impact associated with the permanent loss of an existing wetland. As indicated in the USEPA's "305(b) Report to Congress (1996/1998)," "the loss or degradation of wetlands can lead to serious consequences, including increased flooding; species decline, deformity, or extinction; and declines in water quality. . .Another consequence of wetlands loss or degradation is decl ine, deformity from toxic contamination, or extinction of wildlife and plant species. Forty-five percent of the threatened and endangered species listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service rely directly or indirectly on wetlands for their survival." As further indicated therein, "according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's, the three States that have sustained the greatest percentage of wetlands loss are California (91 %), Ohio (90%), and Iowa (89%)." As evident by that excerpt, past and current activities have nearly eliminated all wetland areas in California. By failing to examine the proposed project in a broader context, the project's approval will continue to this trend and will contribute, incrementally, to the cumulative impacts identified by the USEPA. Additionally, since the project involves the expansion of operations of the golf course, the assessment of the cumulative impacts of the project must also include an assessment of the entire operation of the golf course itself, including the opportunities and consequences associated with the course's expansion. This is particularly the case if the proposed expansion were to alter the potential use of the golf course, expand its operations, or elevate the course to a different status whereby it could be utilized in some different fashion than otherwise possible in the absence of the expansion. If the expansion of the course results in the elimination of some constraint(s) that limits or otherwise defines its operational characteristics, then the project constitutes substantially more than the physical improvements themselves and includes the operational changes that would or could result therefrom. As an analogy, environmental analysis of the construction of a pipeline must include not only the physical impacts associated with the installation of the infrastructure improvements themselves but also the development opportunities that would result therefrom. While the development that may follow could be consider the growth -inducing impacts of the project, they nonetheless represent the logical Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2000 Preliminary Comments Page 15 c, 7 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB • Storm Drain Improvement Project consequences (e.g., indirect effects) of an activity in which a development constraint is removed and must, therefore, become part of the project's environmental review. As a result, the environmental assessment cannot be confined to only the physical changes that are now proposed on the project site but also must include the operational changes that may result therefrom. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the actual operational consequences of the project. Since the project cannot be narrowly defined as only the physical improvements but must also consider the operational implications of those improvements, the Lead Agency's environmental analysis is defective by failing to even discuss the project's Tong -term implications. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the cumulative or growth -inducing impacts that may result from the proposed project. Since the impacts deal, in whole or part, with the operational changes to the golf course itself; the Lead Agency's environmental analysis cannot be so narrowly defined as to examine only the improvements while ignoring the impacts produced by the golf course itself. From a cumulative impact perspective, the entire golf course operation must be examined and the impacts resulting therefrom factored into the environmental analysis. Where in the Initial Study does the Lead Agency discuss the existing operational characteristics of the golf course? How would the project's implementation directly, indirectly, or ultimately change the nature or manner in which the course is utilized? Could the proposed project, either directly or indirectly, increase the number of individuals that may be on the site at any one time? Could the project itself result in a change in the manner of play (e.g., changing the course's status or stature)? 2.6 Failure to Conduct Independent Review and Demonstrate Independent Judgment As required under Section 15063(d)(6) of the Guidelines, the Initial Study is obligated to list "the names of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the initial study" [emphasis added]. Where in the Initial Study is that list presented? What representatives of the applicant "participated" in the preparation of the Initial Study and what form (e.g., submission of a draft Initial Study) did that participation take? As indicated in the Initial Study, "a biological resource assessment and wetland delineation was conducted by Psomas. ..The evaluation and information presented in this section are based on the biological report contained in its entirety in the appendix of this document" (p. 6). Absent from the Initial Study, however, is any evident that the Lead Agency has applied its own independent judgment in assessing the adequacy and accuracy with respect to the information provided by the applicant. Both the Biological Study and its accompanying "Big Canyon County Club Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States" (Wetland Delineation), as prepared under contract to the applicant by the applicant's own consultant (i.e., Psomas), were "prepared for: Big Canyon County Club." Nowhere in the Initial Study is there any indication that qualified City staff, possessing the experience and qualifications to evaluatethe adequacy of a biological resource assessment and jurisdictional delineation, conducted any detailed review of the applicant's • studies or directed any changes thereto. Was Psomas under contract to the City or to the applicant for the preparation of those studies? Did the City independently contract with a biological and resource specialist to review the applicant's submittals and, if yes, where in the Initial Study is evidence of that review? What additional role is Psomas playing in the design, development, or implementation of the project? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 16 O'F • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Does the City's Senior Planner, identified as the individual that "submitted" the Initial Study (Checklist, ' p. 3) possess any State licenses for the surveying of protected wildlife and, if so, what are the license numbers? Has the Senior Planner completed the Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation training program and on what date was that course completed? Is the Senior Planner a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer, hydrologist, or civil engineer? What additional City staff or consultants operating under contract to the Lead Agency participated in the preparation of the Initial Study? Where in the Initial Study are all contributors to that document cited and what role did each individual play? Based on a review of the Initial Study, what appears to be the case is that the City merely accepted those studies submitted by the applicant as adequate and incorporated the information, without change or modification, into the Initial Study. Does the applicant have any economic motivation not to commence the preparation of an EIR for the proposed project? Does the applicant have an economic motivation to define the area of .impacted wetlands and jurisdictional waters in the smallest amount possible? What changes to the Biological Study and Wetlands Delineation were directed by the City following the City's receipt of those documents from the applicant? Were any other portions of the Initial Study prepared directly by the applicant or the applicant's consultants (e.g., "the lead agency shall conduct an initial study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment," Section 15063[aj, Guidelines)? As further required under Section 15063(g) of the Guidelines, "as soon as a lead agency has determined that an initial study will be required for the project, the lead agency shall consult informally with all responsible agencies and all trustee agencies responsible for resources affected by the project to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or a negative declaration should be prepared." The Initial Study identifies "other public agencies whose approval is required" as including the "US Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish & Game, & Regional Water Quality Control Board" (p. 2). Does the California Coastal Commission also have a discretionary role in the approval of the project? Absent from the Initial Study is an evidence that such mandatory (i.e, "shall") consultation occurred. On what date and in what manner was "consultation" conducted with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies? Which agencies were so contacted and what written and/or oral comments were received from those agencies? Where in the Initial Study are those comments or evidence of any consultation provided? As required under Section 15072(a) of the Guidelines, "a lead agency shall provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located." As further indicated in Section 15073(d) therein, "where one or more State agencies will be a responsible agency or a trustee agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project...the lead agency shall send copies of the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the State agencies." Were copies of the Initial Study forwarded to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and, if so, on what date was such notice provided and what proof of such delivery is available at the office of the Lead Agency? Was a notice of intent also forwarded to the County Clerk and on what date did the County Clerk receive and post that notice? How does the absence of SCH notification and posting with the County Clerk facilitate public and agency review and ensure that all environmental issues are addressed? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 17 7q BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 2.7 Failure to Adopt or Update Local CEQA Guidelines As required under Section 15022(a) and (c) of the Guidelines, "each public agency shall adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures consistent with CEQA and these Guidelines for administering its responsibilities under CEQA, including the orderly evaluation of projects and preparation of environmental documents" and "publicagenciesshould revise their implementing procedures to conform to amendments to these guidelines within 120 days after the effective date of the amendments." Absent from the list of sources cited in the preparation of the Initial Study (p. 16) is any reference to the City's CEQA guidelines. Has the Lead Agency adopted'a set of local CEQA guidelines and, if yes, on what date and under what resolution number? When were those localguidelines last amended? What provisions are contained therein concerning the receipt and utilization of technical studies provided by the project proponent? As required under Section 21001(f) of CEQA, it is the policy of the State to "require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures to protect environmental quality." Referencing Section 15064.7(a) of the Guidelines, "each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects." The threshold of significance is the identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect would be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which would mean the effect would be less than significant. Does the City's local CEQA guidelines contain any reference to or discussion of those "thresholds of significance" that the Lead Agency consistently applies to all public and private projects? In the absence of a universal set of standards, how does the Lead Agency seek to consistently apply CEQA to all discretionary projects within the community? Is it the intent of the Lead Agency to conform to CEQA and Guidelines as those laws and regulations existed at the time of the publication of the Initial Study? 2.8 Need for Recirculation of the Negative Declaration or Commencement of an EIR As required under Section 15073.5(a) of the Guidelines, "a lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially reviled after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption." As defined therein a "substantial revision" of the negative declaration means: "(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required." The comments presented herein serve to document both the presence of new, avoidable significant environmental effects and the need for new mitigation measures and/or project revisions. Additionally, the following information demonstrates that the "substantial revisions" are, in fact, required and predicate recirculation: • A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance. As evidenced by the information Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2000 Preliminary Comments Page 18 CA BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project presented herein, the project will produce significant short-term (construction) air quality and acoustical impacts that have not been identified by the Lead Agency. In addition, based on the analytical methodology developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the project will produce a long-term aesthetic impact. Based on the City's environmental assessment of the Newport Dunes project, it is evident that the project will produce a cumulative air quality impact. • Proposed mitigation measures will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Most of the mitigation measures cited in the Initial Study are merely restatement of existing public policy. Since those measures will produce no actual mitigation, each of those measures are illusory. As an example, the Initial Study concludes that impacts on federal wetlands will be "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated" (p. 8). The mitigation that is proposed, however, directs the applicant only to comply with its already existing obligations under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Since those obligations predate the Lead Agency's analysis, compliance with those federal and State obligations was already a factor that was considered in the derivation of the document's conclusions (e.g., the analysis cannot be based on the assumption that the applicant violates the laws and, as mitigation, is directed to comply with those same requirements). As such, no actual mitigation is proposed and the resulting impact remains significant. Alternatively, "if during the negative declaration process there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project" (Section 15073.5[d], Guidelines). The comments presented herein provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed project will produce a significant, unavoidable adverse impact. In lieu of recirculating the MND, the Lead Agency is required under CEQA to immediately commence preparation of an EIR which more thoroughly analyzes the project's significant or potentially significant environmental effects. 3.0 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY 3.1 Environmental Checklist Form In what appears a self-serving description, the "City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Form" (Checklist) states that "the project involves the placement of fill within an existing artificial pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size" [emphasis added] (Checklist, p. 1). The selection of the term "artificial" blatantly seeks to diminish the biological resource and related values of the existing "pond." Whether of "artificial" or natural creation, the lake constitutes an existing resource whose habitat, aesthetic, and other values cannot be diminished merely through the assertion that the resource now exists because of human involvement. In the absence of those major landform alternations that created Big Canyon, the pond may have existed in some form in its natural state (e.g., "the biological report indicates that the pond appears to be located along an [sic] historical 'blue -line' stream, according to the USGS topographic map," p. 6). As further indicated in the "City of Newport Beach Planning Department Case Log - Pending Applications," concerning the proposed project, the Lead Agency states that "an application for a storm Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2000 Page 19 Preliminary Comments �/ BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project drain project located within the streambed line in [the] Big Canyon site" [emphasis added] is being processed by the City. To now diminish the ponds value and its function because some human efforts were involved in its enhancement from a natural stream to a pond (which may have otherwise naturally existed in the absence of those efforts) would be to relegate all wetland mitigation sites, all habitat restoration projects, all tree planting programs, and all streambeds themselves, as well as all art and architecture, to a second-class status that can be off-handedlydestroyed merely since they did not result solely from God's own hands. What policies are contained in the "City of Newport Beach General Plan" (General Plan) and the "Local Coastal Plan" (LCP) that address natural resources? Do those policies clearly differentiate between those resources which are "artificial" and those than are naturally occurring? Does the General Plan state that only "natural" resources are worthy of preservation? Are there any relevant policies that are contained in the General Plan-(e.g., Conservation and Open Space Element) and the LCP that may encourage, either directly or indirectly, the preservation of freshwater resources or other habitat areas within the City? Where in the Initial Study are those policies cited and the project's consistency therewith evaluated? Based on a view of historic aerial photographs, USGS maps, and other Sources, did any "waters of the United States" and did any wetland or riparian areas exist within the Big Canyon area prior to its current development? When Big Canyon was developed, did the City inventory all "waters of the United States" and all wetland and riparian areas located within that area? What is the history that lead to -the provision of the pond and was that pond created as mitigation, either intentionally through City direction or voluntarily through the efforts of the developer, for the destruction of those natural resources that then existed within the project area? Have any deed restrictions, covenants,or other restrictions of any type been recorded or imposed on the pond and, if so, what are those restrictions and/or limitations? In addition, in describing the pond, the Initial Study states "the pond is small" (p. 6). Again, the terminology used to describe this unique resource, whether of natural or man-made creation, is intended solely to diminish intheeyes of the reader the value of this water body. As indicated in the County's "The Physical Environment of Orange County: A Report on the Deteriorating Condition of Orange County's Natural Environment," the County's Planning Department states that: Of all natural resources, few are relied upon as intensively and consistently as water. And yet, in spite of its importance, water is probably the most abused and wasted resource shared with nature. Water continuously interacts with all living things, affecting not only distributions of vegetation and wildlife, but of man himself...Water is a key element in our County's and State's environmental balance and must be utilized with extreme care and selflessness. Just as water can be a friend or foe of man, man can similarly be a friend or foe of his water resources. The often quoted remark from Pogo, 'We have met the enemy and he is us,' is especially applicable to our use of fresh water. Concurrent with the growing utilization of our own water resources as well as those of other regions,. public awareness must also increase as to the precarious relationship between the Orange County citizen and his limited water supply. Relative to the Great Lakes, the pond may, in fact, be "small." However, relative to the total surface acreage of all freshwater lakes that now exist within the City, the pond may, in fact, be quite large. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 20 • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Citing the above publication, "there are no known examples of natural lakes remaining in the County other than the Laguna Lakes." Therefore, any lake, whether of natural or man-made creation is an endangered resource not only in the City but throughout the County as a whole. What is the total square footage of all freshwater lakes in the City and how was that square footage determined? What percent of total freshwater square footage within the City is the on -site pond? With the pond's total destruction, excluding the Back Bay and the water reservoirs, how will the total inventory of all freshwater resources within standing bodies within the City be diminished? Is the pond "small" relative to that total quantity of freshwater lakes within the City? Are freshwater ponds plentiful resources or scare resources within the City? Is retention of those areas possessing existing habitat value and preservation of those areas that currently serve some habitat role or function encouraged or discouraged in the General Plan? Whatcorresponding policies address that issue? Although the Checklist appears to include most of the topical issues contained in Appendix G of the Guidelines, noticeably absent from the Checklist is any discussion of parks (see Appendix G, Section XIII[a], Guidelines). Why have "parks" been excluded from the City's Checklist (Checklist, p. 12)? Included in the Checklist is a "source list" (Checklist, p. 16); however, an inadequate, description of those documents is provided (e.g., the author, agency, date, and precise titles are missing from most of the documents cited). Additionally, it is evident that other documents are referenced in the Initial Study that are not referenced herein or, if referenced, presented in such fashion as to prevent a reader from equating the statement in the text to the list of documents that are cited. For example, the Initial Study states that "the Final EIR/GPA 82-2 (pages 37-41) include a complete discussion of existing conditions, impacts and City policies pertaining to geology and soil" (p. 10). No reference to "Final EIR/GPA 82-2" is, however, presented among the "source list." How can public agencies and the affected public review those documents which are purported to be the basis for the Initial Study's findings when no or inadequate references are provided thereto? By referencing "Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan" (Checklist, p. 16), the Lead Agency indicated the presence of a "program EIR" that may contain information germane or critical to any understanding of the project, its potential cumulative impacts, and any programmatic mitigation measures or alternatives relevant thereto. By referencing the "Final Program EIR," is the Lead Agency seeking to "tier" this MND based upon the information and analysis contained therein? Does the "Final Program EIR" address the project site? Were any mitigation measures adopted as part of that document and, if so, what program -level measures were so adopted? What is the relevancy of those measures to the proposed project? Additionally, has any previous CEQA documentation been prepared for any portion of the Big Canyon Country Club site or for the Big Canyon area itself? In what year were those facilities permitted and was CEQA in effect at that time? If yes, why has that previous CEQA documentation not been referenced in the Initial Study or the findings of that previous EIR not been specifically addressed therein? Were any mitigation measures adopted by the City at that time? What is the relevancy between that previously adopted CEQA documentation and later activities that may occur within the geographic area addressed therein? How does the Lead Agency's failure to identify that earlier EIR facilitate an understanding of the project and its potential environmental effects? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 21 %� 1 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain ImprovementProject 3.2 Initial'Study 3.2.1 Project Description Physical Changes to the Project Site Although Section 15071(a) of the Guidelines do not provide a clear definition of what constitutes an adequate project description, the project description must both addressthe "whole of the action" and contain a sufficient explanation of the proposed action to provide a clear explanation of what is being requested and to allow for meaningful analysis. The courts have found initial studies to be inadequate if they omit necessary information and inaccurately characterize the proposed project. In Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (4th Dist., 1986), the court found deficient a project description that omitted the project address and legal description, described the project in only vague terms, failed to recognize its place within a larger project, and failed to acknowledge its probable effects on the land use patterns and character of the affected area. Many of those same defects are evident in this Initial Study. The project description that is provided therein presents little meaningful information concerning the precise nature of the proposed project. Although "the application is a request to permit the approval of a_Grading Permit" (p. 1), no grading plan is ever presented, no geotechnical report is included that would define the parameters and conditions required for the proposed grading operation, no cut -and -fill quantities are ever identified, the site pre- and post -project topographic is never addressed, the number of haul trucks required to import soil material are not estimated, and the precise area of physicalsite disturbance never described or illustrated. As a result, virtually no information is provided upon which grading and its associated impacts (e.g., fugitive dust, noise, traffic) can be examined. The project description states that "the project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing artificial pond and construction of associated improvements" (p. 1). The "associated improvements" are, however, never clearly described such that neither the "storm drain improvements" (which are purported the basis for the project) nor the post -project uses (which will occur thereupon) are identified in any fashion which would allow a public agency or the affected' public to dearly understand what is now proposed. Has a geotechnicai report been submitted by the project proponent and, if so, where in the Initial Study is that report referenced? Has a conceptual grading plan been formulated that quantities the area of disturbance and the quantity of materials to be moved? Where in the Initial Study is that grading plan discussed and graphically presented? Although later in the Initial Study, the Lead Agency states that "it is estimated that the project will involve 500 cubic yards of excavation, 18,000 cubic yards of embankment, and 17,500 cubic yard of import fill material" (p. 11), no source document upon which this information is derived is referenced anywhere in the Initial Study. It is, therefore, apparent that the City has withheld the presentation (or reference to) information critical to an understanding of the project's precise characteristics and resulting impacts. Since that critical material is absent from the Initial Study (and no references are provided to the source of that information or where copies of any associated studies can be reviewed), no basis exists to independently verify the accuracy of the information provided. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 22 • • G1% • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Although "improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drain" (p. 1), from that description it is not known whether the resulting "drainage pipes" will be elevated above ground (i.e., "above surface") or constructed underground. No infrastructure improvement plans are presented, no pipeline alignments are illustrated or discussed, no pipe sizes are identified, and no area of disturbance referenced. The project is further described as including the "relocation of an existing water line" (p. 1). Nowhere in the Initial Study, however, is that water line further discussed, its location illustrated, or the applicant's plans to ensure the continuing availability of potable water and fire flow described. All that is presented is the unsupported conclusion that "the project will not result in the significant alteration or expansion of existing utility and service systems" (p. 26), but no factual basis is ever presented to allow either an understanding of the project or to allow an independent verification of those findings. As indicated in the Checklist, "improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line" (Checklist, p. 1). Absent from the Initial Study, however, is any graphic that reasonably represents the precise location and specific nature of those improvements, defines the geographic area of physical disturbance, or identifies a project area extending beyond the "existing artificial pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size" (Checklist, p. 1). What is the precise area of physical disturbance and where in the project description is that area described and illustrated? The Initial Study further states that "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to complement the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance" (p. 1). No site plan is, however, ever presented illustrating the proposed improvements; therefore, no basis exists to know the precise nature of the post -project land uses. No landscape plan is included or referenced that might support the statement that the resulting uses will "complement the existing golf course." All that is presented is the unsupported and unsubstantiated conclusions (which were probably prepared by the applicant). How does the absence of a proposed site plan allow for a reasonable understanding of the proposed post -project conditions? Has a site plan been provided by the project proponent and, if so, what is the Lead Agency's rationale for its non - inclusion in the Initial Study? Where in the Initial Study is the proposed landscape plan presented (e.g., "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped," p. 1)? What is the size, location, and precise configuration of the proposed putting green (e.g., "replaced with a putting green," p. 1)? How will the driving range be extended and what is the current and post -project configuration and depth of that facility (e.g., "the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance," p. 1)? What is the current "depth" of the driving range? What percentage of amateur golfers can routinely drive a golf ball that distance? What effects will the expanded depth have on play? What documentation exists that additional depth is, in fact, required to allow for the continuing use of that facility? Since the Initial Study is required to present "a description of the project including the location of the project" (Section 15063[d][1], Guidelines), the Lead Agency's failure to present anything other than a generalized vicinity map fails to provide sufficient information upon which the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project can be assessed. Even the Lead Agency's own Checklist requires the project description to "describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 23 q ti� BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation" [emphasis ' added] (Checklist, p. 1), Without knowing what portion of the project exists "on -site" and what portion of the project exists "off -site," no basis is presented against which the resulting physical changes can be examined. While "the regional location of the site is depicted on Exhibit 1 and the project vicinity on Exhibit 2" (p. 1), why is the project site itself never depicted or illustrated? How does the Lead Agency's failure to accurately illustrate the precise project site "provide more meaningful public disclosure" (Section 2100.1, CEQA)? Since one of "the basic purposes of CEQA" is to "inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant effects of proposed actions," in.the absence of a graphic depicting the project site, how does the Initial Study serve to adequately inform thoseparties about the geographic area to be impacted? As defined under Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines, "a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project" [emphasis added]. Without a detailed exhibit, how are public agencies and the affected publicsuppose to know the precise boundaries of the "area affected"? Does the "area affected" extend, either directly or indirectly, beyond the 28,000 square foot pond area? Since "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory bird species that are protected by the California Fish and Game Code and Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act" (Biological Study, p. 4), does the "area affected" extend beyond the project site to include impacts upon other nesting areas that will now be impacted through increased demand imposed by a greater number of migratory birds competing fa -fewer resource areas? Also absent from the project description is any listing of the permits, approval, or other entitlements that are required for project implementation, other than the issuance of a grading permit. In the absence of that information, it is not possible to understand the full extent of the project or the roles, responsibilities, or statutory/regulatory requirements that are applicable to the actions of other Responsible Agencies (e.g., Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act; Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code). Additionally, since no or only minimal information is provided in the Initial Study concerning applicable provisions of the "City of Newport Beach Municipal Code" (Municipal Code), it is not possible to understand local procedures or provisions that apply to the proposed project. For example, is the project subject to site plan review pursuant to Chapter 20.92 of the Municipal Code? Subject to a use permit or variance pursuant to Chapter 20.91 therein? Is the site located within a plan review overlay district as defined under Chapter 20.55 of the Municipal Code? Is the project located within an open space district as established under Chapter 20.30? The Checklist indicated that the site's General Plan designation is "Recreation/Open Space" and is zoned "Open Space" (Checklist, p. 1). No further discussion of either designation is, however, provided in the Initial Study. In the absence of that information, no factual basis exists to determine the proposed project's consistency or inconsistency therewith. Are there any General Plan policies that deal with the retention of water resources and/or the destruction of existing habitat areas? Where in the Initial Study are those policies cited and the project's consistency therewith examined? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 24 • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Relocation of the Putting Green and Potential Future Use of that Site As indicated in the Initial Study, "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green" (p. 1). Although never disclosed, it is assumed that an existing putting green (or other facilities) now exists on the project site whose location will be relocated as part of the proposed project. Should one or more facilities or uses be relocated or otherwise altered as a result of the project's development (e.g., golf cart parking), the relocated facility(ies) as well as the vacated site and the potential future use(s) thereof must be included as part of the project description. Beyond the project site itself, should the project produce, allow, or otherwise facilitate other changes to existing facilities and should those changes allow for the introduction, expansion, alternation, or modification of uses within the totality of the golf course property, those "off -site" areas must be considered as part of the project site and any such "uses" thereupon considered as part of the proposed project. The impacts resulting therefrom must then be identified and evaluated as part of the Initial Study. Will the project allow from the relocation or expansion of any existing or proposed facilities or uses within the golf course? Will the use or character of any property beyond the lake's boundaries be modified in any way, either now or in the future? What "off -site" changes may occur should the project be implemented? What other areas of the golf course would or could be affected by the proposed project and in what way? What is the planned or potential use for any "off -site" areas that are so affected? What additional physical changes (inclusive of both the physical environment and operational characteristics) could result directly or indirectly from the proposed project? What are the potential impacts that would result therefrom and where in the Initial Study are those impacts now examined? Operational Changes Resulting from the Proposed Physical Changes to the Project Site Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the operational characteristics of the project. Where in the Initial Study are the operational changes of the golf course resulting from the physical improvements to that facility identified and the impacts resulting therefrom examined? It is obvious that the Lead Agency has failed to provide a thorough and adequate project description since the description that is provided deals only with the physical changes to the project site. Since the project is intended for human use, will it result in an "expansion" of existing facilities, and has the potential to alter the operational characteristics of the existing facilities, the Initial Study is defective by failing to describe the operational changes that the project could allow. Beyond the impacts resulting directly from the physical changes to the project site, an entire range of potential indirect impacts will or may result from the subsequent use of the new or expanded facilities that are created. By focusing exclusively on the changes to the physical environment, the Lead Agency has ignored the manner in which the project could induce changes to the type or intensity of use of not only the project site but the entire golf course itself. Since the "project" addressed herein must include both the "direct physical change in the environment" and the "reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment" (Section 15378[a], Guidelines), only one-half of the project is ever described (and subsequently evaluated) in the Initial Study. What are the reasons behind the relocation of the putting green and expansion of the driving range? How could the project directly, indirectly, or ultimately alter the operational characteristics of the existing golf course? Does the project result in the elimination, removal, or reduction to some Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 25 Cel BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project constraint that currently limits the use of the golf course? Could the project alter or otherwise effect the type, frequency, or intensity of play thereupon?' Could the project increase the number or change the character of course users? Could the post -project golf course be used in some fashion which is in any way different from pre -project conditions? Will, putting green and driving range use be restricted to specifichours of operation and, if so, what hours of use would be authorized should the proposed project be approved? How many individuals would be on the project site at any one time and how was that figure determined? Would the project expand or potentially expand the use of the existing golf course? If implemented, could a different level of play occur on the project site since the golf course would then meet specific standards allowing for a change in the way the course is classified or utilized? Could other future uses be conducted on the project site (e.g., golf cart parking)? Uncertainty as to the Proposed Use of the Project Site As indicated in the Initial Study, "the project applicant has indicated that the pond area may potentially be utilized as a putting green area" [emphasis added] (p. 23). From this statement, it appears that the post -project use of the site has yet to be determined or, if determined, is subject to potential future changes that could alter the assumptions and analyses presented in the Initial Study. If there still exists some question as to the end use of the project site or if the applicant (and not the City) is provided discretion concerning the use of that area, the environmental analysis presented in the Initial Study is meaningless unless the City imposes specific conditions of approval that limit the type, intensity, and specific use of that area to reflect the same assumptions as presented therein. Through the Initial Study, the Lead Agency repeatedly tells reviewing agencies and the general public that "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green tocompliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth will be expanded to provide additional distance" (Checklist, p. 1). Lost in the text of the Initial Study (p. 23)• is the statement that those uses may not, in fact, be developed thereupon but some other unspecified (and unexamined) use may ultimately replace the putting green and driving range. Since there apparently exists no limitations as to the nature of that end use, the site could potentially be converted to a parking lot, golf cart storage area, and/or maintenance area (including the storage of pesticides and fertilizers). Once the lake is destroyed and the area leveled, notwithstanding any declarations as to the intended use, it is apparent that a broad range of other uses could occur thereupon. To the extent that such uses did not involve a discretionary action on the part of the Lead Agency, those uses could be implemented without any future environmental review or public notice. To the extent that some use other that a putting green and expansion of the driving range could ever occur thereupon, the project description and subsequent environmental analysis needs to be revised to identify the rahge of uses that could be developed -thereupon and to evaluate the use -specific impacts associated with each of those activities. What is the intended use of the project site? Could an alternative use be developed thereupon? Can the Lead Agency guarantee that any change in the proposed use would subject the applicant to a new Initial Study process and full public disclosure of the impacts resulting therefrom? Is it the Lead Agency's intent to impose a condition of approval or require therecordation of deed restrictions that would permanently limit the use of the project site to only that associated With a putting green and driving range use? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2000 Preliminary Comments Page 26 • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Potential Need to Upgrade other Components of the Drainage System Although the proposed project is identified as the "Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project" (cover), once the Initial Study comes to the question concerning whether the project will "require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects" (p. 26), the totality of the Lead Agency's analysis states: "See response to Section XVI(b) above" (p. 26). That "response" is itself limited to a single paragraph. Absent therefrom is any hydrology or hydraulic study which would serve to define the need for and precise characteristics of the proposed "storm drain improvements." It is inconceivable that a "storm drain project" could be undertaken, much less authorized by the City, absent any engineering studies addressing the proposed improvements. A typical analysis would include the presentation of a hydrology/hydraulic report prepared in conformity to the "Orange County Hydrology Manual" (OCHM). The County requires that impact analysis for hydrology be based on a 100-year expected value discharge (i.e., 50 percent chance that the value would be exceeded in a 100-year flood). Any storm drain project would, logically, include an analysis examining pre -project conditions, project -related impacts, and containing appropriate mitigation measures derived through that site -specific investigation. In the absence of a detailed engineering study, it is not possible to determine whether the existing drainage system, including those components located both upstream and downstream from the project site are presently adequate to accommodate design flows. If those system components are themselves inadequate, it would appear meaningless and potentially hazardous to construct a linking segment that itself is insufficient to accommodate storm flows. Since the project is purporting a "storm drain improvement project," prior to formulating any plans for those facilities (much less releasing a CEQA document), the complete storm drain system would need to be analyzed to identify any additional improvements or modifications to that system that would be required to accommodate the anticipated flow rates. If either the upstream or downstream segment is found to be deficient, the project would need to be expanded to include those additional improvements. As such, this "storm drain improvement project" cannot be examined in isolation of the detailed engineering studies focusing upon the entire watershed. Rather than attempting to piecemeal storm drain improvements, any modifications to that system should conform to the City's "Drainage Area Master Plan" (DAMP). Absent from the Initial Study, however, is any discussion of the project's conformity thereto and any references contained in the DAMP concerning the adequacy of the existing storm drain system within the project area. To the extent that the DAMP or site -specific analysis identified the need for areawide improvements, the storm drain project should be expanded to encompass those improvements and not merely one isolated component thereof. 3.2.2 Aesthetics Referencing Section 21000(b) of CEQA, "it is necessary to provide a high -quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man." As further indicated under Section 21001(b) of CEQA, it is the policy of the State to "take all actions necessary to provide the people of this State with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetics, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise." Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 27 iG BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project It has been noted that "whether in surroundings that are largely natural or largely man-made...the environment, far from being of little account to human personality development, constitutes one of the most basically important ingredients of human psychological existence" (P.F. Smith,. The Syntax of Cities). Visual resources, therefore, include both the natural and man-made physical features that give a particular landscape its character and aesthetic value as an environmental factor. The Initial Study asserts that "the proposed project is not located in an area that contains a scenic vista" (p. 1). In arid southern California, a freshwater lake is both a rarity and a resource of significant aesthetic value. To, therefore, assert that the lake is neither a "scenic vista" (p. 1) nor a "scenic resource" (p. 2) would be to suggest that all freshwater resources, wetland areas, and riparian habitats are not valued within this community. What is the Lead Agency's definition of "aesthetics" and from whatsource document is that definition extracted? What is the City's definition of a "scenic vista" and "scenic resource" and what characteristics must an area exhibit to be so considered? What criteria has the City utilized to evaluate the significance of the proposed change in the site's aesthetic character and what factual basis exists to support the statement that "the project will not result in substantial adverse significant aesthetic impacts" (p. 1)? Why does the filling of a water body and the destruction of a habitat area not constitute a "substantial adverse significant aesthetic impact"? At what size must a natural or naturalized body of water be before its removal would constitute a significant environmental effect? Would the filling of the Back Bay be a significant impact? The only rationale provided by the Lead Agency for its preliminary findings is that "the project will be designed so that it's compatible with the adjacent existing Big Canyon Country Club golf course" (pp. 1-2). If "compatibility" with adjacent uses was the sole criteria for assessing the significance of physical changes to the environment, one could argue the removal of an ancient grove of redwood trees could be removed to expand a parking lot used by individuals wishing to view those trees since the expanded parking lot would be compatible with the existing parking facilities. It is the loss of the affected resource (Le., physical change) and not merely compatibility with other near -site uses that must serve as the basis for assessing the project's aesthetic impacts. As indicate in the "Public Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Dunes Resort," the "increase in development intensity of the site and changes to the aesthetic values of the area will result in significant cumulative impacts to public views in Newport Beach." From this statement, it is evident that the Lead Agency has sought to apply to separate sets of threshold of significance standards to two proximal projects. Since the Lead Agency has established, as a precedence, a determination that "changes to the aesthetic values" of an area "will result in significant cumulative impacts," the Initial Study errors in now asserting that the proposed project will have "no impact" relative to the site's existing scenic resources. What "aesthetic values" does a freshwater lake possess? Does a freshwater lake contain the same or comparable "aesthetic values" as a driving range? Although no such mechanism exists in CEQA and/or in the Guidelines, at least one public agency has attempted to formulate a framework through which this issue can be objectively addressed. The BLM has developed and implements a "visual resource management"(VRM) system designed to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the scenic quality of the nation's public lands. As described in BLM's Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2000 Preliminary Comments Page 28 • , n� BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB • Storm Drain Improvement Project publication "Visual Resource Management Program," the VRM system evaluates the quality of existing scenery, takes into account the distance from which that scenery is viewed, and looks at peoples' sensitivity to changes in the landscape. There are seven "key factors" in the BLM rating procedure: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity and cultural modifications. Each of these factors are assigned a particular "score" based on their physical characteristics. Relative to the "water" resources, the VRM assigns a value of 5 to areas possessing "clear and clean appearing, still, or cascading white water, any of which are a dominant factor in the landscape" and a factor of zero to those areas where water is "absent or not noticeable." Relative to "vegetation," the VRM assigns a value of 5 to areas possessing "variety of vegetative types in interesting forms, textures, and patterns" and a one when "little or no variety or contrast in vegetation" exists. Relative to "scarcity," the VRM assigns a value of six to features that are "one of a kind; or unusually memorable; chance for exceptional wildlife or wildflower viewing" and a value of one features that are "interesting within its setting, but fairly common within the region." Based solely on those three indicators, the scenic value of the affected resource is diminished by a factor of 15 and the "scenic quality class" of the affected landscape would diminish a minimum of one if not two class levels. That measurable change would constitute a significant aesthetic change to the project site. Therefore, in accordance with one of the few quantifiable methodologies that are broadly utilized to evaluate aesthetic impacts, the filling of the lake and the removal of the vegetation associated therewith would constitute an unavoidable adverse impact. Since no mitigation measures are now proposed by the Lead Agency, the post -mitigated impact remains significant and requires the Lead Agency to commence the preparation of an EIR. Although the Initial Study acknowledges that "the existing visual character of the site will be altered as a result of the project" (p. 2), the Lead Agency does not attempt to define, describe, or quantify the nature, magnitude, or significance of that alteration or compare the resulting change to any threshold of significance standard. Again, the sole basis for asserting the resulting impact is "less than significant" is the assertion that "the proposed project is compatible with the existing golf course" (p. 2). Under the Lead Agency's own logic, any proposed use that possesses the characteristics of an adjoining use would not produce a significant environmental effect, notwithstanding the physical change that might result therefrom. The mere assertion of "compatibility" does not serve as a substitution for a reasoned analysis of the project's environmental impacts. Even if "compatibility" is asserted, no factual evidence is presented supporting that assertion. From a biological resource perspective, is the post -project environment "compatible" as a replacement habitat for those species that now utilize the lake for all or a portion of their habitat demands? As indicated in Section 15064(d) of the Guidelines, "in evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. ..A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project...An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project but which is caused indirectly by the project." The obvious direct physical change is the filling of the existing pond, the elimination of the existing water resource, the removal of all associated vegetation, and the elimination of surface drainage flows which themselves may have an undisclosed and unaddressed aesthetic value. In place of those features, a level grass area and Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 29 /n/ BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project paved cart path is proposed. Since the Lead Agency has stated that "changes to the aesthetic values of the area will result in significant cumulative impacts," based on the Lead Agency's own criteria (although applied to an unrelated project), the resulting impact is obviously significant. Referencing Section 15064(b) of the Guidelines, "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." What scientific and factual data has the Lead Agency utilized to evaluate the potential significance of the physical changes to the project site upon the site's existing aesthetic resources? Since no lighting plan is presented for public review, no factual basis exists to support the assertion that "the project does not propose any new lighting" (p. 2). Since a putting green and driving range extension will replace the existing lake, it is reasonable to assume that some form of illumination will be provided for those areas. That lighting could include new lighting fixtures or reorientation of existing lighting. In the absence of an adequate project description, including the presentation of a proposed lighting plan or declaration from the applicant that no new or altered lighting is proposed, upon what basis is the Lead Agency's conclusions derived? is the issuance of an electrical permit a discretionary or ministerial action in the City? If ministerial, could additional outdoor lighting be added to the project area absent any further CEQA review? If lighting could be subsequently added or modified without further discretionary review and absent any public review, why has the Lead Agency failed to either evaluate potential light impacts or to impose reasonable, conditions of approval that would prohibit or regulate such later actions? 3.2.3 Air Quality Pursuant to Section15126.4(a)(3) of the Guidelines, "mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant." Since the Initial Study states that "the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce short-term construction related air quality impacts to a level of less than significant" (pp. 4-5), it can be construed that the post -mitigated impact is deemed by the Lead Agency to be significant. Should the recommended mitigation measures not be adopted or should their efficacy be less than anticipated, significant "short-term construction related air quality impacts" would, therefore, be expected to remain. Since the Lead Agency has failed to quantify the type, amount, or duration of emissions that would be generated by the project, no factual basis exists to compare project -induced emissions to any threshold standards established either by the City or by other public resource agencies (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District). What is the projected construction term? What is the anticipated daily and quarterly quantity of particulate matter (PMI&, carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NO), and sulfur oxides (SOX) that will be generated by the project during the construction process? How were emission levels determined? What is the anticipated number and type of heavy-duty construction equipment that will be utilized? How many construction employees will be involved in the project's development? How many haul trips will be required for the importation of fill material and exportation of organic and other materials (e.g., "it is anticipated that the project will require exporting debris [concrete from removed cart path] and importing fill material to be placed in the, pond," p. 11)? Where is the "borrow site" from which fill material will be imported? To what landfill or other disposal site will export material be transported? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 30 /1st BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project As defined in Section 15370 of the Guidelines, "'mitigation' includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." As indicated by the above definition, mitigation does not include compliance with existing laws, standards, and regulations where compliance would otherwise be required notwithstanding the inclusion of a specific mitigation measure obligating the applicant to so perform, the payment of fees which constitute fulfillment of statutory or regulatory requirements or are otherwise imposed by either the Lead or other Responsible Agencies under then existing policies, or actions that are either identified as components of the proposed project or for which the applicant has made a firm commitment to voluntarily implement. As mitigation of construction -term air quality impacts, the Lead Agency merely obligates the applicant to comply with those existing regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) that are already obligations upon the project (i.e., Rule 402 and Rule 403 compliance). Since compliance with SCAQMD regulations are already factored into the analysis of air quality impacts (e.g., one cannot assume a violation of the law as a basis for analysis and compliance with the law as mitigation for the resulting impact), in reality, no mitigation has been proposed by the applicant. In the absence of mitigation, the project's air quality impacts must be assumed to remain significant. Under CEQA, there must exist a "nexus" (Section 15041 [a], Guidelines) or relationship between the mitigation measures which are established and the impacts that will result from the project's development. The two mitigation measures identified by the Lead Agency seek to reduce "fugitive dust" and "odor from construction activities" (p. 5). By their inclusion, the Lead Agency appears to be stating that fugitive dust impacts and construction odors are either significant or potentially significant. No attempt to quantify fugitive dust and odors, however, has been made by the Lead Agency. What is the precise quantity of fugitive dust that will be generated by the project and how was that figure determined? What is the precise quantity of construction odors, including the specific composition of those odors, and how was that figure determined? What is the threshold of significance standards that the Lead Agency has utilized to assess fugitive dust and odor impacts? How are odor impacts measured? In order to protect public health, in 1983, the State Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of toxic air contaminants (TAC) and to reduce exposure to those contaminants. In August 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate emissions from diesel -fueled engines as TACs. Preliminary estimates indicate that the particulate (PM) emissions from diesel -fueled engines are the most significant toxic risk faced by the State's residents. In November 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published an assessment (updating previous 1994 and 1998 studies) of possible health hazards from human exposure to diesel engine exhaust emissions. The 1999 report focused on health hazard identification and dose - response analysis of diesel PM for the purpose of characterizing the risk of diesel exhaust exposure. The USEPA concluded that diesel exhaust is "highly likely" to be carcinogenic. Epidemiological studies suggest that lung cancer increases about 33-47 percent in occupational exposures to diesel exhaust. The USEPA concluded that the level of cancer hazard is also applicable to ambient exposure. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 31 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Two classes of possible health effects are addressed in the USEPA report: nonmalignant respiratory effects and carcinogenic effects. The USEPA confirmed its earlier findings on the non -cancer effects of ambient PM, such as increased mortality and morbidity, and its recommended chronic exposure level without appreciable hazard for diesel particulates. What fuel source will be used to power heavy-duty construction equipment? Will diesel fuels be utilized? Are diesel emissions the potentially significant impact that the Lead Agency's mitigation measures (Le., "during construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, to reduce odors from construction activities," p. 5) seek to minimize? Where in the Initial Study are the potential health risks associated with exposure to diesel PM addressed? In the absence of any disclosure on the part of the Lead Agency, the following independent air quality analysis is provided. The ARB's URBEMIS7 computer model includes both construction and operational emissions for assessing the impacts of a proposed project. The URBEMIS7 model sets default values for construction equipment operations. As a default, URBEMIS7G will assume that one tracked loader, one wheeled loader, and one motor grader (all diesel powered) would be needed for each 10 acres of land disturbed. That is, for any amount of land disturbance up to 10 acres, those three pieces of equipment would each be used for 8 hours per day. For the purposes of this analysis a water truck (to assist in dust control) is also included among the equipment associated with the project's construction. Although the number of haul trips are never disclosed, the Initial Study states that "500 cubic yards of excavation, 18,000 cubic yards of embankment, and 17,500 cubic yards of import fill material" (p. 11). If grading operations are assumed to take up to 30 days to complete and if each haul truck is assumedtotransport only 9 cubic yards of soil, as many as 66 truck trips could be generated on a daily basis (18,000 + 30 + 9 - 66.6). Each truck is assumed to have a round trip of 50 miles. Associated emissions are based on the average emissions per mile as predicted in the MVEI7G model. Based on those assumptions, emissions projections for this construction equipment are included below. As indicated therein, NOx emissions could exceed the SCAQMD's threshold of significance standard, producing a potentially significant impact. Source CO NOx , 'ROG SOx : PMio Track Loader 1.6 6.6 0,8 0.6 0.5 Wheel Loader 4.6 15.2 1.8 1.5 1.4 Motor Grader 1.2 5.7 0.3 0.7 0.5 Water Truck 2.9 6.3 1.8 0.7 0.4 Haul Trucks 56.1 79.9 7.9 3.8 9.4 Fugitive Dust - - 25.0 Total Daily Emissions 67.5 113.7 15.2 7.3 37.2 SCAQMD Threshold 550 100 , 75 150 150 Projected to Exceed Threshold ? No YES No No No Since the above estimates do not include worker trips, actual emissions would be anticipa ed to be even higher. The above information constitutes substantial evidence that the project will directly Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2060 Page 32 • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project produce a significant air quality impact. Since no measures have even been formulated by the Lead Agency to address NOx emissions, the resulting impacts will remain significant. Based on that non -disclosure and the analytical limitations resulting therefrom, the City is precluded from asserting that the above assumptions are not consistent with the proposed project. The above assumptions are based on the default values of the computer models and, therefore, represent reasonable and defensible assumptions that can and should be used in the absence of specific project information. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of other projects that could combine with the proposed activity to generate cumulative environmental effects. As indicated in the Lead Agency's own "Public Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Dunes Resort" (NOA) "construction emissions from airborne dust and heavy equipment will result in short-term adverse impacts. Also, operation of -the proposed hotel and time-share resort will result in significant cumulative contributions of vehicle and operational emissions in a non -attainment area." From this statement, it is evident that other reasonably foreseeable future projects now in process within the City will either individually or collectively generate significant air quality impacts." Notwithstanding this public declaration, the Initial Study erroneously asserts that "the project will not result in any significant impacts cumulatively to air quality" (p. 5). This statement is reputed by the Lead Agency's own NOA. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is currently out -of -attainment for both ozone (03) and PMto (e.g., "the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin that is a designated non -attainment area," p. 5). Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality within the SCAB. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant air quality impact that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level in an area that is out of attainment adds to the cumulative impact. Since the project will itself generate significant air quality impacts, the project's contribution to those cumulative emissions produced by all reasonably foreseeable future projects will be cumulatively significant. The Lead Agency mistakenly asserts that nearby residences are not "sensitive receptors" when it comes to potential air quality impacts (i.e., "the project is not located in an area that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations," p. 5). Since those homes located directly adjacent to the project site are mischaracterized as not containing "sensitive receptors," no analysis of air quality impacts thereupon are even presented in the Initial Study (i.e., "it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to sensitive receptors," p. 5). Nowhere in the Initial Study does the Lead Agency even disclose the proximity between adjoining homes and the construction site. Since separation distances are never stated and since air quality impacts upon children playing in rear yard areas or elderly residents are examined, other than through the statement that "dust generated by such activities is considered a local nuisance" (p. 4), no basis exists to support the conclusion that the project will produce "no impacts" relative to the exposure of "sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations" (p. 5). At its nearest location, what is the separation distance between the construction site and adjoining residential property lines (e.g., "beyond the pond area, there is...single-family homes to the north," p. 6)? What potential health impacts could result from exposure to air emissions? Are certain groups (e.g., children and elderly) more susceptible to those health hazards? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 33 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project , 3.2.4 Biological Resources As indicated in Section 15065(b) of the Guidelines, a project shall be deemed to produce a significant effect on the environment if "the project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals." Nowhere is that stipulation more evident than in the context of the project's proposed elimination of an existing sustainable habitat area and its replacement by a putting green and extension to an existing driving range (both of which have no habitat value). As indicated in the Initial Study, "the project site was visited by a biologist from Psomas on April 6, 2000" (p. 6). From this statement, it can be concluded that only a single site visit by a biologist was conducted and serves as the basis for the Lead Agency's biological assessment. As evident in the "field survey form" contained in Appendix 1 of the Biological Study (included as Appendix B in the Initial Study), the biologist was only actually on the site for only two hours (i.e., 10:30 AM to 12:40 PM). The entire biological assessment is, therefore, based on an extremely limited period of observation (Le., single day for only two hours). During that same two hour period, the same biologist was conducting the wetland delineation. Therefore, much of that time appears to have devoted to other than a biological assessment of the project area. Actual time spent in investigating biological resources was, in all likelihood, even Tess than indicated. As further indicated therein, "database searches showed 42 sensitive or special status species of animals and 21 sensitive or special status species of plants that occur within the general region of the proposed project. Because of the lack of suitable habitat in the already existing development, it is not expected that any -of these special plants or animals are present at the proposed project site" (Appendix B, p. 4). The list of "sensitive or special status species," however, is never disclosed so no basis exists to independently determine whether the biologist's assessment (i.e., "lack of suitable habitat") is accurate or whether certain species could even be observed within the limited field investigation (e.g., "the survey was conducted outside of the reproductive season for the cattails and bulrushes, therefore, any confirmed species identification for these genera was not possible," Appendix B, p. 2). Additionally, no reference is provided whether any of those species are aquatic and would be extirpated from the site should the project be developed as now proposed. Again, the Lead Agency has failed to disclose information critical to an understanding of the project's potential impacts. Many species (e.g., California gnatcatchers, least Bell's vireo) have established survey "protocols" that must be followed in order to determine the presence or absence of those species. Many of those protocols require multiple site inspections over extended time periods during certain times of the year. Clearly, based on a single site visit, no supportable basis exists to definitively conclude the presence or absence of those species (e.g., "it is probable that other species such as small mammals and reptiles occur; however, no sign of these species was found during the survey" [emphasis added], Appendix B, p 2; "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory, bird species" [emphasis added], Appendix B, p. 4). Why has the Lead Agency failed to identify those "42 sensitive or special status species of animals and 21 sensitive or special status species of plants that occur within the general region"? How does the non -disclosure of that information promote informed decision making? How does that non -disclosure Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 34 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project facilitate public review and independent validation of the Lead Agency's preliminary findings? What are the "42 sensitive or special status species of animals" and the "21 sensitive or special status species of plants"? The Initial Study asserts that "the pond is an isolated feature located within the golf course and it is not associated with any wildlife corridors" (p. 7). Again, the Lead Agency presents an unsupported statement absence any factual basis. Those individuals who live in the area can attest to the fact that a broad array of wildlife does, in fact, utilize the golf course as a wildlife corridor. A number of terms have been used in various wildlife movement studies to refer to areas in which wildlife move from one area to another. Those terms include: (1) "travel routes" are landscape features (e.g., ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites); (2) "wildlife corridors" are pieces of habitat, usually linear in nature, that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another; (3) "habitat or landscape linkages" provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species; and (4) "wildlife crossings" are small, narrow area, relatively short in length and generally constricted in nature, that allows wildlife to pass under or through an obstacle or barrier that otherwise hinders or prevents movement. Although the site may not be a "wildlife corridor," it dearly serves as part of a "travel route" that provides wildlife access to food and water resources. To off-handedly disregard the site's habitat role, therefore, ignores the empirical evidence that now exists. As previously indicated, "mitigation" neither includes mere compliance with existing laws and regulations nor fulfillment of obligations otherwise required by the applicant absent those measures. Although the Initial Study states that "the project is subject to compliance of the regulatory permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Code Section 1603) will be required for the project" [emphasis added] (p. 7), as mitigation, the Lead Agency requires compliance with the same regulations. As a result, all such mitigation measures are illusory since they impose no additional obligations upon the applicant. To be both enforceable and of some benefit, mitigation measures must be feasible. Although the Initial Study includes a mitigation measure requiring the off -site replacement of those wetland areas and jurisdictional waters impacted by the project (i.e., "the total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a 'no net loss' minimum ratio," p. 7), no conceptual mitigation plan has been presented indicating that such replacement is feasible, will occur within a reasonable time frame, and will not result in other indirect impacts that would then need to be examined in the project's Initial Study. It is not sufficient to merely indicate that replacement resources will be required. The City shall require the applicant to prepare and submit (and disclose for agency and public review), the applicant's precise plan for the provision of those replacement resources. Since a project constitutes the "whole of the action," why would the actual mitigation plan not be considered an integral component of the project? What is the applicant's proposed mitigation plan for impacts to wetland areas and jurisdictional waters? Why has the City not required the applicant to submit a conceptual mitigation plan and to include that plan in the Initial Study? As required under Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the Guidelines, "if a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 35 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." In the absence of the applicant's disclosure of the conceptual mitigation plan, what basis exists upon which the Lead Agency can evaluate the potential impacts of the above referenced •mitigation measure? What are the potential impacts that may result therefrom? As further mitigation of the project's biological impacts, the Initial Study states that "the project applicant in consultation with a qualified biologist shall relocate the trees and vegetation (i.e., cattails and bulrushes) that provide roosting sites for the black -crowned night -heron to other ponds on the golf course" (p. 8). First, cattails and bulrushes do not offer "rooster sites for the black -crowned night - heron"; therefore, no relocation of that vegetation would likely result from the above mitigation measure. Secondly, since no plant inventory has been conducted and no landscape plan submitted, there exists no basis to precisely know what is being required hereunder. What is the type, size, and location of all "trees and vegetation" that must be relocated? Can a site map be provided that illustrates the current location of each of those "trees and vegetation"? Since the Biological Study states that "the California. Department of Fish and Game usually defines the breeding season aas [sic] March 1-August 31" (Appendix B, p. 4), why has the Lead Agency not imposed a condition restricting all site disturbance during that time period? Since "the pond vegetation may provide nestinghabitat for one or more common migratory bird species" (Appendix B, p. 4), why is the above referenced mitigation measure restricted solely to impacts upon "black -crowned night heron"? Golf courses often use large quantities of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Many golf courses, in fact, use more pesticides per acre than do agricultural lands. Once applied, pesticides can be transported to different locations via a number of different ways, including: (1) aerial drift and evaporation from application sites; (2) deposition of airborne pesticides; (3) transportation through the food chain; and (4) irrigation or rainwater runoff. In "Disrupting the Balance: Ecological Impacts of Pesticides in California," Dr. Susan Kegley states that: An estimated 672 million birds are exposed to pesticides every year in the United States from agricultural pesticide use alone. An estimated ten percent, or 67 million of these birds die. The loss of even a few individuals from rare, endangered, or threatened species - for example, burrowing owls, Aleutian Canada geese, or raptors like the bald eagle, Swainson's hawk, and the peregrine falcon - pushes the entire species that much closer to extinction. Research and observations have documented that The insecticides diazinon and carbofuran are responsible for most documented birdkills in California.. .Organochlorine pesticides (like DDT) continue to impair avian reproduction, years after most organochlorine pesticide use Was discontinued...Birds exposed to sublethal doses of pesticides are afflicted with chronic symptoms that affect their behavior, reproduction and nervous system. Weight loss, increased susceptibility to predation, decreased disease resistance, lack of interest in mating and defending territory, and abandonment of nestlings have all been observed as side -effects of pesticide exposures...ln an ecosystem that is already stressed from too many dams, diversion of water to farms and,cities, and invasion of exotic species, the influx of toxic pesticides int California streams, sloughs, rivers, and bays is particularly damaging to many aquatic species. Several well documented facts emerge from recent studies on pesticides and aquatic organisms in California. Multiple pesticides are commonly found in California waters and • • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 36 • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project sediment, frequently at concentrations that exceed lethal levels for many species of zooplankton, small organisms eaten by fish. ..Toxic pulses of pesticides are a routine occurrence in California rivers, as stormwater and irrigation runoff carry pesticides from urban and agricultural areas into surface waters...Broad-spectrum pesticides such as the organophosphorus, cabamate, and organnochlorine insecticides destroy both pest and beneficial organisms indiscriminately, upsetting the balance between pest and predator insects...Research and experience have shown that: Beneficial organisms serve many valuable functions in an agricultural ecosystem, including pollination, soil aeration, nutrient cycling, and pest control. Application of insecticides indiscriminately kills pests and beneficial organisms. Pest populations often recover rapidly because of their large numbers and ability to develop resistance, but beneficial insects do not, resulting in a resurgence of the target pest as well as secondary pests that reproduce rapidly with no predators to check theiFnumber. Resistance and resurgence often lead to escalation of pesticide applications, resulting in pests with even greater resistance to pesticides. Proposed is the elimination of an existing riparian habitat area and the development of the site as an active golf course area. Since those wildlife species that have historically utilized the site for all or a portion of their habitat requirements will, in all likelihood, not read the Initial Study, their continued presence on the site may occur as they search for historic nesting and feeding areas. What they will find, however, is a loss of habitat area and potential exposure to lethal or sublethal doses of pesticides. No discussion of this potential impacts is, however, provided anywhere in the Initial Study. Sublethal doses, chronic exposure, and indirect effects on aquatic organisms resulting from pesticide contamination have been recognized, despite difficulties in direct measurements. The scientific community believed that wildlife affected at sublethal levels die of exposure, predation, starvation, or dehydration. Behavioral modifications resulting from exposure may include learning impairment and reproductive effects, such as reducing nestling feeding and nest attentiveness from pesticide intoxication, reduced egg production, reduced litter sizes, low fledgling weights, and decreased post - fledgling survival. Reduced visual acuity, hypothermia, and reduced immune response resistance also have been observed. Loss of appetite is a common factor in pesticide exposure. This is particularly significant for birds and mammals with high metabolic rates. Although the project addresses only a portion of the golf course, the golf course's entire operation should be the subject of this investigation. As a condition of approval, if the golf course's historic practices have been potentially destructive to wildlife, the Lead Agency should mandate changes to those practices as a means of potentially compensating for the lost of a valuable habitat resource. While the Initial Study acknowledges that "the site contains riparian vegetation" (p. 8) and suggests that the relocation of vegetation "to other ponds on the golf course" (p. 8) constitutes adequate mitigation for those impacts, the Lead Agency fails to either understand or recognize the finite carrying capacity of natural systems. The relocation of plants will, in all likelihood, have minimal benefits in compensating for the permanent loss of a habitat area. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either be diminished or will be displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they may overcrowd, disrupt, and compete with the existing local population. Increased competition and predation may act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels. This may result in a net loss of wildlife. The severity of Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 37 i4 S BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project the resulting impact is dependent upon the relative importance of habitats, the abundance and diversity of wildlife that these habitat areas support, the availability of these habitats in surrounding areas, and the habitat dependency of associated wildlife. Project implementation, therefore, can be expected to produce an overall reduction in wildlife populations. No recognition of or mitigation for this impact is, however, provided in the Initial Study. Causal factors generated by human activities are collectively termed "harassment." Harassment is defined as those activities of man that increase the physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction in wildlife populations. The most common forms of harassment include increased human presence, construction and background noise, Tight intrusion, the introduction of non-native species (e.g., ornamental plants), and the introduction of environmental contaminants. The effects of harassment manifest primarily on wildlife. These predominately occur through habitat degradation. Although the impacts of harassment are not as complete as total habitat removal, they can nonetheless be significant. Wildlife exhibit varying degrees of resilience and sensitivity to these impacts. While some species are generally highly tolerant, other species are affected with very little apparent disturbance. Where in the Initial Study is there any discussion of the potential harassment to remaining wildlife that would be anticipated should the site be developed? Which of the "42 sensitive or special status species of animals" are potentially susceptible to the effects of increased harassment? 3.2.5 Geology & Soils As indicated in theInitialStudy, "compliance with the City's Excavation and Grading Code will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level" (p. 11). As required under Chapter 15.10.060 (Grading Permit Requirements) of the Municipal Code, "no person shall do any grading without first obtaining a permit from the Building Official." As a result, it is evident that the above code provision constitutes a mandatory obligation upon the applicant. Notwithstanding this requirement, the Lead Agency requires compliance as a mitigation measure (i.e, "during construction activities, the project shall comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance;' p. 11). As further required in Chapter 15.10.060(C) of the Municipal Code, "each application for a grading permit or building permit shall be accompanied by two sets of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology report, or other needed documents. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer when required by the Building Official." Since a "soils engineering and engineering geology report" is already required under the Municipal Code, why would that same requirement be recommended as a mitigation measure (i.e., "prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation," p, 11)? How could the application for a grading, permit be "deemed complete" in the absence of the applicant's submittal of a "soil engineering and engineering geology report"? How could the CEQA process commence prior to the development application. being "deemed complete"? As indicated in above referenced code citation "each application for a grading permit shall be accompanied by two sets of plans and specifications." Since 'the application is a request to permit the approval of a grading permit" (p. 1), pursuant to City requirements, a grading plan and accompanying engineering report must have already been submitted to the City. Why was the grading "plan and Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 38 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project specifications, and supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology report" not referenced in the Initial Study or made available for public and agency review? How does the Lead Agency's sequestering of that potentially critical information fulfill the City's disclosure obligations under CEQA? If a geotechnical investigation has already been submitted, why would that obligation be identified as a mitigation measure in the Initial Study? If no geotechnical investigation has, however, been submitted, the Lead Agency's failure to require such study (when required under the provisions of the Municipal Code at the time the application is submitted) constitutes deferral of critical analysis to a later time period, beyond the disclosure and public review opportunities provided under the CEQA process, when such information would have limited benefit in terms of influencing the actions of the Lead Agency and other Responsible Agencies concerning the approval, conditional approval, or denial of the proposed project. Since "a public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA" (Section 15020, Guidelines), the Lead Agency is precluded from deferring an analysis of potentially significant project -related impacts until after the project is approved or conditionally approved. The Lead Agency's failure to examine potential project -related and cumulative impacts resulting from the project's construction and operation is clearly inconsistent with the CEQA obligation to "focus [the analysis] on the significant effects on the environment" (Section 15143, Guidelines) and "to provide more meaningful public disclosure" (Section 21002.1(e), CEQA) of the project's potential effects. As indicated in the Initial Study, "the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan does designate the project area as a high potential for landslides" (p. 12). Without further study or investigation, the Lead Agency then concludes that "the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with landslides" (p. 12). Since no analysis is provided in support of that conclusion and since the information required to support or refute the Lead Agency's preliminary findings (e.g., geotechnical investigation) has been deferred to a later date, not only can the conclusion not be supported by any factual information but the feasibility of the entire project must be brought into question when substantial remedial work could be required to eliminate those identified hazards. The Lead Agency further states that "the project is not located on expansive soil as defined per the Uniform Building Code" (p. 13). Since no soils report has been prepared or referenced in the Initial Study, no factual basis exists to support that statement. None of the documents cited in the Initial Study (Checklist, p. 16) would provide sufficient site -specific information to allow the City to make such a definitive statement. Based on the documents cited in the Initial Study, from what document (include page and paragraph citations) is the above statement derived? Referencing Section 3309.5 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), "the soils engineering report required by Section 3309.4 shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures, including buttress fills, when necessary, and opinion on adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading as affected by soils engineering factors, including the stability of slopes." Only through the preparation of a detailed site -specific soils investigation can the Lead Agency made such definitive statement. Has a soils engineering report, as required under Section 2209.4 of the UBC, been prepared and submitted to the Lead Agency? If yes, on what date was that document received and why was that study not included or referenced in the Initial Study? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 39 lr BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project As a result, the Lead Agency is precluded from deferring the preparation of a reasonable analysis of project -related environmental effects to later stages in the development process. This deferral of environmental assessment until after project approval violates CEQA's policy that impacts be identified before project momentum reduces or eliminates the agency's flexibility to subsequently change its course of action. In order to ensure a reasonable analysis of the project, the City must immediately commence the preparation or require submission of a geotechnical investigation and include that information in a new and recirculated Initial Study. The above referenced mitigation measure, as most of the measures presented in the Initial Study, are merely restatements of adopted public policy (e.g., "a mitigation measure is presented in Section VI[a][I] requiring compliance with applicable local and State building codes," p. 1) and do not: establish any new requirements upon the applicant. All such measures are illusory and only serve to misrepresent the actual mitigation that is now being recommended. Through there inclusion, an unsuspecting public is led to believe that actual mitigation is being proposed when little, if any, mitigation will actual result should the MND be adopted as now proposed. Was a draft copy of the Initial Study prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for their review? If yes, where can a copy of the applicant's draft Initial Study be reviewed? What changes thereto were made by the City prior to the Lead Agency's release of the Initial Study? 3.2.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials In order to ascertain the potential impacts associated with a proposed action, the Guidelines contain a checklist that has been generally incorporated as the form upon which the Initial Study has been developed. In addressing the potential exposure of site users to hazardous materials, the Checklist directs the Lead Agency to, determine whether the project will "be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which [sic] complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5" (p. 14). Typically, in order to determine whether the site is located upon or proximal to such properties, a Phase I environmental site assessment is conducted. No such study, however, has been conducted for the proposed project. In lieu of any reasonable analysis, supported by factual information, the Lead Agency merely concludes that "the site is not on a list of hazardous material sites" (p. 14). Was a Phase I environmental site assessment conducted for the project site? In the absence of that analysis, what factual basis was utilized by the Lead Agency to support that conclusion? Since a proximal hazardous material site could produce off -site impacts, are there any hazardous material sites located within a one -mile radius of the project site and from what source is that information derived? 3.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality As indicated in the Initial Study, "to ensure that storm runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, mitigation measures in compliance with said City regulations will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level" (pp. 15-16). The corresponding mitigation measure (i.e., Mitigation Measure No. 8) states that "the project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" (p. 16). Is compliance with those obligations voluntary or mandatory? If mandatory, what additional obligations are imposed upon the applicant by the above referenced mitigation measure? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 40 • • Il 7- BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB . Storm Drain Improvement Project Since no further obligations result therefrom, the mitigation measure included in the Initial Study neither constitutes a mitigation measure under CEQA nor will it produce any benefits relative to a reduction or avoidance of the project's potential impacts (beyond that level which would be anticipated absent that measure). Unlined, open water bodies, such as the on -site lake, provide an effective means of recharging underground aquifers. In beach areas, such as the City, maintaining groundwater levels is critical to avoid saltwater intrusion into those basins. It must be assumed that the freshwater infiltration in the vicinity of the lake plays some (albeit minor) role in groundwater recharge. Elimination of that lake would, therefore, eliminate any localized or regional benefits resulting therefrom. In the absence of any technical information or supporting studies, the Lead Agency concludes that "the project will not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge" (p. 16). What is the factual basis for that assertion? Have any hydrogeologic studies been performed to determine the existing rate of infiltration? What is the porosity of existing soils and from what source document was that information determined? With the elimination of standing water, with the reconfiguration of the site's topography to prevent the future ponding of water, and with the conveyance of stormwaters via underground pipelines (e.g., "instead of water flowing through the existing pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed underground," p. 15), what quantitative change in groundwater infiltration from the project site can be anticipated? In the absence of that analysis, what factual basis can be cited to support the Lead Agency's preliminary conclusions? Although "the project will result in a change to the drainage pattern of the site" (p. 16), the Initial Study concludes that "it is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impact on groundwater" (p. 16). What quantitative, qualitative, or performance -based standard has the Lead Agency applied or sought to apply to determine the significance or potential significance of any diminishment in the quantity or quality of infiltrating into the groundwater basin? With the elimination of the pond and the construction of a putting green on the project site, substantial quantities of fertilizers and pesticides will be applied in order to maintain the turf conditions required for that facility. Greens typically receive more intensive chemical treatment that fairways or roughs. Although application rates and frequencies vary with the course and condition, greens typically receive fertilizer application between eight and twenty times per year, whereas fairway application typically range from twice to eight times annually. Other soil amendments (e.g., gypsum, wetting agents) and herbicides are applied to greens on an "as needed" basis. Fungicides and insecticides are typically used only on greens. Under certain conditions (e.g., sand soil, low soil organic matter [< 1 percent], high precipitation, high groundwater table), groundwater contamination is possible and has been documented at a number of the nation's golf courses. Citing a recent article in the July -August 1998 issue of "Audubon Magazine": Amid increasing evidence of water and wildlife contamination, many of the chemicals [used in golf course maintenance] were taken off the market. After the deaths of hundreds of brant on Long Island, in New York, were linked to misapplications of the insecticide Diazinon on, nearby courses, the product was prohibited for golf course use in 1990 (although it is still available at garden -supply stores). Fish kills linked Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 41 qr1 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project to pesticide misuse in south -Florida courses last year prompted Dade County officials to consider banning Nemacure, a pesticide used to kill microscopic, grass -destroying worms. It is, therefore, evident that use of fertilizers and pesticides on golf courses (and specifically on greens) can present an environmental health hazard to both wildlife and human users. Nowhere in the Initial Study, however, has the Lead Agency acknowledged these health and environmental risks much less sought to assess their potential significance. As documented in "Golf Course Management and Construction - Environmental Issues, the potential detrimental effects associated with golf course construction and maintenance include, but may not be limited to: (1) contamination of surface waters with sediment and nutrient during turfgrass construction; (2).potential contamination of runoff water and ground water with applied nutrients and pesticides; (3) development of pest populations with increased resistance to chemical control; (4) potential negative impacts of chemical management on beneficial soil and non -target organisms; (5) potential toxic effects of applied chemicals to non -target plants and animals; (6) excessive use of water resources during drought conditions in semi -arid and arid climatic zones; and (7) loss or degradation of wetland resources during construction and turfgrass maintenance. Why has the Lead Agency failed to consider, address, or analyze any of these documented hazards? Inthe absence of that analysis, what factual basis exists to support the statement that the project will have "no impact" relative to its potential to "substantially degrade Water quality" (p. 1 7)? 3.2.8 Land Use and Planning The Initial Study states that "the project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation" (p. 18). The extent of the Lead Agency's analysis, however, has been limited to only a cursory assessment of the site's General Plan and Zoning Code designations. No attempt has been made to examine any other General Plan element (e.g., Conservation and Open Space) or other document (e.g., "Final Program EIR- City of Newport Beach General Plan," Checklist, p. 16)'that could, contain policies concerning the preservation of biological resources, habitat areas, freshwater resources, etc. As required under Section 65302(c) of theCalifornia Government Code (CGC), each agency is required to adopt "a conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic forces, forests, soils, rivers and other waters." As further required under Section 65560(b) of the CGC, all cities are required to adopt a "Local open -space plan" for the "preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species." As required under Section 65567 therein, "no building permit maybe issued, no subdivision map approved, and no open - space zoning ordinance adopted, unless the proposed construction, subdivision or ordinance is consistent with the local open -space plan." Since the Initial Study contains no reference to or discussion of those elements or the project's consistency or inconsistency therewith, no factual basis is established upon which a consistency determination can be made. Are there any policies, of any type, that are contained in any of the elements of the General Plan that may suggest an inconsistency between the proposed project and the adopted policies of the City and, if so, specifically what policies are cited therein? • Initial Study & Mitigated, Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 42 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project What is the relationship between the "Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan" and all later development activities that occur within the City? Were any program -level mitigation measures adopted by the City upon certification of that EIR? Are there any programmatic mitigation measures presented in the "Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan" that encourage the preservation of the site's existing natural or naturalized resources and, if so, specifically what measures are cited therein? 3.2.9 Noise The Lead Agency asserts that "future on -site noise impacts will not significantly differ from those which now exist" (p. 19). Not only does that statement appear incorrect, but it further demonstrates the Lead Agency's failure to consider the operational impacts that may result from the site's development. As indicated in the Initial Study, "single-family homes are located...about 30 feet above the pond's water line" (p. 10). Those adjoining home owners are currently buffered from noise associated with golf course operations as a result of the presence of the existing lake. With the lake's elimination, separation distance between operational noises and those sensitive receptors will be reduced substantially. Since the Initial Study lacks any discussion of either the existing or post -project operational characteristics of the golf course and since no site plan has been included in the Initial Study that would allow an accurate measurement of the separation distance between the putting green, extended driving range, and existing homes, the Lead Agency has failed to present information critical to both an understanding of those impacts and sufficient to allow the preparation of an independent acoustical analysis that would serve to document the change between pre- and post -project conditions. In lieu of a reasonable analysis, the Lead Agency again merely presents unsubstantiated conclusions relative to the project's potential impacts. Additionally, since the "standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance" (p. 19) are never presented, the public is not provided the yardstick that the Lead Agency has sought to utilize to determine the potential significance of the resulting change. From the information presented in the Initial Study, it is apparent than no acoustical analysis of any type was performed, no field measures conducted to ascertain pre -project conditions, no analysis conducted of short-term (construction) noise impacts, and no investigation conducted to determine the changes to the post -project environment. Again, without any factual basis, the Lead Agency claims that, although "the proposed project will generate a temporary increase in traffic associated with construction activities," the resulting "increase is minimal due to the limited size of the project" (p. 20). The greatest potential construction -term noise source relates to the use of heavy equipment associated with grading operations. While never disclosed in the Initial Study, it is evident that grading will occur within 30 feet of adjoining residences. The City, however, asserts that the difference in noise levels associated with a tranquil pond and those associated with heavy construction equipment is "minimal." In accordance with Appendix G of the Guidelines the Lead Agency's own Checklist, a project would be deemed to produce a significant noise impact if the project would produce "a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project" (p. 20). Although the term "substantial increase" is not explicitly defined therein, a reasonable threshold can be formulated based on that increase required to be audible by most individuals. The human ear can detect changes in sound levels of approximately three dBA under normal conditions. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 43 t( BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Changes of between one and three dBA may be notable under quiet conditions, while changes of less than one dBA are only discernable under controlled, extremely quiet conditions. Based on that level of audibility, an increase of 3 dB CNEL or more is used by most agencies as the basis for defining a "substantial increase" and thus defining a significant acoustical impact. Temporary construction noise impacts will vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The greatest noise levels associated with construction activities are generated by large earth -moving equipment. The noise produced by an assemblage of heavy equipment involved in residential development typically range up to about 89 dBA at 50 feet from the source (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipmentand Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971). Noise levels at the nearest receptors will, therefore, be on the order of 89 dBA during construction. In the absence of a field measurement of ambient conditions (which should have been presented in the Initial Study), a reasonable assumption is that existing noise levels are on the order of 55 dBA at those receptor locations. As a result, during construction, adjoining home owners may experience an increase in short-term noise levels of over 40 dBA. Because of the available of mitigation measures (e.g., temporary noise barriers), these impacts cannot be disregarded merely because they may be of short-term duration or simply "by limiting the hours of construction through provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations" (pp. 20-21). Notwithstanding this preexisting obligation, the Lead Agency continues to assert that compliance with existing laws and regulations constitutes mitigation under CEQA (see Mitigation Measure No. 9, p. 21). At best, they serve as mere reminders of the applicant's preexisting obligations, compliance with which is already mandated under separate provisions of law. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to examine the physical changes that will occur should the project be approved. Relative to construction noise, the actual impact represents a significant short-term increase in on -site and near -site noise levels. The Lead Agency cannot merely disregard those actual impacts merely be stating that the hours of construction operations will conform to the City's Noise Ordinance. If that was all that was required to mitigate construction -term noise impacts, then there would never exist a need to conduct acoustical analysis as part of any CEQA documentation. Since noisecontinues to be one of the factors listed in Appendix G of the Guidelines (and the Lead Agency's own Checklist), it is evident that the intent of the State Legislature was to seek to mitigate both short-term and long-term noise intrusion. Based on on -site field measurements, what is the existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residential property boundary? On what dates were those reading conducted and what were the conditions evident at that time? Were measurements conducted the property boundaries? How far will further uses be set back from the property line and what activities could occur both within the setback and active use area? What types and numbers of heavy construction equipment will be required for the project's construction? What is the distance between the nearest residential property line and the edge of grading? What increase in noise levels, in decibels, will occur during grading and how was that figure determined? In assessing noise impacts, what is the Lead Agency's threshold standards, in decibels, against which significance is evaluated? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 44 • • li BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 3.2.10 Utilities and Service Systems Throughout the Initial Study, the Lead Agency incorporates mitigation measures where none are, in fact, required or needed while ignoring the inclusion of mitigation measures where such measures may reduce or eliminate the project's significant impacts. For example, in addressing whether the project will result in new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities (which appear not to be a part of the proposed project), the Lead Agency concludes that "no impacts" will result from the project's development but nonetheless imposes a mitigation measure (i.e., Mitigation Measure No. 11) requiring the applicant to "coordinate with utility and service organizations" (p. 26). If there is no significant or potentially significant impact, then there exists no mitigation obligations and no "nexus" between the identified impact and the project's conditions of approval (Section 15941 [a], Guidelines). The referenced mitigation measure, however, gives rise to additional concerns and further suggests the non -disclosure of the project's potential impacts by the Lead Agency. As indicated therein, coordination with other utility purveyors is required "to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies" [emphasis added] (p. 26). To the extent that the proposed project results in, facilitates, or otherwise accommodates an "expansion" of existing infrastructure systems, the indirect and growth -inducing impacts associated with the removal of existing development constraints needs to be examined as a project component. What is surprising is that, based on the above referenced mitigation measure, infrastructure improvement plans have yet to be finalized. Notwithstanding the absence of information critical to a reasonable assessment of the proposed project, the Lead Agency has nonetheless embarked upon the preparation of this Initial Study which, at best, is incomplete pending the finalization of those plans and, at worse, represents an inaccurate and potentially erroneous assessment of the project's potential impacts. Will any existing infrastructure systems, services, or facilities be "expanded" either as a.direct or indirect consequence of the project? Has the Lead Agency initiated any consultation with those "utility and service organizations" that maintain existing facilities in the general project area in order to determine the project's impacts thereupon? Since the project description contains no discussion of any "expansion or relocation of facilities," precisely what such facilities are part of the proposed project? Where are those facilities located and what changes thereto are anticipated between pre- and post - project conditions? Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the relevance of Chapter 15.50 (Flood Damage Prevention) of the Municipal Code to the proposed project. As required under Chapter15.50.040 (Methods of Reducing Flood Losses) of the Municipal Code, "in order to accomplish its purpose, this chapter includes methods and provisions to: (1) Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities; (2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; (3) Controlling the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters; (4) Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and (5) Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas." Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 45 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project As further indicated in Chapterl 5.50.080 (Compliance), "no structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations." Absent from the Initial Study is any reference to these provisions (e.g., control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels). Clearly, these provisions are or may be applicable to the project. If applicable, should the proposed improvements serve as an impediment to the conveyance of flood waters, the proposed action would be in direct violation of these code provisions. Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 15.50.180 (Alteration of Watercourses) of the Municipal Code, "the Flood Plain Administrator shall: (1) Notify adjacent communities and the Department of Water Resources of the State of California prior to any alteration or relocation of'a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to -the Federal InsuranceAdministration, Federal Emergency Management. Agency; [and] (2) Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained." No such notification of analysis of "flood carrying capacity" appears to have been initiated • either by the applicant or the Lead Agency. Although the Initial Study states that "the project itself will not have any impact on solid waste disposal needs once the project is complete" [emphasis added] (p. 27), absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of construction -term impacts. As indicated elsewhere in the Initial Study, the project will require the removal of existing vegetation, the exportation of organic and other materials which are non -conducive to retention as part of the proposed grading operation, and removal and exportation of portions of the existing golf cart path. Notwithstanding the generation of these wastes, the Initial Study fails to contain any discussion of the type or quantity of those wastes, the potentialtorecycle or recover those materials, the mandatory source reduction and recycling requirements specified under the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939), and the policies and programs contained in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Since the Initial Study contains no discussion of any of the above, no information is provided which would allow public agencies and the general public to submit comments concerning either the project's impacts upon existing facilities or the project's compliance or noncompliance with the City's SRRE.. In lieu of unsupported and unsubstantiated conclusions, the Initial Study should contain a reasonable analysis of the project's potential impacts and then compare those impacts to a clearly articulated threshold standard. Only in that fashion is it possible to ascertain the potential significance of the project's environmental effects. What type and quality of materials will be exported from the project site and to what depository will those materials be transported? Will any waste materials be recycled either on or off the project site and, if so, what materials and in what quantities? Does the SRRE contain any provisions concerning the reduction of construction debris? Has the City, obtained the 50 percent source reduction requirement mandated under AB939 and, if not, how will the proposed project further the attainment of that goal? What quantity of green wastes and other wastes are currently being generated by the golf course and how was that information determined? What additional quantity of green wastes will be generated by the proposed project? What actions are proposed as part of the project to reduce the quantity of those wastes? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 46 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 3.2.11 Mandatory Findings of Significance The Initial Study asserts that "no cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects" (p. 28). Absent from the Initial Study, however, is any discussion of cumulative impacts. As such, no factual information is presented in support of this unsubstantiated conclusion. One only has to review the NOA for the Newport Dunes Resort to find information contradicting the above statement. As indicated therein, cumulative traffic and air quality are disclosed based upon those reasonably foreseeable future projects now undergoing review by the City (which must be assumed to also include the proposed project since both are listed in the City's permit log). In addition, the NOA identifies significant impacts upon visual resources. In combination with the proposed project, the planned destruction of an existing freshwater lake would be expected to produce cumulatively significant aesthetic impacts. Based on the City's own public disclosure, although associated with another project, substantial evidence exists that the project will combine with other projects to contribute to the creation of significant cumulative impacts. 4.0 OTHER COMMENTS 4.1 Inconsistencies and Contradictions The Lead Agency's inclusion of mitigation measures in the Initial Study appears to foretell the presence of significant environmental effects. The precise relationship between the recommended mitigation measures, the environmental analysis, and the Lead Agency findings, however, remain unclear. For example, the presence of mitigation under a specific topical issue is assumed to constitute (under the Guidelines) the Lead Agency's declaration that a significant environmental effect would occur relative to that topic. The discussion accompanying that topic often appears to suggest the absent of a significant impact before mitigation; a mitigation measure is nonetheless presented. Since mitigation measures are required only when a significant effect is identified, the Lead Agency appears to be stating that those effects are, in fact, significant and mitigation is required. Additionally, the manner in which each "box" in the Checklist is marked signifies the Lead Agency's preliminary findings. Only one topical issue has been identified as having a "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated" (i.e., "substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands," Checklist, p. 5). Therefore, the Lead Agency is stating that there exists only one significant effect. All other measures, though well intended, are meaningless since their implementation (whether effective or not) will have no relevance to the Lead Agency's CEQA findings. Then, when you compare the "boxes" to the accompanying description, again there lacks uniformity. For example, under Topic IV(a) in the Initial Study (i.e., "substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species," p. 6), the Lead Agency states that the identified impact is "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" (p. 6); thereby stating that the impact is significant prior to mitigation. In comparison, the Checklist states that this same impact is "less than significant impact" (Checklist, p. 5). So who knows what is significant or less than significant? Who knows what mitigation measures are required and which may be only "strongly encouraged" but not overly germane to the Lead Agency's ultimate CEQA findings? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 47 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Even with a score card, it is hard to figure out what is being stated and what the actual impacts of the ' proposed project actually are. 4.2 Absence of Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program As required under Section 21081.6(a)(1) of CEQA, "the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." Because theimplementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study may or may not be important (relative to a determination of which of the identified impacts are actually significant), those that are, in fact, proposed to mitigate a significant environmental effect must be effectively implemented and obtain the benefits for which those measures were proposed (i.e., reduce an otherwise significant impact to below a level of significance). In order to independently assess the efficacy of those measures, some means of evaluating performance is required. For example, it would be a shame to loss a lake and never get back a comparable resource in return. Since no mitigation reporting or monitoring program (MRMP) was included in the Initial Study, it is not possible to independently determine whether the proposed plan has any likelihood of accomplishing its intended results. The question remains, however, as to what those results actually are (e.g. knowing what performance expectations may be required to mitigate an otherwise significant impact). As required under Section 15097(a) of the Guidelines, "in order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a -program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." Mitigation measures subsequently listed on. the MRMP would, therefore, signify that the corresponding impact constitutes a significant environmental effect. Since the MRMP has yet to be provided by the Lead Agency, no opportunities are available to comment thereupon. To the extent that further information is provided concerning the projects environmental effects, commentor reserves the right to comment thereupon notwithstanding the absence of such comments herein. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 48 • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Attachment C AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachments April 2001 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond.Pill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Attachment C AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS Since the Lead Agency is either unable or unwilling to conduct a reasonable air quality analysis of the proposed project, it is necessary for the public to perform the work that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires be conducted by the Lead Agency. Since the Revised Initial Study contains no information concerning the precise nature of the construction process, it is necessary to make reasonable assumptions concerning the construction activities required to implement the project addressed in the Revised Initial Study. This following air quality analysis constitutes substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed project will produce significant air quality impacts. As a result, the Lead Agency is obligated under CEQA to either incorporate additional mitigation measures (thus predicating the recirculation of the Revised Initial Study) or immediately commence the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project. Introduction The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality conditions in the SCAB are under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Both the State and federal governments have established health -based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for the following six air pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and PM10 particulate matter. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. The SCAB does not attain State and federal AAQS for four of the six criteria air pollutants (i.e., carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate). Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants concentrations or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (Handbook). The SCAQMD's criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards and conformity with existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) or consistency with the current AQMP. The daily operational emissions 'significance" thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD include: (1) 55 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds (ROC); (2) 55 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx); (3) 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO); (4) 150 pounds per day of particulate emissions (PM10); and (5) 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOx). Separate standards have been recommended for assessing construction -term impacts. If construction emissions on an individual day exceed 75 pounds/day for ROC, 100 pounds/day for NOx, 550 pounds for CO, 150 pounds for PM10r or 150 pounds for SOx, the project could be considered significant. Projected on a quarterly basis, construction emissions would be significant if those emissions were to exceed: (1) 2.5 tons of ROC; (2) 2.5 tons of NOx; (3) 24.75 tons of CO; (4) 6.75 tons of PM10; and (5) 6.75 tons of SOx. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2001 Appendix B Page C-1 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds should be considered to be significant.' SCAQMD "considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its impact is mitigated below the thresholds in Chapter 6 [of the Handbook]."2 Project implementation will generate both construction -related (short-term) and operational (long- term) air pollutant emissions. Short-term emission impacts are primarily associated with construction activities while long-term emission impacts are associated with project -generated traffic. As indicated in the Handbook, a mitigated negative declaration (MND) "should identify all emissions associated with construction activities, including site preparation, construction of new facilities, or modifications of the existing facility or site. Demolition, clearing, grading, excavating, using heavy equipment or trucks on unpaved surfaces and loading/unloading of trucks creates large quantities of fugitive dust, and thus PM10. Heavy equipment required for demolition, grading, and construction generates and emits exhaust emissions. The vehicles of commuting construction workers and trucks hauling equipment or materials (mobile source emissions) are another source of emissions which should be quantifiedi3 In accordance therewith, presented herein is a reasonable analysis of project -related air quality impacts. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that no increase in operational emissions result from the project's implementation. This premise assumes that the number of golfers and other on -site uses that can be accommodated on the golf course or within golf course facilities does not increase above pre -project levels. It is, however, reasonable to assume that by expanding the putting green and driving range, an increase in on -site users would likely occur. Since the Revised Initial Study presents no information concerning any project -induced increases in operations, insufficient data is available to calculate any increases in operational emissions. Construction Emissions Diesel -powered earth -moving and related heavy equipment will be utilized for the trenching of the sewer pipeline and for the grading required to fill, compact, and convert the existing pond into other golf course uses. Equipment use, while never specified in either the 2000 Initial Study or in the Revised Initial Study, can be estimated based on the project's general characteristics. For the purpose of this analysis, equipment use is assumed to be limited to one scraper, one water truck, two backhoe/loader, and two trucks. Haul vehicles delivering building materials and pipe to the project site and exporting waste materials are separately addressed. All construction activities are assumed to occur for eight hours/day andrabtSsWsveek; equipment is assumed to be diesel - powered and operate at a 100 percent load factor. Although a substantially greater number of pieces of equipment would probably be associated with the project, the above estimate constitutes the "bare minimum" that would be anticipated to complete the construction process. As a result, since construction could and probably will occur at a higher level of intensity, this analysis may actually underestimate the construction -term emissions associated with the project. '/ SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993, p. 6-4; SCAQMD, Staff Report: Recommendation to Approve the 1992 District California Environmental Quality Act Handbook, October 20, 1992, p. 2. SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, p. 11-1. 3/ Ibid., p. 7-2. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B April 2001 Page C-2 /7-3 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Haul vehicles delivering building materials and pipe to the project site and exporting waste materials are separately addressed. All construction activities are assumed to occur for only eight hours/day and six days/week; equipment is assumed to be diesel -powered and operate at a 100 percent load factor. Typically, the actual number of hours assumed for each piece of construction equipment is ten hours, which includes maintenance operations. Again, for the purpose of this analysis, a minimal estimate is assumed so as to not inflate the report's conclusions beyond the minimum emission levels that could occur. Equipment emission projections associated with the referenced equipment are presented in Table 1 (Typical Construction Equipment Emission Factors). The numbers and types of pieces of equipment required for project development and the estimated emissions produced by each equipment type are presented in Table 2 (Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions). Table 1 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSION FACTORS (pounds/hour) Scrapers 1.25 0.27 3.84 0.46 0.41 Water Trucks 0.675 0.15 1.70 0.143 0.14 Tracked Loaders 0.201 0.095 0.83 0.076 0.059 Miscellaneous (Trucks) 0.675 0.15 1.7 0.143 0.14 ource: SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-8-A, p. A9-82. Table 2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EXHAUST EMISSIONS (pounds/hour) TYPE ` 3 Quantttyt d , `RO` �!6 Scrapers 1 10.00 2.16 30.72 3.68 3.28 Water Trucks 1 5.40 1.20 13.60 1.14 1.20 Backhoe/Loader 2 3.22 1.52 13.28 1.22 0.94 Miscellaneous 2 10.80 2.40 27.20 2.29 2.24 Total 6 29.42 7.28 84.80 8.33 7.66 Assuming on -site equipment and not inclusive of those haul veh'cles importing earthen materials from an off -site borrow site fo use in the dam's construction. E ource: nvironmental Impact Sciences The number of on -site construction employees can be estimated based on both anticipated equipment demands and prior experience on similar projects. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that up to twelve individuals will be employed on the project site during construction. Based on information presented in the Handbook, it is further assumed that: (1) each worker will generate 2.94 average daily one-way vehicular trips (ADT)4; (2) average work -related trip length is 4/ Op. Cit., CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Tables A9-5-A-2, p. A9-22. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B April 2001 Page C-3 /Z� BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project 11.6 miles5; and (3) all worker vehicles are assumed to have a gross weight of less than 6,000 pounds. Based on these assumptions, worker commutes will produce a total of approximately 36 daily starts and about 410 miles traveled per day. As outlined in the Handbook, a variety of vehicular travel speeds (i.e., 40 mph for CO and NO„, 46 mph for ROC, and 34 mph for SOx and PM106) must be assumed as the basis to determine associated air pollutant emissions. All trips are assumed to have a" cold start" and "hot soak."' As reflected in Table 3 (Estimated Construction -Related Worker Commute Motor Vehicle Emissions), work -related vehicular trips range from less than one pound of ROC, NOx, SOx, and PM,n per day to 9.05 pounds of CO per day. Table 3 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION -RELATED WORKER COMMUTE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS Atrlfittants �. .Slit aw actoi t�rtTr1e )ypL�s� . x 1t�'T $ {.�„�ii� " <� o (gt slcol• m � 1 �a I.Y i Y �5 CO 3.44 74.98 NA 9.05 ROC 0.18 4.02 0.95 0.56 NO, 0.49 2.38 NA 0.63 SO, 0.06 NA NA -` PM,03 0.15 NA NA 0.14 1. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-5-J4, p. A9-36 and Table A9-5-L (for 50 ), p. A9-54. 2. Emission = ([Vehicle Miles Traveled x Emission Factor] + [Number of Trips x Cold Start Emission Factor] + [Number of Trips x Hot Soak Emission Factor]) - 454. 3. Includes both exhaust emissions and tire wear. 4. Less than 0.1 pounds/day. ource: Environmental Impact Sciences The storage and transfer of diesel for construction equipment constitutes another potential emission source; however, the quantity of these emissions is not expected to add substantially to the project's total construction -term emissions. The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) 1985 publication entitled "AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (AP-42) lists transfer operations for diesel loading from tank trucks as 0.03 pounds/ 1,000 gallons transferred. Based on information presented in AP-42, the average calculated power rating for the various types of heavy equipment is 190 horsepower. The average fuel consumption is estimated to be about 12 gallons/hour. Based on the simultaneous use of all heavy equipment during construction, 576 gallons of diesel will be consumed on a daily basis. Haul trucks transporting materials to the site will also consume fuel. As indicated in the Handbook,' the average fuel consumption for haul trucks is 5.88 miles/gallon. Assuming a total of 5/ ibid., Table A9-5-D, p. A9-24 6/ Ibid., Table A9-5-F, p. A9-25. "Cold start" trips result when a vehicle is started after sitting for one hour or more. "Hot start" trips are those trips when the vehicle is restarted before one hour of non-use. "Hot soak" defines the emissions generated by a vehicle after the engine is turned off during which time the engine continues to emit vapors. B/ Op. Cit., CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-5-0, p. A9-70. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B April 2001 Page C-4 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project 400 miles/day for all haul trucks, an additional 68 gallons of diesel fuel will be consumed daily. The diesel fueling losses are calculated to be less than 0.01 pounds/day. Due to the low Reid vapor pressure of diesel, evaporative losses from off -site diesel storage will be even lower. All worker vehicles are assumed to operate with gasoline rather than diesel fuel. Vapor losses at gasoline stations are presented in AP-42 as 1.8 pounds/1,000 gallons transferred. The storage of this fuel in underground storage tanks at service stations will produce 1.0 pound of ROG for every 1,000 gallons dispensed. The filling of these underground tanks will contribute an additional 0.3 pounds/1,000 gallons. A total of 3.1 pounds of emissions will, therefore, be produced for every 1,000 gallons of gasoline dispensed. Assuming a total of approximately 410 miles/day for worker commuting and an average fuel use of 25 miles/gallon,' 17 gallons of gasoline would be daily dispensed. Losses are then calculated at less than 0.1 pound/day. The USEPA's updated 1995 edition of "AP-42, A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" estimates that each acre of graded surface creates about 110 pounds of total suspended particulates per workday during earth movement activities. The regulated PM,° portion represents about 45 percent of this value or about 50 pounds per acre/day. The SCAQMD's Handbook states that "grading one acre of land without implementation of mitigation measures can contribute 55 pounds of PM10 per day" and that "Rule 403 is primarily based on emission standards and does not contain project -specific mitigation measures. As such, Rule 403 should be considered as a performance standard to any specific mitigation measures required for any proposed project."10 The use of 50 pound/acre/day for fugitive dust emissions may, therefore, underestimate the actual emissions associated with grading operations. In the absence of a grading plan and equipment schedule, fugitive dust emissions estimates are based on the following assumptions: (1) all construction will be completed within a three-month period; (2) 3.06 acre will be disturbed on a daily basis; (3) all equipment is assumed to operate 100 percent of all allocated hours; and (4) construction activities will occur for eight hours per day. Based on these assumptions, estimated PM10 emissions are presented in Table 4 (Estimated PM10 Emissions from Fugitive Dust). Table 4 ESTIMATED PM10 EMISSIONS FR Source Type Source ri „Estimations . EmISM i�ma aa-#'`5i47t3Ss Fa o? „ ` ` T tgi fii� fr o - {pouridsid i3. s , 153.00 Graded Surfaces 3.06 acres/day 50 pounds/acre/day1 Construction 4.0 pieces of equipment Equipment operating 8 hours/day' 5.12 pounds/houl' 163.84 Total 316.84 1. Prior to any mitigation. 2. AP-42, A Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (1995) 3. The two haul trucks are assumed to operate on -road throughout the day and have not been included as an additional emissions source. 4. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9-F, p. A9-100. Envvonmental Impact Sciences 9/ !bid., Table A9-5-0, p. A9-70. 10/ !bid, pp. 11-3 and 11-4. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B April 2001 Page C-5 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Because grading operations for the proposed Big Canyon Truck Sewer will require the on -site stockpiling of excavated materials, fugitive dust emissions may, in fact, be greater than now estimated. Stockpiled materials may have a greater susceptibility to wind-borne erosion as a result of their elevation above existing grade, lack of any vegetative cover, and repeated disturbance (including the tendency for children to play "king of the mountain" during those periods when construction activities are not ongoing). Total estimated construction emissions are represented in Table 5 (Total Estimated Daily Construction Emissions). Based on the assumptions presented herein, only PM,n emissions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD's daily construction emission thresholds for those criteria pollutants. In addition, each of the additional threshold factors identified in the Handbook were also examined to determine whether any of those factors potentially apply to the project. Table 5 TOTAL ESTIMATED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS m drt T o . t Fitt aired Eh1ssi n?, CO 550 38.47 No ROC' 75 7.84 No NOx 100 85.43 No SOx 150 8.33 No PMK. 150 324.64 Yes' 1. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, p. 6-4. 2. Prior to mitigation. ource: Environmental Impact Sciences Based on the specific characteristics of the project, the project is not anticipated to: (1) be occupied primarily by sensitive individuals within a quarter mile of a facility that emits an air toxic contaminant(s) which could result in a health risk for pollutants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401 or exposure to a CO hot spot; (2) create a CO hot spot; (3) result in the accidental release of air toxic emissions or an acutely hazardous material posing a threat to the public health and safety; (4) emit an air toxic contaminant that is regulated by the SCAQMD or found on a federal or State air toxic list and which causes a significant health risk; (5) involve the burning of municipal, hospital, or hazardous wastes; or (6) violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction Mitigation As indicated in the Handbook, "mitigation measures should be linked to the phase of construction or operation that is generating the impact to be mitigated."" Since no operational impacts are assumed (based on the lack of data to estimate those emissions), mitigation is limited to reducing PM10 impacts during the construction period. "/ Ibid., p. 11-2. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B April 2001 Page C-6 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project A quantitative value has been assigned by the SCAQMD to each measures presented in the Handbook. As indicated therein, "the percentage of emission reductions that can be expected from implementation of mitigation measures is identified as the measure's control efficiency."'Z Based on the emission reduction potential associated with those measures, as determined by the SCAWMD, a reasonably accurate estimate can be derived of the project's post -mitigated impacts. In order to reduce the projected quantity of PM,0 emissions (324.64 pounds/day) to less than the recommended threshold standard (150 pounds/day), mitigation measures must demonstrate an approximately 116 percent efficacy. As indicated in the Revised Initial Study, only two mitigation measures have been identified by the Lead Agency. Those mitigation measures state: Mitigation Measure No. 1. During construction activities, the project proponent shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: (a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management OCSD [sic] Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); (b) maintain equipment engines in proper tune; and (c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project -related emissions. • Mitigation Measure No. 2. During construction activities, the project proponent shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities." Since Mitigation Measure No. 2 relates exclusively to "odors from construction activities," it will not produce any measurable benefit with regards to reduction in PM10 emission. Similarly, as indicated above, the SCAQMD does not assume any control efficiency with respect to compliance with Rule 403 requirements. As a result, only two remaining actions are now proposed by the Lead Agency: (1) regular watering or other dust palliative measures; and (2) maintain engines in proper tune. Although the Lead Agency proposes the "phasing and scheduling [of] construction activities to minimize project -related emissions," since no specific actions are identified, no enforceable actions will result therefrom and no control efficiency can be assigned thereto. As indicated in Table 11-4 (Mitigation for PM,o Emissions — Construction) in the Handbook, the following emission reduction efficiencies are assumed: (1) apply non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas — 30 to 65 percent; and (2) water active sites at least twice daily — 34 to 68 percent.?' No control efficacy is assumed for maintaining engines in proper tune. Level of Significance after Mitigation Since it is unreasonable to assume the maximum efficacy of any mitigation strategy the midrange number must be assumed. With regards to the these mitigation measures, a midrange efficacy of between 47.5 and 51 percent should be assumed. Since the Revised Initial Study indicates that these measures are self -canceling and non -additive (i.e., "regular watering or other dust palliative measures"), at best, a 51 percent reduction in PM,0 emissions can be assumed to that portion of the '2/ ibid., p. 11-4. "/ City of Newport Beach, Big Canyon Country Club — Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project, Recirculation of Revised Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration, March 2, 2001, p. 11. 14/ Op. Cit., CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table 11-4 , p. 11-1 S. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B April 2001 Page C-7 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project total PM,a emissions associated with grading operations (i.e., 153 pounds/day). When the resulting 78.03 pounds/day are subtracted from the total PM,o emission estimate, the post -mitigated PM10 emission levels are projected to be 238.81 pounds/day (316.84 — 78.03 = 238.81), which remains above the SCAQMD's threshold of significance criteria. As a result, the Lead Agency has failed to demonstrate that the recommended mitigation measures identified in the Revised Initial Study will reduce construction -term PM10 emissions to below a level of significance. Based on the emission projections contained herein and the anticipated efficacy of the mitigation measures identified by the Lead Agency, the project will produce unmitigated air quality impacts. As a result, based on the mitigation now proposed, the Lead Agency is precluded from utilizing a mitigated negative declaration as the appropriate means of demonstrating CEQA compliance. Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B April 2001 Page C-8 _ < BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project Attachment D DRAINAGE REPORT HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES Recirculation of Revised Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachments April 2001 /z10 • • Big Canyon We have returned to the City of Newport Beach, Public Works several times in an attempt to find additional information regarding the existing storm drain system that currently drains the existing Big Canyon Golf Course Lake. At this time we have been unable to find any additional information. We have not been able to locate the plans that built the existing lake outlet pipes nor any of the drainage fadlities downstream of them. We also have not been able to locate any hydraulic drainage study that would indicate the amount of flow that these systems were designed to carry. We, therefore, preformed a hydrology study using the Orange County's hydrograph method using the AES computer software to determine the 100-yr (0.01 %) flow rate at the Big Canyon Golf Course Lake. This study resulted in a 100-yr flow rate of 1431 cubic feet per second (Q100=1431 cfs). Our hydraulic study then vary closely agrees with that done by Walden & Associates in their study titled 'Hydraulic & Structural Analysis" and signed by Ralph E. Bolles. In that study they state that the pipe system will carry 740cfs and the proposed triangular earthen swale along the contact of the proposed earth fill and the existing slope on the far side of the lake away from the existing clubhouse will carry 700cfs. The sum of these flows is 1440cfs, which is virtually identical to our study. With this knowledge we can say that the pipe system as proposed would only carry the flow that would result from a storm with about a 5-yr return frequency. Therefore, requiring any flows resulting from a larger storm to drain through the proposed earthen swale. Today's accepted community standards require that a storm drain system located in a low point be designed to accept all of the flow from the 100-yr storm. At the time that the existing drainage system was probable built the standard could have only require the drain to accept a 25-yr storm flow. tfty removing the existing lake, as proposed, this will result in the Toss of any • it peak flow reduction that this lake has on the storm flow as it passes through the lake. Thereby, reducing the frequency storm that the existing drains can ihandle. r ' The proposed undersized drainage system will cause the storm flows to back up resulting in a small lake to form upstream of the proposed pipes. This will result in storm water pounding on the base of the existing that have never had water on them before. va"��,.,srJbay' aJc o r„,c •,r•t �.• fv ti �IIRc rli tr"i 1,4; FM v .r.i J.1C� Y,rrI t t ♦ i? �:• t �r j�c.pv; "''`1„"yfw�' Yr.a 1�Y�-5 �, '("1 �-4.. • i t 1. e. y • • . e . • • • NON -HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA -AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS (C) Copyright 1989-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/99 License ID 1239 Analysis prepared by: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES Irvine, Inc. Planning * Engineering * Surveying Three Hughes * Irvine, California 92618 * (949; 583-1010 *** NON -HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA -AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND IOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC III: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 5.63 (inches) SOIL -COVER • AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 585.00 60.00 91.( 75.) 0.200 0.873 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 585.00 AREA -AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.120 AREA -AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.127 ) FLOOD ROUTING ANALYSIS USING COUNTY HYDROLOGY MANUAL OF ORANGE(1986) (c) Copyright 1989-99 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 7.0 Release Date; 01/01/99 License ID 1239 Analysis prepared by: HUNSAKER i ASSOCIATES Irvine, Inc. Planning * Engineering * Surveying Three Hughes * Irvine, California 92618 * (949) 583-1010 • +************************* DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * W.O. 2552-1T * LAGUNA BEACH * 100-YEAR HYDROLOGY STUDY FILE NAME: LAGUNA.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:08 09/09/2000 i **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE - 1 »»>SURAREA RUNOFF (UNIT-HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS) ««< mmmm=smmm cmammmmmmmammm=a ar.ukaPII alE...ummmmmc.cG4:w+ummmmmw.mvmm--mammmmmmis: mme (UNIT-HYDROGRAPH ADDED TO STREAM #1) WATERCOURSE LENGTH = 9200.000 FEET LENGTH FROM CONCENTRATION POINT TO CENTROID = 4600.000 FEET ELEVATION VARIATION ALONG WATERCOURSE - 530.000 FEET BASIN FACTOR - 0.025 WATERSHED AREA - 585.000 ACRES BASEFLOW - 0.000 CFS/SQUARE-MILE WATERCOURSE "LAG" TIME - 0.237 HOURS CAUTION: LAG TIME IS LESS THAN 0.50 HOURS THE 5-MINUTE PERIOD UM MODEL (USED IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM) MAY BE TOO LARGE FOR PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES. STORM RETURN FREQUENCY - 100-YEAR FOOTHILL S-GRAPH SELECTED MAXIMUM WATERSHED LOSS RATE(INCH/HOUR) t LOW LOSS FRACTION - 0.127 *HYDROGRAPH MODEL 11 SPECIFIED* SPECIFIED S?ECIFIED SPECIFIED SPECIFIED SPECIFIED SPECIFIED 0.120 PEAK 5-MINUTES RAINFALL(INCH)m 0.52 PEAK 30-MINUTES RAINFALL(INCH)- 1.09 PEAK 1-HOUR RAINFALL(INCH) - 1.45 PEAK 3-HOUR RAINFALL(INCH) - 2.43 PEAK 6-HOUR RAINFALL(INCH) m 3.36 PEAK 24-HOUR RAINFALL(INCH) = 5.63 PRECIPITATION DEPTH -AREA REDUCTION FACTORS: 5-MINUTE FACTOR is 0.974 30-MINUTE FACTOR - 0.974 1-HOUR FACTOR = 0.974 3-HOUR FACTOR m 0.996 6-HOUR FACTOR m 0.998 24-HOUR FACTOR - 0.999 • /3' UNIT HYDROGRAPH TIME UNIT = 5.000 MINUTES UNIT INTERVAL PERCENTAGE OF LAG -TIME = 35.122 2 • • • vaCLit --- UNIT HYDROGRAPH DETERMINATION INTERVAL "S" GRAPH UNIT HYDROGRAPH NUMBER MEAN VALUES ORDINATES(CFS) 1 2.648 187.352 2 11.782 646.210 3 34.704 1621.678 4 62.325 1954.157 5 73.632 799.979 6 80.932 516.463 7 86.250 376.248 8 90.095 271.971 9. 93.067 210.288 10 95.221 152.422 11 96.670 102.501 12 97.753 76.570 13 98.150 28.126 14 98.332 12.853 15 98.513 12.853 16 '98.695 12.850 17 98.877 12.842 18 99.058 12.865 19 99.240 12.842 20 99.421 12.842 21 99.603 12.842 22 99.785 12.842 23 99.966 12.842 24 100.000 2.405 TOTAL SOIL -LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 31.1577 TOTAL STORM RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 242.8568 3 tiYiliiiARQn iiiif= YlriiiiYii iiaraint /oiiiiiOi Yiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiii G 2 4- H o 0 R • S T O R M RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH iiidiiOYiiiiiiiiiifameiiiiYiiOiiiiiiiiivtYiiiiiiariiCiniiiiQi<aliiiiii.i HYDROGRAPH IN FIVE-MINUTE UNIT INTERVALS(CFS) (Note: Time indicated is at END of Each Unit Intervals) TIME(HRS) VOLUME(AF) Q(CFS) 0. 375.0 750.0 1125.0 1500.0 0.083 0.0082 1.19 Q . . , 0.167 0.0448 5.31 Q . 0.250 0.1525 15.64 Q . 0.333 0.3461 28.12 Q 0.417 0.5755 33.30 Q 0.500 0.8282 36.69 Q , 0.583 1.0982 39.21 VQ 0.667 1.3810 41.07 VQ 0.750 1.6740 42.54 VQ 0.833' 1.9747 43.66 VQ • 0.917 2.2808 44.45 VQ , 1.000 2.5914 • 45.09 VQ , 1.083 2.9042 45.42 VQ , 1.167 3.2187 45.66 VQ , 1.250 3.5349 45.90 VQ , 1.333 3.8527 . 46.14 VQ • 1.417 4.1721 46.39 VQ , 1.500 4.4933 46.63 VQ . 1.583 4.8161 46.88 VQ 1.667 5.1407 47.13 VQ , 1.750 5.4669 47.37 VQ , 1.833 5.7950 47,63 VQ , 1.917 6.1247 47.88 .0 . • 2.000 6:4558 48.07 .Q , 2.083 6.7880 48.24 .Q 2.167 7.1215 48.42 .Q 2.250 7.4562 48.60 .Q 2.333 7.7922 48.78 .Q , 2.417 8.1294 48.96 .Q 2.500 8.4679 49.15 .0 , 2.583 • 8.8077 49.33 .Q , 2.667 9.1488 49.52 .Q , 2.750 9.4911 49.71 .Q . ""2.833 9.8348 49.91 .Q , 2.917 10.1798 50.10 .0 , 3.000 10.5262 50,29 .Q , 3.083 10.8739 50.49 .Q 3.167 11.2230 50.69 .4 3.250 11.5735 50.89 .Q 3.333 11.9254 51.10 .Q 3.417 12.2787 51.30 .QV 3.500 12.6334 51.51 .QV 3.583 12.9896 51.72 .OV • 3.667 13.3473 51.93 .QV 3.750 13.7064 52.14 .12v . 3.833 14.0670 52.36 42V . 3.917 14.4291 52.58 .QV 4.000 14.7928 52.80 .QV 4.083 15.1579 53.02 .QV 4.167 15.5247 53.25 .QV 4.250 15.-8930 53.48 .QV , 4.333 16.2630 53.72 .QV , 4.417 4.500 4.583 4.667 4.750 4.833 4.917 5.000 5.083 5.167 5.250 5.333 5.417 5.500 5.583 5.667 5.750 5.833 5.917 6.000 6.083, 6.167 6.250 6.333 6.417 6.500 6.583 6.667 6.750 6.833 6.917 7.000 7.083 7.167 7.250 7.333 7.417 7.500 7.583 7.667 7.750 7.833 7.917 8.000 8.083 '8.167 8.250 8.333 8.417 8.500 8.583 8.667 8.750 8.833 8.917 9.000 9.083 9.167 9.250 9.333 9.417 9.500 9.583 9.667 16.6345 17.0077 17.3825 17.7590 18.1372 18.5171 18.8987 19.2821 19.6672 20.0541 20.4429 20.8334 21.2259 21.6202 22.0164 22.4146 22.8147 23.2168 23.6208 24.0270 24.4351 24.8454 25.2578 25.6723 26.0890 26.5079 26.9290 27.3524 27.7781 28.2061 28.6364 29.0692 29.5044 29.9420 30.3822 30.8249 31.2701 31.7180 32.1685 32.6218 33.0778 33.5365 33.9981 34.4626 34.9299 35.4003 35.8736 36.3501 36.8296 37.3124 37.7983 38.2875 38.7801 39.2761 39.7756 40.2786 40.7851 41.2954 41.8094 42.3272 42.8488 43.3745 43.9041 44.4379 53.95 .QV 54.19 .QV 54.42 .QV 54.67 .QV 54.91 .QV 55.16 .Q V 55.41 .Q V 55.67 .Q V 55.92 .Q V 56.18 .Q V 56.44 .Q V 56.71 .Q V 56.98 .Q V 57.26 .Q V 57.53 .Q V 57.81 .Q V 58.09 .Q V 58.38 .Q V 58.67 .Q V 58.97 .Q V 59.27 .Q V 59.57 .Q V 59.68 .Q V 60.19 .Q V 60.50 .Q V 60.83 .Q V 61.14 .Q V ' 61.48 .Q V 61.81 .Q V 62.15 .Q V 62.49 .Q V 62.84 .0 V 63.19 .Q V 63.55 .Q V 63.91 .Q V 64.28 .Q V 64.65 .0 V 65.03 .Q V 65.41 .Q V 65.81 .Q V 66.20 .Q V 66.61 .Q V 67.02 .Q V 67.44 .Q V 67.86 .Q V 68.30 .0 V 68.73 .Q V 69.18 .Q V 69.63 .Q V 70.10 .Q V 70.56 .Q V 71.04 .Q V 71.52 .Q v 72.02 .Q V 72.52 .Q V 73.04 .Q V 73.55 .Q V 74.09 .Q V 74.63 .Q V 75.19 . Q V 75.74 . Q V 76.32 . Q V 76.90 . Q V 77.51 . Q V • • • • 4 1 9.750 44.9758 9.833 45.5181 9.917 46.0647 10.000 46.6158 10.083 47.1715 10.167 47.7318 10.250 48.2969 10:333 48.8669 10.417 49.4418 10.500 50.0219 10.583 50.6072 10.667 51.1979 10.750 51.7939 10.833 52.3957 10.917 53.0031 11.000 53.6165 11.083 54.2358 11.167 54.8614 11.250 55.4933' 11.333 56.1318 11.417 . 56.7770 11.500 57.4291 11.583 58.0882 11.667 58.7547 11.750 59.4287 11.833 60.1104 11.917 60.8001 12.000 61.4980 12.083 62.2095 12.167 62.9474 12.250 63.7387 12.333 64.5929 12.417 65.4790 12.500 66.3897 12.583 67.3214 12.667 68.2720 12.750 69.2398 12.833 70.2241 12.917 71.2237 13.000 72.2386 13.083 73.2677 13.167 74.3114 13.250 •75.3701 13.333 76.4447 13.417 77.5354 " i3.500 78.6434 13.583 79.7690 13.667 80.9135 13.750 82.0774 13.833 83.2620 13.917 84.4679 14.000 85.6966 14.083 86.9502 14.167 88.2343 14.250 89.5578 14.333 90.9259 14.417 92.3301 14.500 93.7711 14.583 95.2492 • 14.667 96.7669 14.750 98.3258 14.833 99.9298 14.917 101.5810 15.000 103.2850 78.11 . Q 78.74 . Q 79.37 . 80.02 . Q 80.68 . Q 81.37 . Q 82.05 . Q 82.77 . Q 83.48 . Q 84.23 . Q 84.98 . Q 85.76 . Q 86.55 . Q 87.37 . Q 68.20 . Q 89.06 . Q 89.93 . Q 90.84 . Q 91.75 . Q 92.71 . Q 93.67 . Q 94.69 . Q 95.71 . Q 96.78 . Q 97.85 . Q 98.99 . 0 100.13 . Q 101.34 . Q 103.30 . Q 107.15 . Q 114.89 . Q 124.04 . Q 128.65 . Q 132.24 . Q 135.28 . Q 138.02 . Q 140.53 . Q 142.92 . Q 145.13 . Q 147.36 . Q 149.42 . 0 151.56 . 0 153.72 . Q 156.03 . Q 158.37 . Q 160.88 . Q 163.44 . Q 166.19 . Q 168.99 . Q 172.01 . Q 175.10 . Q 178.40 . Q 182.01 . Q 186.46 . Q 192.18 . Q 198.64 . Q 203.90 . Q 209.23 . Q 214.62 . Q 220.38 . 226.35 . Q 232.89 . Q 239.76 . Q 247.41 . Q ✓ . v 'v ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v •v v v v v v v .v .v .v .v . V .V . v . v . v . v . v . v . v • v . V . v . v . v . v . v . v . v . v . v . v . V . v v V . 5 • • • ,2k 6 15.083 105.0452 255.58 . Q . V , 15.167 106.8689 264.81 • 0 . V . . . 15.250 108.7620 274.88 . Q . V 15.333 110.7350 286.47 . Q . V . 15.417 112.7665 297.88 . Q . V . 15.500 114.9066 307.83 . Q . V . 15.583 117.0562 312.13 . 0 . V. . 15.667 119.2426 317.47 . Q . V. 15.750 121.5620 336.77 . Q . V , 15.833 124.0857 366.44 . Q. V , 15.917 126.9227 411.93 . Q V , 16.000 130.2887 488.75 . . Q .V 1 16.083 134.9209 672.60 . . Q . V 16.167 141.6440 976.18 V Q 16.250 151.1901 1386.10 V Q , 16.333 161.0457 1431.02 . . V 0 . 16.417 167.2157 895.88 . Q V 16.500 172.0305 699.11 . Q V 16.583 176.0911 589.60 . Q . V. 16.667 179.6121 511.24 • . 0 • V. 16.750b 182.7007 448.47 . .Q . V 16.833 185.4015 392.15 . 0 . V 16.917 187.7679 343.61 . Q. . V 17.000 189.8865 307.62 . Q . . .V 17.083 191.7.352 268.43 . .Q . • .V 17.167 193.4283 245.84 • Q . V 17.250 195.0210 231.26 . Q . V 17.333 196.5262 '218.56 . Q . V 17.417 197.9616 208.42 • 0 • V 17.500 199.3364 199.63 . Q . V 17.583 200.6578 191.86 . Q • V 17.667 201.9308 184.84 • 0 • . V 17.750 203.1594 178.39 . Q• V 17.833 204.3448 172,12 . Q • V 17.917 205,4865 165.78 . Q .• V 18.000 206.5623 156.21 . 0 V , 18.083 207.5933 149.70 . Q V 18.167 208.5779 142.96 . Q V . 18.250 209.4927 132.83 • Q • V 18.333 210.3306 121.66 . Q V , 18.417 211.1251 115.36 . Q • V 18.500 211.8856 110.43 . 0 • V 18.983 '212.6175 106.26 . Q . V . 18.667 213.3247 102.69 . Q V 18.750 214.0101 99.52 . 0 V "`18.833 214.6763 96.73 . Q • -" V 18.917 215.3255 94.26 . Q . V 19.000 215.9592 92.02 . Q V 19.083 216.5795 90.08 . Q V 19.167 217,1876 88.29 . Q V 19.250 217.7840. 86.59 . Q V , 19.333 218.3692 84.97 . Q V , 19.417 218.9437 83.42 . Q • V 19.500 219.5081 81.95 . Q • V 19.583 220.0627 80.53 . 0 • V 19.667 220.6080 79.17 . Q •V 19.750 221.1443 77.87 • 0 • V 19.833 221.6720 76.62 . Q V 19.917 222.1913 75.42 . Q V • 20.000 222.7030 74.30 .Q • V 20.083 223.2074 73.23 .Q V • 20.167 223.7047 72.20 .Q V • 20.250 224.1951 71.21 .0 • V 20.333 224.6790 70.26 .Q • V 20.417 20.500 20.583 20.667 20.750 20.833 20.917 21.000 21.083 21.167 21.250 22.333 21.417 21.500 21.583 21.667 21.750 21.833 21.917 22.000 22.083 t 22.167 22.250 22.333 22.417 22.500 22.583 22.667 22.750 22.833 22.917 23.000 23.083 23.167 23.250 23.333 23.417 23.500 23.583 23.667 23.750 23,833 23.917 24.000 24.083 "124.167 24.250 24.333 24.417' 24.500 24.583 24.667 24.750 24.833 24.917 25.000 25.083 25.167 25.250 25.333 25.417 25.500 25.583 25.667 225.1565 225.6278 226.0932 226.5329 227.0070 227.4557 227.8992 228.3376 228.7710 229.1997 229.6237 230.0433 230.4584 230.8692 231.2759 231.6785 232.0772 232.4720 232.8630 233.2504 233.6342 234.0145 234.3913 234.7649 235.2352 235.5023 235.8663 236.2272 236.5852 236.9402 237.2924 237.6418 237.9884 238.3324 238,6737 239.0124 239.3486 239.6824 240.6137 240.3426 240.6691 240.9934 241.3154 241.6352 241.9446 242.2236 242.4299 242.5493 242.6330 242.6935 242.7371 242.7686 242.7906 242.8058 242.8165 242.8237 242.8297 242.8350 242.8398 242.8439 242.8475 242.8504 242.8528 242.8546 69.33 .0 68.44 .Q 67.58 .0 66.74 65.93 65.15 64.39 63.66 62.94 62.24 61.57 60.91 60.27 59.65 59.05 58.46 57.89 57.33 56.78 56.25 55.73 55.22 54.72 54.24 53.77 53.30 52.85 52.41 51.98 51.55 51.14 50.73 50.33 49.94 49.56 49.19 48.82 48.46 48.20 47.76 47.42 47.08 46.75 46.43 44.93 40.52 29.95 Q 17.34 Q 12.15 Q 8.78 Q 6.34 Q 4.57 Q 3.20 Q 2.21 Q 1.55 Q 1.05 Q 0.86 Q 0.78 Q 0.69 Q 0.60 Q 0.52 Q 0.43 Q 0.35 Q 0.26 Q • • 7 ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ , ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . ✓ . v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v, v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.' v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. ��6 8 25.750 242.8559 0.18 Q . V. 25.833 242.8566 0.10 Q . .. . V. 25.917 242.8567 0.02 0 . . . V. a m.. Fm____ END OF FLOODSCx ROUTING ANALYSIS ait ,u/ 1/1., .. March 30, 2001 • • Fein Mae S rnon;eu . ckioaa ain gave,* F.AYA6Y6' /32(9/450->S>S/Fat/949/585-0/46'/•-ma ami@a rns City of Newport Beach Planning Departmerit Attention: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY (1F &IF1AFDnPT EACH AM ('\i'ir 0 2001 71819110111112111213141516 FM RE: CANYON HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT Dear Mr. Garcia: The Association is in receipt of a copy of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project. Since home sites within our Association are adjacent to the project, we have concerns for the adequacy of the design for the proposed drainage facilities modification. Dr. & Mrs. Klieman at 21 Lochmoor Lane have provided us with a hydrology and drainage report prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, undated but appears to be September 9, 2000. That report indicates that Hunsaker, at that time at least, had not been able after several visits to the Public Works Department to view either a hydraulic drainage study or a proposed design for the drainage facilities modification. Dr. & Mrs. Klieman have sought to have this Association join in objection to the removal of the small lake at the rear of their lot. We feel that it is incumbent upon the Association to be assured that the Public Works Department has thoroughly studied and evaluated the drainage facilities design to confirm that there would be no detrimental effects upon any of the lots within this Association. Obviously, as lay person, directors of this association are not technically qualified to evaluate the proposed drainage facilities. We depend upon the expertise of the engineers employed by the City. Therefore, it would seem appropriate that there be a written report issued by the Public Works Department certifying that the design does meet in all respects the criteria of the City of Newport Beach for frequency of storm design and the ability of the design to carry the indicated storm flows and not represent an endangerment to the slopes supporting the adjacent home sites. A statement to that effect should be contained in the official findings of the City in this matter. Sincerely, CANYON HILLS BOARD OF DIRECTORS cc: Dr. & Mrs. Klieman David Voorhees, Big Canyon Country Club Steve Bromberg, City of Newport Beach Councilmember \1Villageway01\projeccs\Canyon Hills QOS\Facilities\Facilrries Carresp\CITY OF NB-21 LOCHMOOR-KLIEMAN 033001.DOC TATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY iii • GRAY DAVIS, Coven • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 Michelson Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA. 92812-0661 March 16, 2001 Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECENED MAR 2 7 2001 !TATE CLEARINGHOUSE Subject: Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project Dear Mr. Garcia, File IGR/CEQA SCH#: 200005111$ Log #: 740 A Sedb Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Revised Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration dated March •2,2001 on the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing artificial pond and construction of associated improvements. The project site is located on 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Country Club golf course in the City of Newport'Beach. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caftans right way an encroachment permit is required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our Transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Sincerely, Robert F Jos dpt(/Chief Advanced Planning Branch cc: Terry Roberts, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning • PUBLIC NOTICES Notice of Intent (Posted at Project Site) Notice of Intent (Posted at County Clerks office) Notice of Completion (State Clearinghouse) • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. NOTICE OF INTENT TOADOPTA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of' Newport Beach, has prepared a Revised Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed project described below. The Draft Initial Study has determined that if the proposed conditions and mitigation measures are applied to the project there will not be a significant effect on the environment. The City therefore intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Revised Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recirculated for a 30-day public review period in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Proiect Name: Big Canyon Country Club Project — Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Trunk Line Project Location: The site is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club golf course in the City of Newport Beach. Project Proponent: Big Canyon Country Club, 1 Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Responsible Agency: Orange County Sanitation District, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 Public Review Period: March 5, 2001 to April 3, 2001 Proiect Description: The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing pond and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and -eplaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance. The project is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course in Newport Beach. The site contains an existing pond approximately 0.64 acres in size. Surrounding and nearby properties include the golf course and single-family residential to the north of the pond. Currently, the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that carries the water to the bay. With the proposed filling of the pond, the existing storm drain system will remain. However, instead of the water flowing through the pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond that will connect to the existing stone drain system. The project also involves partial replacement of an Orange County Sanitation OCSD (OCSD) 15-inch sewer line. The existing 15-inch sewer line is part of the Bag Canyon Off -Site Trunk Sewer that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length. The sewer line begins east of MacArthur Boulevard and extends through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The existing sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and 12-inch VCP (vitrified clay pipe). A portion (from manhole 19 to manhole 14) of the existing sewer line will be replaced with approximately 1,100 feet of new 12-inch VCP. The new sewer will integrate into the existing system. The sewer line improvement will require the rehabilitation and replacement of at least 6 manholes. The sewer line improvement would be constructed in conjunction with the Big Canyon Country Club pond filling and storm drain improvements. Opportunities for Public Review: Interested persons are invited to review the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project, and submit comments. The City of Newport Beach prior to final action on the proposed project will consider these documents and all comments received. A copy of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and r d a b r review at the following location: �� Newport Beach City Hall Planning Department MAR 0 5 ":gym 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 GAARY L. GRANVILLE. Cierk-Recorder If you wish to appeal the appropnateness or the adequacy of the Draft Mitigated Nega PJe Declaration, your comments should be aptbmitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period stated above. Your comments should specifically identify what vironmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner at (949) 644-3206. Date of Publication: March 5, 2001 NOTICE OF COMPLETION 50A[A. ,7rrc sa Mall to: State Ciariasjowe, 1400 Tenth Stew, Sacraria. CA 95114 (916)445 0613 ig"tanyon Country Club LIAR ACINCY City of Nnw1art Roar Pl nnn4;ODM{r Dept SWAT ADOWS aaAylap Zinn Nowpnrt R'1 vrlInn Nawpnrr Rl vd CITY Nnwnnrt Rearh PtA4CT LOCATION Project - Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Trunk !tine CONTACT POW .Tavi et S. ,arri a TIL1M10Mt (9491 644-3706 20 Coot CITY 20 COOS CWItOTT 9765R Nawnnrt Rearh 92658 Orange 1 Big Canyon Drive COUNTY Orange CAOII STRUTS Big Canyon Drive and San AII*IIOA'I PAIICIL P10. 447-032-069 WNW 2 MKti: GTAT? N4MWAY NO. Pari fir fna.t Hiohwav .aaadININLIThi 020A' _ Ianr Can Wi Ow Ctsn t1A CITYIMAMaT t OMYUNITY Newnnrt Bearh 2M Coot ,Tnanui n Hills 92660 TOTAL ACMES 0.64 (Pond) .%OC Cesear c ' IICTION TOW$Hnr AAPCI sal sewer trunk line TLC(_C — Tn i,na Rearh Querlran21e WtWAYS Wei IWPIenMUIWarWnt (Mier ICN NI.l Cite ISAagalan 010111011.111n Otto _ Gann Plan AtrrnenytN 6Mrrrr PIM NMynt 11, CMnuwiny Pion MUUMIMIELEal Aaaaeaso Wnu, OMa;e: N.M. Crnnreul. 14.11. WMWMj: Wt. taWatlMM aret wamol Aaer«UMr Nnc4c Plan _ Mali? Man Manned Veit De,rarrwtt SO Mon Mr« An.�� tnsYYMs Ant tar Mal talolo WATERWAYS WA: N01 SA Doh III _ POAH ICN001.1 :://? Dews Jane OttewwN _ Patr DrwtrN 011tr Aston _ Pmano U« Prot OM Daosw. _ Alwae%IM — AaaeYeiyllyltl Carta Porn* /r owr Grading Permit tract Matt ate _ winos Pietas. Tranyrtano : Woo e PlaarNlr Treatment: = Owr: No PASO Abner. Ma Too Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Trunk Line Project Pwwa . hauWljNNwWy Otlanra PUT+ Irwaar#rMNA Aarwtan?osla Iartawrynivereita ks Ina S Sara create, %.�. Nil traarwtartrratulvGra,lq UN Wata ExistinD golf course with pond and Sec ;414-eu;\wd golf uses/ �aamrMatwew TmtM/Ctowlot , YSN4)Nn Water Otte. WIlal Iary Drrnawatr Wamrwwrrrn � w�lwra • Grosm ldW.nt g. lad Um Car wNow Ines Other zoning: recreation, general plan: open space Reviewing Agendas Checid st eassgiS Resources Agency Sooting & Waterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation S Fish t Gama Forestry & Fire Protection Office of Historic Preservation i— Perks & Recreation Reclamation Board S.F. Bay Conservation & Deveropment Commission Water Resources IDWR) Brrebees, Transportation & Hou in _ Aeronautics California Ftighwsy Patrol CALTRANS District s 12 Department of Transportation Planning (headquarters) __ Housing t Community Development __ Food & Apiculture Health & welfare _r Hearth Services State & Consumer Services Genial Services CIA (Schools) KEY $ al Document sent by lead agency X re Document sent by SCH / - Suggested distribution Envkonmental Protection Agency _ Air Resources Board _ California Waste Management Dowd SWRCB: Moen Water Grants SWIMS: Delta Unit Swltce: Water Guilty SWRCS: Water Rights Regitrttal WGCB I Santa Ana ( ) Youth i Amain Corrections __ Correction Independent Commissions It Offices Energy commission Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Sante Monica Mountains Conservancy State Lends Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency S Other US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish & Wildlife Service Public Review Peeled (to be Mod in by Lead Apttcy) Stetting Den M n i c \'1 5 , ac: C. Signature Cl'v � R d mina-? Ending Date /11:71..'. \ , 2C:C era• 2)l1le\ Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Hodge & Associates Address: 24040 Camino del Avion, (fA241 City/State/Zip: Monarch Beach, CA 92629 Contact: Cheryle L. Hodge Phone: ( 949 1 661-6488 Applicant: Big Canyon Country Club Address: 1 Big Canyon Drive City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phonic 949 ) 821-6915 For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Data Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notts: • • Big Canyon Country Club Project Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Trunk Line 1 Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach Project Description The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing pond and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance. The project is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course in Newport Beach. The project plan and site photos are presented in the appendix of this document. The site contains an existing pond approximately 0.64 acres in size. Surrounding and nearby properties include the golf course and single-family residential to the north of the pond. Currently, the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that carries the water to the bay. With the proposed filling of the pond, the existing storm drain system will remain. However, instead of the water flowing through the pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond that will connect to the existing storm drain system. The project also involves partial replacement of an Orange County Sanitation OCSD (OCSD) 15-inch sewer line. The existing 15-inch sewer line is part of the Big Canyon Off -Site Trunk Sewer that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length. The sewer line begins east of MacArthur Boulevard and extends through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The existing sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and 12-inch VCP (vitrified clay pipe). A portion (from manhole 19 to manhole 14) of the existing sewer line will be replaced with approximately 1,100 feet of new 12-inch VCP. The new sewer will integrate into the existing system. The sewer line improvement will require the rehabilitation and replacement of at least 6 manholes. The sewer line improvement would be constructed in conjunction with the Big Canyon Country Club pond filling and storm drain improvements. • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB POND FILL, STORM DRAIN & SEWER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE PROJECT RECIRCULATION of REVISED DRAFT INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lead Agency City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Prepared By Hodge & Associates 24040 Camino del Avion, #A247 Monarch Beach, California 92629 March 2, 2001 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title 1 Lead Agency Name and Address 1 Contact Person and Phone Number 1 Responsible Agency Name and Address 1 Project Location 1 Project Sponsor's Name and Address 1 General Plan Designation 1 Zoning 1 Description of Project 1 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 2 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 2 Determination 3 Environmental Checklist (Topical Areas) 4 through 16 Source List 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Project Description 1 Project Construction Schedule •2 Approval/Permits Required 2 Background and History 2 Project Sponsors & Contact Persons 3 Statutory Authority 4 Disagreement Among Experts 5 Incorporation by Reference 5 ANALYSIS Introduction 6 Aesthetics 6 Agriculture Resources 8 Air Quality 9 Biological Resources 12 Cultural Resources 17 Geology & Soils 18 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 22 Hydrology & Water Quality 24 Land Use and Planning 28 Mineral Resources 31 i • • Noise 32 Population and Housing 34 Public Services 35 Recreation 36 Transportation/Traffic 37 Utilities and Service Systems 38 Mandatory Findings of Significance 43 APPENDICES Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Appendix B: Project Plans Appendix C: Biological Resources Report & Wetlands Delineation Appendix D: Public Comments Submitted to City of Newport Beach ii CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Big Canyon Country Club Pond Fill, Storm Drain, & Sewer Transmission Pipeline Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Planning Department (949) 644-3206 4. Responsible Agency Name and Orange County Sanitation District Address: 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 5. Project Location: The site is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club golf course in the City of Newport Beach. 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Big Canyon Country Club, 1 Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach, California 92663. 7. General Plan Designation: Recreation/Open Space 8. Zoning: Open Space 9. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club to allow the placement of fill materials within an existing pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth will be expanded to provide additional distance. The project also involves partial replacement of an Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) 15-inch sewer line. The existing 15-inch sewer line is part of the Big Canyon Off -Site Trunk Sewer that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length. The sewer line begins east of MacArthur Boulevard and extends through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The existing sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and CHECKLIST Page 1 12-inch pipeline. A portion (from manhole 19 to manhole 14) of the existing sewer line will be replaced with approximately 1,100 feet of 12-nch new pipeline. The new sewer will integra into the existing system. The sewer line improvement will require the rehabilitation air replacement of at least 6 manholes. The sewer line improvement would be constructed in conjunction with the Big Canyon Country Club pond filling and storm drain improvements. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Golf course uses and pond located within an existing golf course. To the north: Golf course, single-family residential To the east: Golf course driving range To the south: Golf course cart barn parking structure To the west: Golf course putting greens 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) US Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish & Game, & Regional Water Quality Control Board. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at leaf. one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning 0 Transportation/ 0 Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing © Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral 0 Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance • CHECKLIST Page 2 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, If the effect is u "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a slgntficunt effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been anulvzcd adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Submitted by: Javier S. Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner Signature Date Planning Department Prepared by: Hodge & Associates Cheryle L. Hodge Signature Date 0 O 0 0 PAISERSWLMSHA REn,IPORMANEO•UECWUCKDST❑OC CHECKLIST Page 3 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect 0 0 0 Q on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic 0 0 0 O. resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing 0 0 Q ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? c) Create a new source of substantial 0 ❑ 0 Q light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 Q 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 non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 Q agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 Q CHECKLIST Page 4 b) c) Potentially Potentially Lass than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 p 0 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively ❑ 0 0 Q 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ 0 ❑ p substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting 0 0 Q 0 a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? 0 0 0 0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ 0 p 0 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 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 Q ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 5 • Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ 0 0 0 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ 0 ❑ 0 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse 0 0 0 0 change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in, the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 O ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ o CHECKLIST Page 6 Potentially, Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated i) Rupture of a known earthquake 0 ❑ 0 p 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 0 0 0 O. shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, 0 ❑ 0 0 including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 El b) Result In substantial soil erosion or 0 0 0 0 the Toss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil 0 0 ❑ p 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 risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 0 0 0 Q CHECKLIST Page 7 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 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 ❑ 0 0 0 included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied 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 within an airport land 0 ❑ 0 0 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a 0 0 0 0 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Vlil. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ 0 0 p or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 ❑ Q supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing 0 0 p 0 drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff In a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 9) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ 0 0 Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard 0 0 0 Q area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: ❑ ❑ ❑ Q a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 ❑ Q conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 ❑ ❑ Q 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? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 0 0 0 21 CHECKLIST Page 10 XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ 0 p 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 ❑ 0 ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an .❑ 0 ❑ 0 airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has -not been adopted, withintwo 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project expose people residing or working in the projecharea to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth inan area, either directly (for example,, by proposing new homes and businesses) or Indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other, infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKIJST Page 11 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of 0 0 ❑ p existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the 0 ❑ 0 Q project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: Fire protection? 0 0 ❑ 0 Police protection? 0 0 0 0 Schools? 0 0 0 0 Other public facilities? 0 0 0 RI XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use 0 0 0 0 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 of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKL ST Page 12 Potentially Potentially Loss than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 E substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed either individually or 0 0 ❑ E cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in.a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ 0 E patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially Increase hazards due 0 0 ❑ E to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency 0 0 0 E access? f) Result in inadequate parking 0 0 0 E capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, 0 0 0 E or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirementsof the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 ❑, 0 E • CHECKLIST Page 13 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ 0 of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction ❑ 0 El 0 of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies 0 0 ❑ ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ 0 p 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 0 permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ 0 0 El statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 CHECKLIST Page 14 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that 0 0 0 p 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 0 0 0 p environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached,sheets: •a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately. addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document andthe extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. • CHECKLIST Page 15 • SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia 92660. 1. Califomia Environmental Quality Act as amended January 1, 2001. §§21000-21177 of the Public Resources Code, State of California. 2. Guidelines for Califomia Environmental Quality Act as amended January 1, 2001. §15000-15387 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, State of California. • 3. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan 4. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 5. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. Uniform Building Code, Chapter 18. 1998. 8. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 10. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 11. Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources, April 13, 2000. Prepared by Psomas. 12. Big Canyon Country Club Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States, April 12, 2000. Prepared by Psomas. 13. Big Canyon Planned Community Tracts 7800, 7788, and 7809 - Environmental Impact Statement, EIR/ND 72-003, 1972. 14. Tentative Tract Map No. 7223 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Report & Meeting Minutes. July 2, 1970. 15. Big Canyon Area 10 Certified Final EIR, City of Newport Beach, February 1981. Prepared by PBR. 16. Big Canyon Area 10 Draft EIR City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Report & Attachments. December 17, 1980. 17. Big Canyon Area 10 Draft EIR City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution, Report & Attachments. January 26, 1981. 18. Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, August 1983. Prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation. 19. Stormflow Sedimentation Control Alternatives Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, October 1982. Prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation. CHECKLIST Page 16 20. Ecological Survey of Aquatic & Terrestrial Resources, City of Newport Beach, California. July 19 Prepared by Dr. Peter S. Dixon and Gordon A. Marsh Consultants. 21. Lakes & Ponds, Twin Groves Museums in the Classroom Team. February 2000. 22. When Is a Lake no longer a Pond? Or a Sea no longer a Lake?, June 17, 1998. David Kopaska-Merkel, Staff Hydrogeology Division, GeologicalSurvey of Alabama. 23. Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture Collaborative Research SUpport Program, Eighth Work Plan August 1, 1996 to July 31, 1998. Oregon State University. 24. Newport Dunes Resort Final Environmental Impact Report, May 23, 2000. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. CHECKLIST Page 17 • i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Big Canyon Country Club Project Pond Fill, Storm Drain & Sewer Trunk Line 1 Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach Project Description The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing pond and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance. The project is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course in Newport Beach. The regional location of the site is depicted on Exhibit 1 and the project vicinity on Exhibit 2. The project plan and site photos are presented in the appendix of this document. The site contains an existing pond approximately 0.64 acres in size. Surrounding and nearby properties include the golf course and single-family residential to the north of the pond. Currently, the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that carries the water to the bay. With the proposed filling of the pond, the existing storm drain system will remain. However, instead of the water flowing through the pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond that will connect to the existing storm drain system. The project also involves partial replacement of an Orange County Sanitation OCSD (OCSD) 15-inch sewer line. The existing 15-inch sewer line is part of the Big Canyon Off -Site Trunk Sewer that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length. The sewer line begins east of MacArthur Boulevard and extends through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The existing sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and 12-inch VCP (vitrified clay pipe). A portion (from manhole 19 to manhole 14) of the existing sewer line will be replaced with approximately 1,100 feet of new 12-inch VCP. The new sewer will integrate into the existing system. The sewer line improvement will require the rehabilitation and replacement of at least 6 manholes. The sewer line improvement would be constructed in conjunction with the Big Canyon Country Club pond filling and storm drain improvements. • • LOS ANGELES r e. COUNTY ' ( Garden Grove PAC C AN. Riverside Freeway NEWPORT BEACH ,0 CPROJECT LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE 111IODGE & ASSOCIATES 1111 LAGUNA BEACH `SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ` sad, DANA POINT 0 \ RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1 SAN CLEMENTE ORANGE`, COUNTY / • tl� • • j i SAN DIEGO II COUNTY f Regional Location Map Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project EXHIBIT 1 r PROJECT LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE 10 Cal1 114 11 SUJRISL C1R 12 LESAAffi KY 13 W1SF10 MY 14 *RIM Uf IJY 15 'd311ER WY BON I7A S Q1RRF • PCRr BRgquM PoRr . i r•. • • try •HODGE & ASSOCIATES Project Vicinity Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project EXHIBIT 2 • • Project Construction Schedule The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club improvement project. The project applicant has indicated that construction of the project will commence upon obtaining all required permits for the project (i.e. City grading permit and regulatory agency permits). It is anticipated that the project will be constructed in a single phase and commence in Spring 2001. Approval/Permits Required The project requires a grading permit from the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the grading permit is subject to review, and approval or denial from the City Building Official. The City has conducted a thorough environmental review of the proposed grading permit request. A grading permit is required for the grading activities associated with the project such as the placement of fill material (dirt) in the pond and site preparation for the storm drain improvements. The project activities that are the subject of review and analyses of the CEQA document is the proposed grading permit and sewer trunk line. The project does not involve any expansion of the existing golf course. Potential golf course uses of the pond area are disclosed since the project applicant provided this information to the City, however, these uses are allowed and permitted within the existing golf course property boundaries and are not subject to any discretionary permit requirements. Background and History The project site is located within the existing Big Canyon Golf Course. The golf course is located in the 396.5-acre Big Canyon Planned Community. The proposed project located within the private golf course has been initiated by the Big Canyon Country Club. The 160-acre private 18-hole golf course was developed approximately 30 years ago. On February 24, 2000, the Big Canyon Country Club submitted an application request for approval of a grading permit required for the proposed project. In compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the proposed project. The IS/MND was distributed for a 30-day public review period on May 26, 2000. The IS/MND was also sent to the State of Califomia, State Clearinghouse (Office of Planning & Research (OPR), and directly to regulatory and localagencies that CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 2 have an interest in the project. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was filed/posted at the Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder on May 26, 2000 and also posted at and the nearby (at the intersection of Big Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road) project site on May 27, 2000. The IS/MND public review period concluded on June 26, 2000. The City of Newport Beach received several comment letters on the project (presented in Appendix D). Among the comments received, the Orange County Sanitation OCSD (OCSD) indicated that in conjunction with the proposed Big Canyon Country Club project, the OCSD proposes to replace an existing sewer trunk with a new sewer line. The City of Newport Beach reviewed all comments received on draft IS/MND (5/26/00) and taking into consideration the OCSD's request, determined that the draft CEQA document should be revised and recirculated for public review. Therefore, this environmental analysis has been prepared to analyze the potential impacts associated with the project including the proposed sewer trunk line. The original sewer line was constructed at depths between 10 and 20 feet. With the development of the Big Canyon Golf Course in 1971, fill has been added to this area that has increased the depth of the sewer to over 40 feet in some areas. The OCSD conducted a video inspection of the sewer line in December 1999. The inspection revealed defects including cracks, sags, infiltration, mineral deposits, and offset joints. Maintenance of the sewer in some areas is difficult due to the depth, and accessibility. The OCSD's Strategic Plan adopted in October 1999 calls for replacement/rehabilitation of the sewer line by 2009. The OCSD began a study of the sewer in 1999 to determine the condition of the sewer and options for replacement/rehabilitation. The Big Canyon Country Club improvement project provides the OCSD the opportunity to replace a portion of the OCSD's sewer. This will allow the OCSD to raise the sewer and replace it with a new pipe. The replaced portion would be from manhole 19 to manhole 14, which includes approximately 1100 feet of' 12-inch VCR Manhole 19 is located west of Royal Saint George Road on the existing driving range. Manhole 14 is located in the flowerbed north of the Club House Project Sponsors & Contact Persons The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the proposed project. Contact persons for the public and private entities involved in this project are as follows: CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 3 • • City of Newport Beach Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3206 Orange County Sanitation OCSD David A. Ludwin, Director of Engineering Mark Tomko, Engineering Department 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 (714) 962-2411 Big Canyon Country Club Mr. Gary Sanger 1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 823-6915 Environmental Consultant Cheryle L. Hodge, Principal Hodge & Associates 24040 Camino del Avion, #A247 Monarch Beach, CA 92629 (949) 661-6488 Engineering/Biology Psomas Ms. Jennifer Kurlack 3187 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 751-7373 Additional entities involved with some aspect of the project (i.e. permits etc.) include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Statutory Authority The preparation of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is governed by two principal sets of documents. The California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA", Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.). Additionally, City of Newport Beach procedures, and case law provides guidance to this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. In compliance with State law and procedures, the City has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental compliance for the proposed project. Therefore, the City will not cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In compliance with Section 15063 of the CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 4 CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an InitialStudy to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study checklist form and explanation discussion format meets the requirements of the CEQA. Section 15063(d)(3) require that the entries on the Initial Study checklist identifying environmental effects are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. An Initial Study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies or other substantial evidence to document its findings. An Initial Study is not intended nor required to include a level of detail which would provided in an EIR. The IS/MND is not intended to be a lengthy detailed document. Disagreement Among Experts The "Background and History" section of this document describes some of the past proceedings concerning this project and its general area. One of the areas 'receiving attention during the previous draft IS/MND (May 26, 2000) public review was potential use of the pond area once filled and golf course uses, biological significance of the site, compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 clearly state that significant effect is based on substantial evidence, not public controversy or speculation. The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project do not require preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. This IS/MND contains substantial evidence to support all of the conclusions presented herein. That is not to say that there will be potential disagreements with these conclusions. Both the CEQA Guidelines and case law clearly provide standards for treating disagreement among experts. Incorporation by Reference Certain documents are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. These documents are identified on page 16 of the Initial Study Checklist and the location where they can be inspected is also identified. Where a document is referenced, its pertinent sections will be briefly summarized in the discussions in this environmental document. • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 5 • ANALYSIS The initial step in the City's environmental evaluation is the completion of an Environmental Checklist to identify known or potential impacts and eliminate environmentally irrelevant issues. After each issue listed on the checklist, the City has marked "potential significant impact", "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated" "less than significant impact" or "no impact" depending on the potential of the project to have adverse impacts. The information presented herein is in discussion form and is in response to the checklist provided as part of this CEQA document. Where mitigation is proposed, the measure is written in such a way as to be self -enforcing; that is, the measure is required to be met prior to the issuance of a permit implementing some facet of the project. In this way, the objectives of California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 can be met in the most certain way. Additional programs or studies cited for mitigation are within the jurisdiction of responsible agencies (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and have detailed, ascertainable standards leaving no room for later discretionary determinations that do not reduce impacts to an insignificant level. The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact) The project site is located in an existing private golf course. The project site is not a local, state, or Federal designated scenic vista. Residential areas are visible from the project site. Currently, the project site contains golf course uses such as putting greens, driving range, water features (i.e. ponds, creeks), trees, cart bam and paths, and golf course club house and associated parking lot. The project does not propose any new lighting. The project will result in a modification to the existing visual character. Specifically, the pond will be filled and no longer will exist with implementation of the project. Therefore, the view nearby residences currently experience will change from a water feature (pond) to a use consistent and allowed per the previously approved golf course use. The project applicant has indicated that a putting green will replace the existing pond. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 6 The sewer trunk will replace an existing sewer trunk that extends from east of MacArthur Boulevard through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The existing sewer trunk is contained within the OCSD's 15-foot easement. Potential impacts associated with the installation of the sewer trunk are temporary and construction related. Construction activities will be visible to nearby residences and golfers. However, the sewer trunk will be placed below the surface and following installation the area will be return to its existing condition (golf course). The project is compatible with the existing land use of an existing permitted golf course. Therefore, the project itself will not result in substantial adverse significant aesthetic impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) See response to Section I (a) above. The project will not have a significant impact to any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The site is not located within a state scenic highway. The project site does contain existing landscaping associated with the pond, A complete discussion of the existing plant and animal resources of the project site is evaluated in the Biological Resources section of this document. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located in an area that is fully developed with an existing golf course. The project site is visible from locations within and around the immediate area. The existing visual character of the site will be altered as a result of' the project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within the existing pond and construction of associated improvements. The improvements include drainage pipes underground and above the surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth will be expanded to provide additional distance. The replacement of the existing sewer trunk with a new trunk will result in short- term construction related impacts. Construction activities will be visible to nearby residences and within the golf course. Once the trunk is installed, no long-term visual impacts will be associated with this component of the proposed project. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 7 • • The project is compatible with the land use designation and regulations that pertain to the site. Although the existing visual character of the site will be altered as a result of the project, the proposed project is compatible with the existing golf course that has been in use for 30 years. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will substantially impact the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (No Impact) The project site is located in an area that is already developed and urbanized. The proposed project will involve placing fill materials in the existing pond and provide associated drainage improvements, and replace an existing sewer trunk. The project does not propose any new lighting. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area, which is developed with a golf course that has been existence for 30 years. II. Agriculture Resources 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 non-agricultural use? (No Impact) The project is located in a developed urbanized area of the City. The project site is already developed with an existing golf course. The site is not utilized for farmland uses and/or agriculture resources. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any impacts on agriculture resources. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) See response to Section 11 (a) above. The project does not conflict with the existing zoning for the site. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses nor is subject to a Williamson Act contract. • c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? (No Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 8 The proposed project will not have any impact on farmland or agricultural uses. The site is located in a developed area that does not contain farmland or agricultural uses. Therefore, the project will not have any impact that could result in the conversion ofproperty to non-agricultural use. HI. Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact) The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management OCSD (SCAQMD) sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARE) is responsible for controlling motor vehicle emissions. The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP goals include the implementation of technological and innovative changes that provide for achieving clean air goals while maintaining a healthy economy. The AQMP also addresses state and federal planning requirements and programs. Regional and local air quality has been previously addressed in the Final Program EIR'for the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which was developed by the SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) includes a comprehensive analysis of future emission forecasts which reflect demographic and economic growth forecasts provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The build -out of the City of Newport Beach (including the project area) is included in these forecasts. The 1997 AQMP provide an extensive analysis of potential impacts, including the cumulative impacts of basin -wide growth and development. Additionally, on December 11, 1998, the Governing Board of the SCAQMD adopted the State CEQA Implementation Guidelines. To make AQMD's California Environmental Quality Act procedures consistent with state guidelines, the Board rescinded AQMD's 1988 CEQA Implementation Guidelines and adopted the state CEQA Guidelines by reference. The previous adopted SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identified Thresholds of Potential Significance for Air Quality (Table 6-3) for construction related grading activities as 177.00 acres/day. The project is significantly small in size and well below the threshold of potential significance, • • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 9 • Thresholds taken from the SCQAMD 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook consist of criteria developed initially by the U.S. EPA to be applied to point source emissions (such as an industrial smokestack). Comparisons between emissions from an extreme point source and emissions from the proposed project that are primarily from short-term construction activities may not necessarily be an appropriate method to determine the significance of project emissions. Emissions from the proposed project bear no resemblance to emissions from industrial sources. The SCAQMD's low threshold for significant impact is not particularly representative of significant impact except in the context that that this is a severe non -attainment basin. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan identifies that the project site is located within Recreation/Open Space land use designation. The pond is approximately 28,000 square feet in size. The project involves placing fill materials in the pond and associated drainage improvements. It is anticipated that pond will be replaced with a putting green area compatible with the existing golf course uses and the depth of the driving range expanded to provide additional distance. The potential putting green and modification of the driving range are permitted uses within the existing golf course and are not subject discretionary (permit) approval by the City. In addition to the pond and drainage modifications, the project includes replacement of an existing sewer trunk (1,100 feet in length). Due to the limited size of the site and type of project, long-term air quality impacts will not result from the proposed project. Short-term construction related impacts are discussed in Section III (b) below. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Less Than Significant Impact) Potential air quality impacts from project construction activities will be minimized through mitigation measures, including short-term impacts to air quality from air pollutants being emitted by construction equipment and dust generated during site preparation. The project will require limited grading since the site has been previously developed with a pond and golf course uses. The existing pond will be filled and replaced with a putting green area and the depth of the driving range expanded to provide additional distance. The project also involves drainage improvements and relocation of golf cart paths near the pond. A new sewer trunk will also replace an existing sewer line. Potential air quality impacts are short-term in nature. The demolition activities will result in short- term air quality impacts (e.g. dust), however, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures this impact is considered less than significant. The small amount of project -related emissions will have no impact on regional particulate levels. Where construction operations are near existing businesses (e.g. golf course) and residences, the dust generated by such activities is CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 10 considered a local nuisance as opposed to an actual health hazard. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. The following mitigation measures are recommended toreduceshort-term construction related air quality impacts to a level of less than significant. Short-term air quality impacts associated with the project are limited due to the nature of the project, size of the project, and duration ofproject implementation. A mitigation measure is recommended requiring a haul route plan prior to start of construction. The project applicant has indicated that fill material will be obtained from the immediate area. This environmental document includes recommended mitigation measures that will significantly reduce air quality impacts associated with the construction activities. The potential impacts are "short-term" and can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. These measures are in compliance with regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management OCSD (SCAQMD). Mitigation Measure No. 1 During construction activities, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)) shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management OCSD (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project -related emissions. Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction activities, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & OCSD) shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. c) 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (No Impact) See response to Section III (a) above. The project is located in the South Coast Air Basin that is a designated non -attainment area. However, the proposed project does not represent significant growth beyond that already previously evaluated and forecasted for air quality cumulative impacts of basin -wide growth and development. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts cumulatively to air quality. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 11 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (No Impact) The project is not located in an area that would expose sensitive receptors (e.g. elementary schools etc.) to substantial pollutant concentrations. The site is located in an area already developed with an existing golf course; therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to sensitive receptors. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding developed area. The impacts to surrounding properties from construction operations (including emissions and odors associated with construction) will be short-term in duration and minimal. These effects are not considered significant. Additional potential long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are not anticipated due to the type of project (i.e., filling pond, storm drain and sewer trunk improvements). Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. IV. Biological Resources 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 With Mitigation Incorporation) The project site is currently developed with an existing artificial pond and is located within a golf course. A biological resources assessment and wetland delineation was conducted by Psomas. The reports dated April 12, 2000 and April 13, 2000 are presented in the Appendix of this document. The evaluation and information presented in this section are based on the biological report contained in its entirety in the Appendix of this document. The Biological Resources study (page 2 and 5) identifies that a literature review included the California Natural Diversity Database and the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of Califomia. Therefore, the source is cited that contains the listing of the sensitive or special CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 12 status animal and plant species that occur in the general region of the project. The cited sources are available to the public. The project site was visited by a biologist from Psomas on April 6, 2000. The biological evaluation was conducted by walking around and through the plantings of the periphery of the pond, recording plant species present on the site and evaluating habitat quality for wildlife. Additionally, the trees and understory surrounding the pond were examined for any wildlife species. The biological report indicates that the pond appears to be located along an historical "blue -line" stream, according to the USGS topographical map. Therefore, the pond is considered a "Waters of the United States" and falls under federal jurisdiction. The pond (approximately .64 acres) was constructed as a enhanced pond water feature of the Big Canyon Country Club golf course. Beyond the pond area there is a putting green to the east, a parking structure for golf carts to the south, a driving range to the east, and single-family homes to the north. The pond is surrounded by omamental plantings with some native plant species growing adjacent to the pond. The native plants include sycamore, cattails, bulrushes, black mustard, and wild radish. The animals observed on the site during the survey included several bird species. The biological assessment indicated that it's probable that other species such as small mammals and reptiles occur; however, no sign of these species were found during the survey. On the south side of the pond, bird droppings were identified on shrubs in two spots at the base of some trees, indicating possible roosting sites for a large bird. During the survey, a young black crowned night -heron was observed flying to and sitting in the tree over one of these spots. The wetland delineation of the site was conducted on April 6, 2000 (report presented in Appendix). A series of soil sampling pits were dug adjacent to the pond to evaluate areas of potential jurisdictional wetlands. A complete discussion of the hydrology, soils and vegetation relative to wetlands is contained in the report presented in the Appendix of this document. The wetland delineation identified that the site contains approximately .64 acres of state and federal wetlands and 0.03 acres of adjoining non -wetland area. No fish were observed in the pond during the field survey. Additionally, the pond is an isolated feature located within the golf course and it is not associated with any wildlife corridors. Wildlife corridors are typically characterized as a passageway used by animals to move from one area of suitable habitat to another. The project itself will not impede the movement of wildlife. Wildlife will continue to be able to utilize the golf course as a corridor for movement. Also, the golf course does contain other nearby ponds that are available habitat resource. The biological assessment included an inspection of the trees and understory surrounding the pond and the area was examined for signs of wildlife. During the site survey, only several bird species were observed. The biological study indicates that it is probable that other small mammals and • • • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 13 • • reptiles may occur; however no signs of these species were found during the survey. The previous IS/MND distributed on May 26, 2000 for public review used the word "artificial" in describing the pond. Public comment raised the issue as to whether the subject pond would be better described as a "lake". There mostly likely is no commonly agreed on definition of a pond versus a lake. There are many factors that can cause a difference of opinion as to whether a body of water is a "pond" or a "lake". According to various publications, there are similarities and differences between a lake and pond. The Twin Groves Museums in the Classroom Team (sponsored by Illinois State Board of Education) (February 2000) and Mad Scientist Network (June 17, 1998, David Kopaska-Merkel, Staff Hydrogeology Division, Geological Survey of Alabama), Webster's 9`h New Collegiate Dictionary, Natural History of Lakes (by M.J. Burgis and Pat Morris, 1987, Cambridge University Press) identified the following characteristics of lakes and ponds: Lakes & ponds are wet year round. Lakes and ponds are different in size. Lakes are generally bigger and deeper than ponds. A pond may vary in size depending on the time of the season and how much rainfall has occurred. A person might expect to be able to wade across a pond. A lake can be defined as a body of water large enough to have at least one wind-swept beach. Ponds usually are not big enough for winds to blow across the water to create waves to wash away the plants that may be trying to take root. There also exist ponds that re -circulate water (with a pumping system) and after the initial creation/enhancement of the pond, water is only added to offset evaporation. City documentation (i.e. Planning Commission Report June 18, 1970 and attachment for Tentative Map Tract 7223) depicts the Big Canyon Country Club golf course and future residential. The exhibit shows the golf course boundary, drainage, and lakes -(settling ponds). The documentation does not identify an existing pond (or settling pond) where the subject pond is now located. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 14 Additionally, the project site is referenced as Big Canyon Country Club and Practice Fairway. The proposed project will result in impacts to the 0.64 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.03 acres of non -wetland area. Therefore, the project is subject to compliance of the regulatory permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) and the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) (Code Section 1603) will be required for the project. The project applicant will be required to obtain the necessary penults from the appropriate regulatory agencies. The project will also require the removal of existing trees, cattails and bulrushes the presently occupy small portions of the pond. The biological survey indicated that the trees provide roosting sites for the black -crowned night -heron. The report noted that this pond alone most likely does not provide sufficient food or other resources for this bird and that it frequents other areas in addition to the subject pond. The biological assessment includes a recommendation that mature trees be relocated on other ponds in the vicinity to reduce potential impacts to the black -crowned night - heron. Potential impacts associated with placement of the new sewer trunk are short-term construction related and do not result in any significant adverse impacts to biological resources. The new sewer trunk line will replace an existing sewer trunk within a 15-foot wide OCSD easement. The sewer trunk line begins east of MacArthur Boulevard and extends through the golf course to just west of Jamboree Road. Implementation of the new sewer trunk will require temporary excavation of existing manicured golf course turf that will be restored to its original condition following completion of construction. Therefore, the proposed sewer trunk component of the project will not result in any significant biological impacts since the area to be excavated contains golf grass turf. The mitigation measures recommended for potential biological resource impacts are derived from the biological assessment of the site. The mitigation measures are drafted in a manner to ensure compliance, implementation, and verification. The habitat mitigation plan for wetlands is developed in consultation with the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over such resources. The mitigation must comply with state and federal laws. The project can not proceed' forward until the City receives evidence identifying that the requirements of the regulatory agencies have been met. The project will comply with the legal requirements pertaining to the breeding season. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 15 • Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall provide documentation (i.e. issued regulatory permits) to the Planning Department, indicating that all required permits/agreements have been obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish & Game. The total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a "no net loss" minimum ratio. Mitigation Measure No. 4 Prior to the start of construction activities (within 3 to 7 days of disturbance), the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall cause to be conducted a pre -construction survey of the site for nesting migratory bird species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nesting birds are found, the disturbance of the nesting area shall be delayed until after the young have left the nest. Mitigation Measure No.5 Prior to the completion of construction, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) in consultation with a qualified biologist shall relocate the trees and vegetation (i.e. cattails and bulrushes) that provide roosting sites for the black -crowned night -heron to other ponds on the golf course. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does contain riparian habitat and mitigation is presented in the above section that will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does contain wetlands. A wetland delineation identified that the site contains approximately 0.64 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Mitigation measures are presented in the above section to reduce potential impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 16 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) See response to Section IV (a) above. The biological resources report indicated that the black -crowned night -heron may utilize vegetation adjacent to the pond. Therefore, a mitigation measure is presented in Section IV (a) that requires relocation/replacement of trees and vegetation including wetlands. Potential impacts to migratory birds will be reduced to a level of less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does not contain any vegetation (including trees) that is protected by City policy or ordinance. Therefore, the project will not conflict with any policies or ordinance pertaining to biological resources. However, a mitigation measure is presented in Section IV (a) above that requires impacted vegetation including wetlands be mitigated to a level of less than significant. 1) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) See response to Section IV (a) and (e) above. The site does not contain any biological resources that would be subject to a conservation plan. V. Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed with an existing artificial pond located within a golf course. The proposed project involves placing fill materials in the pond, constructing associated drainage improvements, relocating existing golf cart paths that are near the pond and installation of a sewer trunk. Due to the limited size of the project and grading involved, it is not anticipated that the project will have any impacts on cultural (including historical) resources. The sewer trunk line will replace an existing line in the same location but at less depth beneath the surface. The existing sewer trunk is over 40 feet below the surface in some locations due to fill placement that has occurred with development of' the golf course. The new CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 17 • • sewer trunk line will be placed approximately 10 to 12 feet below the surface in the same area of the existing line. Therefore, due to the limited excavation and fill condition of the area, it is not anticipated that project will result in any significant impacts to cultural resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (No Impact) See response to Section V (a) above. The project site is already developed. The project is limited in size and the grading associated with the project is minimal. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impact to archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (No Impact) See response to Section V (a) and (b) above. It is not anticipated that the project will result in any direct or indirect impacts to unique paleontological resources or geologic features due to the existing site conditions and the project will not involve extensive excavation and/or grading (the site contains a pond within a developed golf course). d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? (No Impact) See response to Section V (a) and (b) above. It is not anticipated that the project will result in any impact since the site is already developed and located in an urbanized area of the City. W. Geology & Soils a) Expose people or structures to 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? (No Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 18 The Final EIR/GPA 82-2 (page 37-41) includes a complete discussion of existing conditions, impacts and City policy and requirements pertaining to geology and soils. The Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan identifies the potential natural physical hazards that potentially could affect properties located in Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach is located along the southwesterly edge of the Los Angeles basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The potential for damage results from seismic -related events that exists within the City as it does throughout the Southern California. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, ground failure, ground displacement, tsunamis and seiches. The topography of the site is relatively flat with embankments near the pond. To the south of the pond is a cart barn parking structure. A hill slopes up from the north embankment of the pond and single-family homes are located at the top of this slope, about 30 feet above the pond's water line. The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features. There are no evident faults on the site. The closest known active or potentially active fault is the Newport -Inglewood Fault. The site is not located within Alquist-Priolo special fault zone. The site is expected to be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking from a regional seismic event within the project life of the proposed building. The project does not involve the construction of above ground structures. The project construction activities (including grading) are subject to compliance with City regulations and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Expansive soil classification per Chapter 18 of the UBC specific relates to foundation design and construction considerations. The proposed project does not include a foundation and/or foundation that would support structures above ground since the storm drain structure in underground. The property was originally graded in conjunction with the development of the existing golf course over 30 years ago. Site preparation (e.g. grading) will be needed in conjunction with the project, It is anticipated that the project will require exporting debris (concrete from removed cart paths) and importing fill material to be placed in the pond. It is estimated that the project will involve 500 cubic yards of excavation, 18,000 cubic yards of embankment, and 17,500 cubic yards of import fill material. Excavation associated with placement of the new sewer trunk will not require exportation since the trenched area will be filled with the same earth material following installation of the line. The area modified during installation of the sewer trunk will be returned to its existing golf course condition. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.10.140) will be required as condition of' the grading permit. Therefore, the following mitigation measures recommended are to minimize short-term construction related impacts associated with the project. No cumulative impacts associated with geological conditions are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 19 • Mitigation Measure No. 6 During construction activities, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & OCSD) will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10). Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall submit a geotechnical investigation that includes compaction criteria and soil specifications to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (No Impact) See response to Section VI (a)(i) above. The Newport -Inglewood Fault is believed to be capable of producing an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude. The Whittier -Elsinore Fault is estimated to potentially produce an earthquake of 7.0 magnitude. Primary hazards of an earthquake include groundshaking, ground displacement and subsidence. In the event of a regional seismic event, the site would experience moderate to severe ground shaking. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) requiring compliance with applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, potential impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (No Impact) See response to Section VI (a)(i) above. Ground failure, liquefaction, seiching and dam failure are secondary seismic hazards which may result from an earthquake. Ground failure in the form of landslides, rock falls, subsidence, and other surface and near surface ground failures can occur as a result of a seismic event. In turn, this may result in complete loss of strength of water -saturated subsurface foundation soil (liquefaction). The Potential for liquefaction is associated with the soil types and shallow groundwater. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) requiring compliance with applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines. The site is currently developed with a golf course. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure requiring compliance with building codes and seismic design regulations it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts associated with ground failure or liquefaction. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 20 iv) Landslides? (No Impact) Landslides and erosion hazard potential is typically associated with hillside areas. The project site is located in a developed area of the City and the topography of the site (pond) is relatively flat with embankments near the pond. The Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan does designate the project area as a high potential for landslides. The project will not result in any significant impacts associated with landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (No Impact) See response to Section VI(a)(i). The project will require minimal site preparation (e.g. grading) and therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of 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? (No Impact) The project site is located in a developed area of the City and the topography of the site (pond) is relatively flat with embankments near the pond, A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) that requires compliance with applicable building codes and seismic design guidelines. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, potential impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (No Impact) Expansive soils are generally defined as those soils that exhibit a change in volume when moisture content of the soil is varied. The degree of expansion is most generally related to the magnitude of the change and expressed as ranging from very low to very high. Chapter 18, Section 1803 (Soil Classification — Expansive Soil) of the 1998 Uniform Building Code (UBC) addresses expansive soil. Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20, as determined by the UBC Standard,shall require special design consideration. If the soil expansion varies, the variation is to be included in the engineering analysis of the structure. Expansive and collapsible soils can effect building foundations resulting in damage to the structure. Movements may very under different part of a building with the result that the foundations crack, with vertical displacement, causing various • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 21 structural portions of the building to be damaged and/or destroyed. Expansive soil consideration can be identified and addressed by engineering and construction practices. The City's General Plan, Public Safety Element (pages 1 through 47) evaluates geology and soils of Newport Beach. The Public Safety Element (Figure 3, page 15) divides the City into categories of expansive soil probabilities. The project site is located in an area designated as "Category 2 Moderate to High Expansive Soils Possible". The City's General Plan identifies that collapsible soils are not prevalent within the City. The project does not involve the development of the structures. Although it is not anticipated that the project will have any impacts associated with geology and soils, a mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) that requires compliance with applicable building codes and seismic design guidelines. 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? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed with a golf course. The site will not be utilizing septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Impact) The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of any hazardous materials. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will result in any significant impacts relative to hazards and/or hazardous materials. The existing permitted golf course operations involves the use and or hazardous substances or highly combustible materials associated with the maintenance of the golf course greens. However, substances are required to be stored in accordance with state and federal guidelines, and/or as directed by the City's Fire Department. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated for this topical area. 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? (No Impact) See response to VIE (a) above. The site is already developed with an existing private golf course. The project itself does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 22 c) 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) See response to VII (a) above. The site is not located within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will have any impact on schools. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied 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) See response to VII (a) above. Additionally, the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project site is located over five miles from John Wayne Airport. The project will not result in a safety hazard for people working and/or residing in the project area. Additionally, the project is not anticipated to have any impacts associated with a public airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) See response to VII (a) above. Additionally, the site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City within an existing private golf course. The City's Public Safety Element (Figure 7, Page 40) identifies major evacuation routes. The closest evacuation routes to the project site are MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The project involves modifications to lir • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 23 • • the golf course (i.e. filling pond and associated improvements, and a new sewer trunk line). The project itself will not result in any impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact) The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City. The project is not located in area designated by the City's General Plan as a high risk fire hazard area. The project itself (or location) will not be a significant risk involving wildland fires. VIII. Hydrology & Water Quality a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (No Impact) The project site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin. The site is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for issues related to water quality. Each of the nine California RWQCBs is responsible for adopting and implementing water quality control plans for each basin's water bodies, regulating waste discharges from both point and nonpoint sources, and monitoring permit compliance within its designated basin. There is a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which is implemented by the Cities (including Newport Beach), County of Orange, and Orange County Flood Control OCSD. The DAMP was prepared in compliance with specific requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. The DAMP includes a wide range of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and control techniques to further reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. The City of Newport Beach has for many years been performing many of the procedures that protect the quality of stormwater runoff, such as: site construction erosion and sediment control programs, sweeping streets, managing solid waste, recycling programs, storm drain and catch basin maintenance, enforcing prohibitions on illegal discharges, controlling spills, supervising industrial waste discharges through permitting, and enforcing ordinances prohibiting certain discharges. The proposed project would not substantially increase water runoff. The site is already developed with an existing golf course. The pond itself is approximately CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 24 0.64 acres in size. Currently, the pond •flows into an existing storm drain system that then carries the water to the bay. The existing storm drain system will remain following implementation of the project. However, instead of water flowing through the existing pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed underground and above the surface in the area of the pond. The water pipes will connect to the existing storm drain system. The new sewer trunk will replace an existing sewer line that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length within an existing 15-foot easement. The sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and 12-inch VCP (vitrified clay pipe). The sewer line begins east of MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach and extends through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The sewage from the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer flows into the Back Bay Trunk Sewer that runs along Back Bay Drive eventually reaching the Bay Bridge Pump Station adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach. Sewage flows from these lines are treated at the OCSD's Plant 2 in Huntington Beach. The original sewer line was constructed at depths between 10 and 20 feet. With the development of the Big Canyon Golf Course in 1971, fill has been added to this area that has increased the depth of the sewer to over 40 feet in some areas. The OCSD conducted a video inspection of the sewer line in December 1999. The inspection revealed defects including cracks, sags, infiltration, mineral deposits, and offset joints. Maintenance of the sewer in some areas is difficult due to the depth, and accessibility. The OCSD's Strategic Plan adopted in October 1999 calls for replacement/rehabilitation of the sewer line by 2009. The OCSD began a study of the sewer in 1999 to determine the condition of the sewer and options for replacement/rehabilitation. The Big Canyon Country Club improvement project provides the sanitation OCSD the opportunity to replace a portion of the OCSD's sewer. This will allow the OCSD to raise the sewer and replace it with a new pipe. The replaced portion would be from manhole 19 to manhole 14, which includes approximately 1100 feet of 12-inch VCP. Manhole 19 is located west of Royal Saint George Road on the existing driving range, Manhole 14 is located in the flowerbed north of the Club House. The alignment of the new pipe may be changed to provide better access for maintenance or conflicts with the fillingofthe pond. The new pipe, depending on the slope and alignment, will be replaced with a 12- inch PVC or VCP pipe. The 2020 peak wet weather flow from the Strategic Plan is 2.43 MGD. The new sewer will be designed to integrate into the existing system with a gravity flow at 50%. The OCSD is currently conducting flow monitoring to more accurately determine the current flows and predict future flows in the trunk sewer. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 25 • The proposed project will require the rehabilitation/replacement of at least 6 manholes. Manhole 18 contains a drop manhole that will require significant modification. Manhole 14 will be converted into a drop manhole. The Big Canyon Trunk Sewer currently is contained within a 15-foot easement. If the alignment were changed a new easement would be required and the old easement would be abandoned. The existing sewer if replaced will be filled with one -sack cement -sand slurry. Abandoned manholes will require removal of the upper portion of the manhole and will be filled with one -sack cement -sand slurry. With the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. To ensure that storm runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, mitigation measures in compliance with said City regulations will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & OCSD) shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (No Impact) See Response to Section VILE (a) above. The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and contains an existing one-story. The project site (pond) topography is relatively flat with embankments adjacent to the pond. The project will not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The project includes placement of water pipes underground and above the surface in the existing pond that will connect to the existing storm drain system to carry the current water flows through the pond area. It is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impact on groundwater. c) Substantially alter existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Less Than Significant Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 26 See response to Section VIE (a) above. The project will result in a change to the drainage pattern of the site, however, this change is not considered significant. The site is located in an area that has existing storm drain facilities. Currently, the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that then carries the water to the bay. The storm drain system will remain following implementation of the project. However, instead of water flowing through the pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond. The water pipes will connect to the existing storm drain system. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval including compliance with NPDES requirements Best Management Practices (BMPs), it's not anticipated that the project will result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VIII(a) requiring NPDES compliance. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section VIII (c) above. During heavy rains the pond area has experienced flooding. The previous draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (May 2000) characterized the project as a storm drain improvement project since the water that currently flows through the pond will flow through constructed pipes placed in the area of the pond with project implementation. The pipes will carry the water to the existing storm drain system. The pipes are to be engineered for sufficient storm water capacity. Therefore, taking into consideration the existing condition (i.e. water freely flowing through the pond with limited storm water infrastructure) it is anticipated that the project will improve the hydrology aspect of the site. The sizing of the storm water pipes (identified on the project plans) are subject to review and approval by the City engineer. The storm water pipes are underground and aboveground within portions of the site as depicted on the project plan. The IS/MND appendix includes the engineering plan for the project site and full scale size project plans are available for inspection at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. e) 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? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 27 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above and mitigation measure presented. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. The project does not involve the development of housing. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) and (g) above. The project does not involve the development of structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) and (g) above. The project site is not located near a levee or dam. The project site is located within an existing private golf course. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. IX. Land Use and Planning a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The project site is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive near Rue De La Verdure within the Big Canyon Country Club golf course in Newport Beach. The project is located within designated open space area of a private golf course. The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The project will not require subdivision of property or physically divide adjacent properties. Therefore, the project will not result in significant impacts to an established community. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 28 • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed with an existing private golf course. Nearby land uses include golf course (cart parking barn, putting greens etc) and single-family homes to the south of the pond. The project will involve the exporting and importing material. Additionally, existing cart paths near the pond will be demolished and relocated. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan identifies that the project site is located within the Big Canyon Planned Community area of Newport Beach. The Land Use Element designates the property for Recreation and Environmental Open Space. The Recreation and Environmental Open Space designation allows for such land uses as golf courses. The proposed project complies with the City's General Plan and Zoning regulations. The proposed new sewer trunk will replace an existing sewer line that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length within an existing 15-foot easement. The sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and 12-inch VCP pipe that begins east of MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach and extends through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The proposed sewer trunk line is consistent with the OCSD's Strategic Plan adopted in October 1999 that calls for replacement/rehabilitation of the sewer line by 2009. Public comments were submitted to the City of Newport Beach in response to the public review of the previous draft IS/MND (dated May 26, 2000). These comments indicated that the project involves the expansion of the golf course. The project does not involve any expansion of the existing golf course. Potential golf course uses of the pond area are disclosed since the Big Canyon Country Club indicated in project application materials what the potential use of the pond area would be following implementation of the project. The uses are allowed and permitted within the existing golf course property boundaries. The previous draft IS/MND indicated that pond (once filled) would potentially be utilized as a putting green area. Additional golf course improvements identified included relocation of the golf cart pathsnear the pond and expanding the depth of the driving range. The putting green area, the driving range modification, and relocation of golf cart paths etc. are allowable uses in compliance with the Big Canyon Country Club Planned Community and regulatory requirements of the City. The previous IS/MND disclosed these potential uses for informational purposes only. These uses are permitted uses and do not require any discretionary CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 29 • • permit approval beyond that previously approved in conjunction with the original plan and development of the golf course. Therefore, the project activities that are the subject of review and analyses of the CEQA document involve those associated with the proposed grading permit and the proposed sewer trunk line that the Sanitation OCSD will implement if the Big Canyon Country Clubproject is constructed. The previous IS/MND also noted that the Big Canyon Country Club indicated that algae has been a problem at the pond. The project applicant is under no obligation to provide alternative solutions for the possible algae problem. The pond is not located in a habitat conservation area (neither public nor private). The pond is privately owned and located within previously approved private golf course. The subject pond is not partial mitigation for the impacts of previous projects (i.e. in conjunction with the original development of the golf course). The pond is an enhanced "water feature" of the golf course. The pond area experiences on -going operations of the golf course and adjacent residential development including human intrusion, noise, etc. that is common in a developed area. The condition of the pond (i.e. plantings, algae removal etc.) is a result of the efforts of the private golf course club. The City's Land Use Element identifies that the project site is located within the Big Canyon (Statistical Area L2) area. The area is identified as the Big Canyon Planned Community. Big Canyon is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road, Ford Road, and MacArthur Boulevard. The Big Canyon Country Club is described as a golf course with related facilities located within the Big Canyon Planned Community and designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space to allow for the continuation of the 191.13 acre facility. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and designated use of the property. The goal of the City's Recreation and Open Space Element is identified as follows: "Maintain a recreation and open space system which meets the recreational needs of the citizens of Newport Beach and which enhances the unique recreational and environmental resources of the City." The City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) identifies environmental sensitive areas. These areas are mostly water -associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. The areas include all or portions of the following: Santa River Mouth/Oxbow Loop, North Star Beach, Westbay, Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, San Diego Creek, Eastbluff Remnant, Mouth of Big Canyon, Newporter North, Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, Coron del Mar Marine Life Refuge, and Castaways. The Mouth of Big Canyon is located northerly of Park Newport between Upper Newport Bay and Jamboree Road. The Recreation and CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 30 Open Space Element contains policies designed toenhance recreational and open space qualities, consistent with the sensitivity of the identified areas. The City's Recreation and Open Space Element identifies that for Service Area 8 — Big CanyonBelcourt, there are substantial private facilities. The project site (private golf course) is located within this area. The City's Recreation and Open Space Element contains objectives and polices including that pertaining to scenic vistas and resources. The element states that the objectives and policies are not intended to prohibit development on any site nor prevent public agencies and private property owners from providing public infrastructures, maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, and other related facilities. The Recreation and Open Space Plan identifies the project site as existing open space. The project involves placing fill material in a pond, associated drainage improvement, and proposed sewer trunk line that will replace an existing sewer trunk line. The project does not propose any uses that would conflict with the objectives and polices of the Recreation and Open Space Element. Therefore, proposed project is consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element. Based on the above analysis, and applicable land use regulations, the proposed project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) See response to IX (a)(b) above. Also, the project is not subject to any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. X. Mineral Resources 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? (No Impact) The area surrounding the project is fully developed. The City's Conservation of Natural Resources Element identifies that oil deposits constitute the only significant extractable mineral resource in the Newport Beach planning area. The project consists of an application for approval of a grading permit to allow the placement of fill material in an existing pond and constructing associated storm drain improvements. The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project due to the type and limited size of the project. Therefore, no significant increase in the use of energy or natural resources is anticipated as a result of the project. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 31 • • • 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? (No Impact) See response to Section X (a) above. The City's General Plan does not delineate any locally important mineral resource in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to a locally important mineral resource. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See response to Section X(a) above. The project site contains an existing golf course. The site is not zoned for residential uses. The project will not displace people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. XI. Noise a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant Impact) The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with a golf course and nearby single-family homes. The project consists of placement of fill material in an existing pond, constructing associated storm drain improvements, and replacement of a sewer trunk line. The City's Noise Element of the General Plan identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing programs to insure that excessive noise intrusion on residents will be minimized. Sources of noise include transportation noise (freeways, aircraft, roadways) and non -transportation noise (stationary noise sources). Non -transportation noise sources include commercial (i.e. restaurant/entertainment etc.), mechanical equipment noise, residential/boat part noise, animals, and recreational activities. The City requires compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Permits (i.e. grading permit) issued by the City include specific conditions to minimize noise impacts on residential areas. For example, conditions typically include limits on hours of construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas in order to reduce the intrusion of noise in the early morning and late evening hours and on weekends and holidays. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 32 The proposed project will generate a temporary increase in traffic associated with construction activities (workers, construction vehicles importing/exporting material). However, the increase is minimal due to the limited size of the project. The project will result in short-term construction related noise impacts, however, with the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, these short-term noise impacts will be less than significant. A mitigation measure is presented in Section XI (d) below for potential construction noise impacts. Future on -site noise impacts will not significantly differ from those associated with the existing golf course. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant adverse noise impacts. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact) Surrounding homes in the immediate vicinity may experience some groundbome vibration (removal of existing cart paths etc.) and noise associated with the construction activities. However, due to the relatively small size of the project, it is not anticipated that the construction activities will result in excessive vibration or groundborne noise levels. A mitigation measure is presented in Section XI (d) below which will reduce construction related temporary impacts to a level of less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to XI (a) above. The project involves placing fill material in an existing pond, constructing associated storm drain improvements, and replacement of a sewer trunk line. Following implementation of the project, it is not anticipated that the project will generate a substantial permanent increase in noise levels above that existing since the site is located within an existing golf course. Therefore, permanent noise levels associated with the project will not significantly differ from those, which now exist. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS i Page 33 • Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high noise levels. However, noise levels will be mitigated by limiting the hours of construction through provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Mitigation Measure No. 9 The project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & OCSD) will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is located over five miles from the John Wayne Airport. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan identifies that the site is located outside the CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) noise contour for the airport. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and surrounding area. The project will be required to comply with Uniform Building Code regulations and the City's noise control measures. A mitigation measure is presented in Section XI (d) above. Therefore, it is anticipated that any potential noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there are no project impacts associated with a private airstrip. XII. Population and Housing a) Induce substantial 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) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 34 The proposed project does not propose development of housing and/or business that would result in substantial population growth. The project site is already developed with an existing private golf course. The project does not propose a change to the land use. In regards to the proposed sewer trunk line component of the project, the sewer trunk is intended to replace the existing sewer trunk. Therefore, no direct population and/or demand for housing increase would result from the project. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The project site contains an existing golf course. The site is not zoned for residential uses. The project will not displace any existing housing. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated for this topical area. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See response to XII (b) above. The project will not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people and/or housing. The site is not zoned for residential uses. The project will not displace people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. XIII. Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: (No Impact) Utilities and service systems are already servicing the existing golf course. The project involves the placement of fill material in an existing pond, constructing associated storm drain improvements, and replacement of a sewer trunk line. Fire protection? (No Impact) The City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department are currently providing fire protection and emergency response services for the project area. Response times to the site are dependent on various factors. Response time is generally five minutes or less. Emergency calls receive the quickest response times with alarm CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 35 • calls and non -emergency calls having longer response times respectively. The availability of personnel and extenuating circumstances may further affect response times. The proposed project will not result in any potentially increase in the number of calls for service to the location. The project does not include developing habitable structures and/or other uses which could impact the need for additional fire protection services. Police protection? (No Impact) The City of Newport Beach Police Department is currently providing Law enforcement services to the project area. The project does not include developing habitable structures and/or other uses which could impact the need for additional police protection services. Schools? (No Impact) The project does not include developing habitable structures and/or other uses which could impact school. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts to schools in relation to the proposed project. Other public facilities? (No Impact) The project site is developed with an existing private golf course. Therefore, the project itself would not create significant additional demand for public facilities and/or services. XIV. Recreation 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? (No Impact) The proposed project is located within a private golf course. The project will not result in any potential increase of demand on the use of existing recreation facilities. Due to the type of project (filling the pond, storm drain improvements and sewer trunk line) it is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impacts on recreation. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? (No Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 36 The site is located within an existing operational private golf course. The project applicant has indicated that the pond area may potentially be utilized as a putting green area and the depth of the driving range increased. These potential uses are compatible and permitted within the existing golf course property. The project itself does not require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that would result in an adverse impact on the environment. XV. Transportation/Traffic a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (No Impact) The project is not anticipated to generate any vehicular traffic beyond that associated with construction activities. The site is designated for recreation and open space uses and is located within an existing private golf course. The project will result in short-term construction related traffic. The project will involve exporting and importing material in relation to construction activities. Due to the limited size of the project site and type of construction activities, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant traffic impacts. However, a mitigation measure is recommended, requiring a traffic control plan for the exportation of the site debris and project construction activities. The traffic control plan will ensure implementation of proper construction related signage (within the golf course area and construction access areas to the golf course), construction traffic flagmen, and truck hauling operations to reduce potential short-term traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 10 Prior to the start of construction activities, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall submit to the Planning Department & Building Department for review and approval a construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic ,flagmen, and construction warning/directional signage within the golf course property and if needed for access to the golf course. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Impact) CHECKLISTEXPLA$4AT10N5 Page 37 • See response to Section XV (a) above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. Also, the project does not propose any design features relative to curves, intersections, or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. Access to the site is provided from Big Canyon Drive near San Joaquin Hills Road. Due to the type and size of the project, it is not anticipated that the project will result in inadequate emergency access to the golf course. f) Result in adequate parking capacity? (No Impact) The proposed project will not result in any additional long-term demand for parking. Employee and guest parking are available within the existing golf course area. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (No Impact) The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides public transportation services to and around the golf course site. Due to the nature of the project, it is not expected to negatively impact any current facility, service or service expansion plans for the project area and/or site. Therefore, the project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 38 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The project site is currently services by existing utilities (i.e. water/sewage pipelines, electrical, telephone etc.). As such, utility and service agencies will be coordinated with regarding project design and construction. Infrastructure improvement plans (water and sewer) have not been finalized since the project discretionary permits are currently being processed and project plans are in "draft" form so that there is an opportunity for public review said plans. In addition to state and federal agencies, utility and service organizations have been contacted regarding the project in conjunction with the previous draft IS/MND (May 25, 2000). To date, no significant project concerns and/or issues have been raised by any public agencies in relation to the project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (No Impact) See response to XVI (b) below. The sewer trunk line will replace an existing trunk line within the golf course property. The project (including the sewer trunk line) will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board'. The project will be required to comply with all applicable (RWQCB) requirements. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of' which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project Will not result in the significant alteration or expansion of existing utility and service systems since the site is located within a golf course that is already being served by the utility providers. However, the project includes placement of fill materials in an existing pond and construction of associated storm drain improvements as well as replacement of a sewer trunk line. Existing manholes will also be relocated (raised) to grade as part of the construction of the project. The new sewer trunk will replace an existing sewer line that was constructed in 1968 and is approximately 7,500 feet in length within an existing 15-foot easement. The sewer line is comprised of 15-inch and 12-inch VCP pipe. The sewer line begins east of MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach and extends through Big Canyon Golf Course to just west of Jamboree Road. The sewage CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 39 from the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer flows into the Back Bay Trunk Sewer that runs along Back Bay Drive eventually reaching the Bay Bridge Pump Station adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach. Sewage flows from these lines are treated at the OCSD's Plant 2 in Huntington Beach. The original sewer line was constructed at depths between 10 and 20 feet. With the development of the Big Canyon Golf Course in 1971, fill has been added to this area that has increased the depth of the sewer to over 40 feet in some areas. The OCSD's Strategic Plan adopted in October 1999 call for the replacement and/or rehabilitation of the sewer line by 2009. The Big Canyon Country Club improvement project provides the sanitation OCSD the opportunity to replace a portion of the OCSD's sewer. This will allow the OCSD to raise the sewer and replace it with a new pipe. The replaced portion would be from manhole 19 to manhole 14, which includes approximately 1,100 feet of 12-inch VCP. Manhole 19 is located west of Royal Saint George Road on the existing driving range. Manhole 14 is located in the flowerbed north of the Club House. The alignment of the new pipe may be changed to provide better access for maintenance or conflicts with the filling of the pond. The new pipe, depending on the slope and alignment, will be replaced with a 12- inch PVC or VCP pipe. The 2020 peak wet weather flow from the Strategic Plan is 2.43 MGD. The new sewer will be designed to integrate into the existing system with a gravity flow at 50%. The OCSD is currently conducting flow monitoring to more accurately determine the current flows and predict future flows in the trunk sewer. The replacement of the sewer trunk line will require the rehabilitation/replacement of at least 6 manholes. Manhole 18 contains a drop manhole that will require significant modification. Manhole 14 will be converted into a drop manhole. The Big Canyon Trunk Sewer currently is contained within a 15-foot easement. The existing sewer if replaced will be filled with one -sack cement -sand slurry. Abandoned manholes will require removal of the upper portion of the manhole and will be filled with one -sack cement -sand slurry. With the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. To ensure that storm runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, mitigation measures in compliance with said City regulations will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. Also, a mitigation measure is presented which requires coordination with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of construction. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 40 Mitigation Measure No. 11 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department and Utilities Department review is also required. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (No Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. e) 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? (No Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (No Impact) See response to Section XVI (c) above. The golf course is currently being provided solid waste services by Waste Management of Orange County. The project itself will not have any significant impact on solid waste disposal needs once the project is complete. In regards to green wastes and other wastes currently being generated by the golf course, the existing private golf course is already developed and a permitted use. • • • CH ECKUST EXPLANATIONS Page 41 • • Any potential green waste associated with use of the pond (if filled) as a putting green following project implementation will be disposed of in the same mariner as currently being done for the golf course and in compliance with waste reduction regulations. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 42 • XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less Than Significant Impact) On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is located in a developed area of the City. The project will impact approximately 0.64 acres of jurisdictional wetland habitat. The project will be mitigated (with a "no net loss" of wetlands) to comply with the regulations of local, stated and federal agencies. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, it is anticipated that all impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. B) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (No Impact) The project is compatible with the existing golf course and surrounding land uses and the site will remain as recreation/open space area. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. C) Does the project have possible environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (No Impact) No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. The project is consistent with the type of land uses developed in the area. The project will not result in environmental effects that are cumulatively considerable based on evaluation of projected growth and planned projects for the project area known as of the date of this analysis. D) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact) There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. The project site is located within an existing golf course. The proposed project is consistent with the existing golf course uses, the City's General Plan and Zoning for the property. The project is consistent with the land uses in the project area and the environmental evaluation has concluded that no adverse significant environmental impacts will result from the project. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 43 • Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program • • • • MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM City of Newport Beach Big Canyon Country Club Project Pond Fill, Storm Drain, & Sewer Trunk Line I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring and reporting program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project .design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and /or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post -construction monitoring: If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. • • MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Big Canyon Country Club Project Pond Fill, Storm Drain, & Sewer Trunk Line No. Mitigation Measures Implementation Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification Date l During construction activities, the project proponent (Big Canyon Counhy Club & Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)) shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short -tern: (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project -related emissions. Condition of approval Field Inspection During construction activities Building Dept. 2 During construction activities, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & OCSD) shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. Condition of approval Field inspection During construction activities Building Dept. No. Mitigation Measures Tmoleinentation Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification Date 3 Prior to issuance of a grading pern:it, the project proponent (Big Canyon County Club) shall provide documentation (i.e. issued regulatory permits) to the Planning Department, indicating that all required permits/agreements have been obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish & Game. The total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a "no net loss" minimum ratio. Condition of approval Plan Check Prior to and during constntction activities Planning & Building Departments 4 Prior to the start ofconstruction activities (within 3 to 7 days of disturbance), the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall cause to be conducted a pre, construction survey of the site for nesting migratory bird species by a qualified biologist. If nesting birds are found, the disturbance of the nesting area shall be delayed until after the young have left the Condition of Approval Plan Check Prior to issuance ofa building permit Planning Department , S Prior to the completion of construction, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) in consultation with a qualified biologist shall relocate the trees and vegetation (i.e. cattails and bulrushes) that provide roosting sites for the black -crowned night -heron to other ponds on the golf course: Condition ofApproval Field Inspection During construction activities - Building Department • • • • No. Mitigation Measures Implementation Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification Date 6 During construction activities, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & OCSD) will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City s grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10). Condition of Approval Plan Check & Field Inspection During construction activities Planning Dept. & Building Dept 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall submit a geotechnical investigation that includes compaction criteria and soil specifications to the Planning and Building Condition of Approval Plan Check Prior to the issuance ofa grading permit Planning Dept. & Building Dept 8 The project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & OCSD) shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Condition of Approval Plan Check & Field Inspection During construction activities Public Works Dept 9 The project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club & OCSD) will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours ofconstrmction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Condition of Approval Field Inspection During construction activities Building Dept No. Mitigation Measures implementation Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification Date 10 Prior to the start of construction activities, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall submit to the Planning Department & Building Department for review and approval a construction traffic control plan which includes the haul route, tnrck hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction warning/directional signage within the golf course property and if needed for access -to the golf course. Condition of Approval Plan Check Prior to the start of construction activities Planning Dept. & Building Dept. 11 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent (Big Canyon Country Club) shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department and Utilities Department review is also required. Condition of Approval Plan Check & Field Inspection Prior to the start of construction activities Planning Dept. & Building Dept. • • Appendix B Project Plans & Site Photos (Large Scale Plan on file at City of Newport Beach) (Reduced Copy of Big Canyon Country Club Project Plan included in Appendix B wBiological Resources Report) • • Orange County Sanitation District & A N 1 Sewer Trunk Line January/20o0 w.,.. • • • f% \\\ \F` tdi • Proposed i 9i e«rmuc.-•. 7.' CART BARN PARKING 5TRUGTURE /TM m oleo mot[ v Q+e xn m..rnam,mt .rn roe xa ID PIT rm ant • {' tAfk w l£CM O'4Rt 14•j,,1 �m�m4n fntlwan. MCI -'t) • -o Tr�L 4n/4IX Stp If.tt = n on oy4t41g5 u. . ..o*rt I I.ela[dat� t_ co se 12W1((N1t •• e- a a • • • t�•a R 51G CANYON DR, viz waves ALEN k SSOC,Tn i- 1, DI. ••I • Figu e 2. Locations of Soil Stele Pits f>Za/My aaR TImMaYcart rot son as r 112ac,u ,-� �. ` t•Onnz 161tT ``wa cr w ' � ryr.\ at - `� .. t •, � CART BARN PARKING STRUCTURE SIG GANYON DRI VF r LY ---CCCCCC\ • \\ 1 MIR �.T yr 1151117r .or ear-- r a:::__L�r r-r....-rr.-..re' 7 Rib far. nT rzi?P_�S-r: ar•�.-+'r-i:i .s"7 �!•-•-.�.snna_•. 5'y>;L:Lvi_]"r aCiLJ26vT7 f1C •Tim•a �iLiCGGZf3fltL C LLZi'a37 MLaT' If P fa'.rr.'\T... T.7rin.rmn r-i :.�rx ca,Ais ziwg l4L_LL•_-L-nii•r,LJ rLTJ- ra'J_� Fat ©C.--Lx_r.i ra — CDFG and Corps Jurisdictional Wetlands //// Corps Jurisdictional Waters of the United States (non -wetlands) ` Y4[-T S.f.i M1 A[DEN SOCIATES Figure 3. State (CDFG) and ada I. wall es sar at { Federal (Corps) Boundaries • • • PHOTO 1 PHOTO 2 • • 13110TO 3 PE IOT( ) 4 • • PHOTO 5 PHOTO 6 • • PHOTO 7 PHOTO 8 • PHOTO 9 PHOTO 10 • Appendix C Biological Resources Report & Wetlands Delineation • • Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources Prepared for: Big Canyon Country Club 1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 • Prepared by: PSOMAS 3187 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 DRAFT April 13, 2000 • Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources - DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 Project Location and Description 1 Methods 2 Results Conclusions 4 Literature Cited Appendix 1- Field Survey Form 6 List of Tables and Figures Table 1— Plant and Animal Species Observed In or Near the Pond 2 Table 2 - Total Acreage for state and federal jurisdicdonal areas 4 Follows Page Figure 1 1 Psomas Pagel April 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources - DRAFT SUMMARY This report was prepared for the Big Canyon Country Club in Newport Beach, California to address compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the proposed fill of an artificial pond that is currently a water feature located within a golf course. CEQA requires a review of any proposed activities, including those proposed on private property, that require approval by any California public agency, including state, regional, county, or local agencies, unless an exemption applies. In this report, biological resources in the proposed project site are identified and evaluated for the purpose of assisting in The CEQA-level review. Because of lack of suitable habitat, it is not expected that any special status species are present on the project site; however, pond vegetation may provide nesting or other habitat for migratory birds. Mitigation measures are proposed to offset these impacts. The filling of the pond would remove 0.64 acres of state and federal wetlands and 0.027 acres of Waters of the United States. There would be no impacts to wildlife nurseries, corridors, or other fish or wildlife movement. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This report was prepared for the Big Canyon Country Club in Newport Beach, California to address compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with a proposed fill of an artificial pond that is currently a water feature located within a golf course (Fig. 1). The pond is about 0.64 acres in size, located in the Laguna Beach 7.5' US Geological Survey quadrangle (TGS, RI OW, S56). The site of the proposed project is an existing artificial pond at Big Canyon Country Club in Newport Beach. Due to the considerable build up of algae in the pond and the resulting odors emitted, the property owner, Big Canyon Country Club, proposes to place fill materials within the pond and construct associated improvements. The filling of the pond will involve minor grading and the installation of pipes that will connect to the existing storm drains, and direct and control drainage in and around the project site. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and possibly replaced with a putting green to compliment the adjacent golf course uses. The ancillary improvements include removal of portions of the existing concrete cart paths and construction of new cart paths, adjustment of adjacent manholes to grade, and the relocation of an existing water line, if necessary. To the extent feasible, existing landscaping within and on the banks of the pond will be salvaged and re -planted. The information contained in this report is intended to assist in the CEQA-level review of project impacts Psomas Page 1 April 13, 2000 • Ike rote° HIG CANYON DR. RUE DE LA VERDURE VICINITY MAP N0 SCALE RD, PROJECT LOCATION BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB POND FILL Figure 1. Project Vicinity Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources - DRAFT METHODS The potential occurrence of sensitive and special status plant and animal species was evaluated through a literature review and a visit to the property. Literature reviewed included the California Natural Diversity Database and the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Ram and Endangered Vascular Plants of Calfornia. The site was visited on April 6, 2000 by biologist Patricia Cole from Psomas. The biological evaluation was conducted by slowly walking around and through the plantings of the periphery of the pond, recording plant species present on the site and evaluating habitat quality for wildlife. The evaluation was done in conjunction with a wetland delineation study (Psomas 2000). The trees and understory surrounding the pond were examined for any wildlife species and their presence was recorded. RESULTS Table 1 shows the native plant and wildlife species that were identified on the site. Table 2 provides total acreage for state and federal jurisdictional areas. The following paragraphs summarize the survey results. Additional details of the jurisdictional delineation are provided in a separate report (Psomas 2000). General observations. The pond is a small (approximately 0.64 acres), artificial pond constructed as a water feature on the Big Canyon Country Club golf course. It is surrounded along its periphery primarily by ornamental plantings with some native plant species growing adjacent to the pond. Beyond the pond and its peripheral plantings is a putting green to the east, a parking structure for golf carts to the south, a driving range to the east, and single-family homes to the north. Plants. A number of plant species were observed growing around the periphery of the pond which included mainly ornamental landscape species. Of the observed plants, native species included sycamore (Platanus cf. racemosa), cattails (T}pha spp.), bulrushes (Scirpis spp), black mustard (Brassica nigm), and wild radish (Raphanus saliva). The survey was conducted outside of the reproductive season for the cattails and bulrushes, therefore any confirmed species identification for these genera was not possible. Animals. The only animals observed on the proposed project site during the survey were several bird species. It is probable that other species such as small mammals and reptiles occur, however, no sign of these species was found during the survey. On the south side of the Psomas Page 2 April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources - DRAFT pond, "whitewash" (bird droppings) was found on shrubs in two spots at the base of some trees, indicating that these could be roosting sites for a large bird. Soon after, a young (first spring) black crowned night -heron (Nyclicorax nyc icorax)-was observed flying to and sitting in the tree over one of these spots. Table 1. Plant and anim • Scientific name Common name Plantae Plants Family Brassicaceae Mustards Brasilia nigra Black mustard Raphanus saliva Wild radish Family Platanaceae Sycamores Platanus cf racemosa Sycamore Family Cyperaceae Sedges Sarpus spp. Unidentified -bulrush Fancily Typhaceae Cattails Typha spp. Unidentified cattails Animalia Animals Family Podicipedidae Grebes Podilymbus podiceps Pied -billed grebe Family Ardeidae Herons, I Nycticorax nycdcorax Black -crowned night heron (first spring subadult) Family Anatidae Swans, geese, ducks Anas platyrhynchas Mallard Family Rallidae Rails, gallinules, coots Fulica americana American coot Family Trochilidae Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Family Corvidae Jays, crows, magpies Corms brachyrhynchos American crow Family Stutnidae Starlings Psomas Page 3 April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources - DRAFT Slums vulganr European starting Family Emberizidae Dendroica petechia Geothtypir trichir Melorpiza melotia Warblers, sparrows (new world) Yellow warbler Common vellowthroat Song sparrow Table 2. Total acreage for state and federal jurisdictional areas directly impacted by the project. Jurisdiction Designation Acres. State (CDFG) Pond 0.643 State (CDFG) Wetlands 0.643 Federal (Corps) Non -wetland Waters of the United States 0.027 Federal (Corps) Wetlands 0.643 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Database searches showed 42 sensitive or special status species of animals and 21 sensitive or special status species of plants that occur within the general region of the proposed project. Because of the lack of suitable habitat in the already existing development (a golf course), it is not expected that any of these special plants or animals are present at the proposed project site. However, the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory bird species that are protected by the California Fish and Game Code and Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Alteration of the pond will require removal of the existing cattails and bulrushes that presently occupy small portions of the pond, and thereby will potentially impact these species if the work is done during the breeding season. The California Dept. of Fish and Game usually defines the breeding season aas March 1- August 31. If the pond alteration is scheduled for this period, the following measures would reduce these potential impacts to non -significant levels: 1. Surveys for nesting birds by a qualified biologist within the construction area within three days to a week of disturbance. If nesting birds are found, the disturbance should be delayed until after the young have left the nest. 2. Salvage the existing vegetation and relocate it to other ponds on the golf course. As presently designed, the project will also require removal of the trees that provide roosting sites for the black -crowned night -heron. The black crowned night -heron is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It is about 25 inches long with a wing -span of 44 Psomas Page 4 April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources - DRAFT inches, nests in trees, shrubs, cattails or other dense growth and eats fish, invertebrates, amphibians and other small animals It is a nocturnal heron and roosts in trees during the day. It is likely that this single pond does not provide sufficient food or other resources for this bird and that it frequents other areas in addition to this pond. However, given the accumulation of whitewash at the base of the trees, it is probable that these spots are regular roosting sites for this bird. Removal of these roosting trees will potentially impact individuals of this species. This impact would occur regardless of what time of year the work is done because although the black -crowned night -heron is migratory and winters as fax south as South America, southern California is included in the northern parts of its winter range as well as its summer breeding range, so that there are some birds here all year round. Relocating all mature trees to other ponds in the vicinity would reduce these potential impacts to non -significant levels. The filling of the artificial pond would remove approximately 0.64 acres of federal and state jurisdictional wetlands and about 0.03 acres of non -wetland 'Waters of the United States (Psomas 2000). Since the pond is an isolated feature located within open space (putting greens, driving ranges, etc.) it is not located near any known wildlife nursery sites, nor is it associated with any wildlife corridors. No fish were observed in the pond during the survey; however, if any fish are present in the waters currently entering the pond, adverse impacts will be avoided by the installation of pipes which willLbe connected to an existing drainage system, thus allowing water to continue to flow off -site. The pond is located on private property completely surrounded by the city of Newport Beach. No Local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources would be violated by the proposed project; nor would there be any conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plan. LITERATURE CITED California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. 2000. Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. Hirkman, J C (ed) 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley. Psomas. 2000. Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States. Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik, eds. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1 (Fifth Edition). Sacramento, California. M:/Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Sttambeds and Waters of the United Stara/eostamaa2/2648010100 Psomas Page 5 • • April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources - DRAFT APPENDIX 1: Field Survey Form 1 Psomas Page 6 April 13, 2000 • Big Canyon Country Club Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States Prepared for: Big Canyon Country Club 1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Prepared by: PSOMAS 3187 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 DRAFT Apri112, 2000 • a_., L. c; L Project Name Lisi!(y�t ad Project L !!�� 66 Sunev Tvpe ocauon Surveyor-G._ Date ' Time (Start) /D�j» /efo (End) �. General Habitat Description of Areapwr .rstab d altmt., rwina*: sLWeather (Cloud cover; Estimated wind speed); to clad 4 1& va Lt 0,3 ntak frt.". /t.G% Temp (Start) 4.717 3' (End) 41`75-° Time Wildlife Species Sign" Microhabitat Behavior/Comments �Yt'L1�% - ter t� bit ixrad Ste, i'ci%. led! e.• a4.42-to niketta CO-sAtt r tel. Ater,...,tottuf _ -10434.429,• Fet.m..„-ye_ /41.Aaat al lattice A It u.I Ff ante brd►' relict Ci,,;� e aft t L,yt01.", Fit90 t 1AVM. CA$40 *sae Otaiktuit .t& Atta (#4,2 , d) . MA . G At .n_tM /la I Ye -thud (.JG4a6/tk. I ub7 Pry'. ,On`� General Copnents: C& M zl _ othi Cf,,, c pM'dt.►tead y. - fpy JW'tz- t . &AA ja.ettaiat.e4so WitAthut.4. 0'r1/4 ..4tit4 -4d4W, a/dm-- *-el �sr ' Ux 3c,01 aQ - bra O.Obsened. T=Tracks. S=Scat V=Vocahzanon. B•Burrow. C=Carcass. NizNesc. Fe=Feathers. FuiFur Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 Introduction 1 Purpose and Location of the Delineation 1 Regulatory Context 2 Methods 4 Results 4 Conclusions 7 Literature Cited S Appendix 1- Field Survey Forms 9 List of Tables and Figures Table 1- Summary of Wetland Delineation 5 Table 2 - Total Acreage for state and federal jurisdictional areas 6 Table 3 - Bird Species Observed In or Near the Pond 7 Follows Page Figure 1 Figure 2 1 Figure 3 4 4 Psomas Pagel April 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT SUMMARY This report was prepared for the Big Canyon Country Club to address compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code (Section 1603), in regard to a wetland delineation conducted on an artificial pond located within the Big Canyon Country Club golf course. Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires permitting of activities that would result in discharge of dredge or fill material into 'Waters of the United States" or adjacent wetlands. Current federal policy directs "no net loss" of wetland habitats. Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code requires a "Streambed Alteration Agreement" for private projects that would alter the bed, channel or bank of streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds. In this report, state jurisdictional streambeds, administered by the CDFG, and federal jurisdictional Waters of the United States, administered by the U.S. Asuiy Corps. of Engineers (Corps), are identified and their wetland status is determined. The pond appears to be located along an historical "blue -line" stream, according to USGS 7.5 minute topographical maps. This means that the pond is considered a 'Waters of the United States" and falls under federal jurisdiction. The pond contains about 0.64 acres of federal jurisdictional wetlands, as well as about 0.03 acres of adjoining non -wetland 'Waters of the United States." Additionally, the pond contains about 0.64 acres of state jurisdictional wetland. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND LOCATION OF THE DELINEATION This report was prepared for the Big Canyon Country Club in Newport Beach, California to address compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code (Section 1603) in connection with a proposed fill of an artificial pond that is currently a water feature located within the golf course (Fig. 1). The pond is approximately 0.643 acres in size, located in the Laguna Beach 7.5' US Geological Survey quadrangle (T6S, RI OW, S56). Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires permitting of activities that would result in discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States" or adjacent wetlands. Current federal policy directs "no net loss" of wetland habitats. Psomas Page 1 April 13, 2000 to C, FORD BIG CANYON DR. RUE DE LA VERDURE VICINITY MAP NO 5GALE RD PROJECT LOCATION BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB POND FILL Figure 1. Project Vicinity Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT • Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code requires a "Streambed Alteration Agreement" for private projects that would alter the bed, channel or bank of streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds. In this report, state jurisdictional streambeds, administered by the CDFG, and federal jurisdictional Waters of the United States, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), are identified and their wetland status is determined. REGULATORY CONTEXT The information contained in this report is intended to be used by federal and state agencies to assist their determination as to whether or not the subject property falls within their jurisdiction. More specifically, a jurisdictional delineation study determines whether one or more of the features described below are present on the property. 1. Waters of the U.S. and/or State -jurisdictional stxeambed, river, lake, or pond. Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires permitting of activities that would result in discharge of dredge or fill material into " Waters of the United States." This permitting is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Typically, an area that is within federal jurisdiction under Section 404 is also covered by Section 401, which addresses water quality impacts. Permitting under Section 401 is administered by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. "Waters of the U.S." is defined at 33 CFR Part 328 and includes (a) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide); (b) all interstate waters and wetlands; (c) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce; (d) all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (e) all tributaries to waters above; (E) the territorial seas; and (g) all wetlands adjacent to waters mendoned above. In non -tidal waters, Waters of the United States extends to the ordinary high water mark, which is evaluated based on field observations and hydrology. Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code requires a "Streambed Alteration Agreement" for public or private projects that would substantially divert, obstruct, or change a stream channel, lake, river, or pond. Applications for such an Agreement are processed by the California Department of Fish and Game. A State jurisdicdonal streambed, for purposes of Streambed Alteration Agreements with CDFG, is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently Psomas Page 2 April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT through a bed or channel having banks, and supports fish or other aquatic life (14 California Code of Regulations Section 1.72). 2. Wetland. The 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (Department of the Army Environmental Laboratory, 1987) defines three features, all of which must be present, for a site to qualify as federal jurisdictional wetland: a. Wetland hydrology. Wetland hydrology is defined as encompassing "all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence of characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively." Wetland hydrology is evaluated based on flow data, direct observation, and /or indirect evidence of flow such as high water marks, drift lines, or sediment deposits. b. Wetland soils. Wetland soils are generally classified as hydric. Hydric soil is defined as "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation." The evaluation of wetland soil is based on a combination of specific properties that include color and mottling. The 1987 manual also specifies that a hydric soil "may be either drained or undrained, and a drained hydric soil may not continue to support hydrophytic vegetation. Therefore, not all areas having hydric soils will qualify as wetlands. Only when a hydric soil supports hydrophytic vegetation and the area has indicators of wetland hydrology may the soil be referred to as a "wetland" soil" c. Hydrophydc vegetation. Hydrophydc vegetation is defined as "the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present." The vegetation criterion is evaluated in terms of presence and dominance of certain plant species that are associated, to various degrees, with wetlands. This evaluation is based on regional lists (USFWS, 1996). In order to meet the federal criterion that defines wetland vegetation, at least 50 percent of the plant species must be composed of species that are on the regional list as Obligate ([OBL]--occurs almost always in wetlands), Facultative Wetland ?ACM —usually occurs in wetlands), or Facultative ([FAC))—equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwedands). Plus (+) or minus (-) signs next to the wetland designations indicates slight variations from these categories. Collectively, plant species that fall into these categories are referred to as hydrophytic. Psomas Page 3 April 13, 2000 • • • Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT Specific methods and protocols for determining whether or not a site meets all three criteria and described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Professional judgement is often needed for interpreting field observations on highly disturbed sites, but in all cases the delineator must consider all three criteria (hydrology, soils, vegetation) together in conclusions regarding presence or absence of a jurisdictional wetland. CDFG regulates wetlands that occur within, or along the margins of, streambeds, rivers, lakes, or ponds. However, unlike the Corps, CDFG does not have a manual with specific protocols for evaluating presence or absence of wetlands, nordoes CDFG specify exact criteria that must be met for a site to qualify as a CDFG-jurisdictional wetland. Methods The potential occurrence of wetlands and Waters of the U.S. on the project site were evaluated through a literature review and visits to the property. Literature reviewed included topographic maps (USDI Geological Survey Laguna Beach and Newport Beach 7.5 minute quadrangles) and the National Wetlands Inventory's National Litt of Plants that Occur in Wetlands: California Region (USFWS 1996). The California Department of Fish and Game requires that information regarding the presence of any sensitive or special status species be provided with 1603 permit applications. Therefore, the literature review also included the California Natural Diversity Database reports for the area, the California Native Plant Society's Inventory ofRare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. The results of this literature search and a biological evaluation of the site are reported separately (Psomas 2000). The site was visited on April 6, 2000 by biologist Patricia Cole from Psomas. A series of soil sampling pits were dug adjacent to the pond to evaluate areas of potential jurisdiction. Hydrology, vegetation and soil type were examined according to the Corps 1987 methodology. At each site, dominant plant species were recorded and their indicator status was determined from the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USFWS 1996); soil color and texture were examined for hydric soil indicators; and the area surrounding the site was evaluated for indications of hydrology. The potential of the site to support sensitive species was also evaluated. The locations of the soil pits are shown in Figure 2. Results Figure 3 shows the jurisdictional boundaries delineated in this study. Table 1 summarizes the plot data. Appendix 1 provides copies of the field data foams. The following paragraphs snmmari,e the delineation results. Psomas Page 4 April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT Table 1. Summary of Wetland Delineation. Plot number Meets vegetation criteria Meets soil criteria Meets hydrology criteria Federal jurisdiction? State jurisdiction? 1-1 2-1 2-2 3-1 4-1 5-1 6-1 7-1 . 8-1 YES YES YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Hydrology. All of the sample pits met the criterion for hydrology because they were located adjacent to an existing pond that is characterized by a definite "shelf" at the water's edge. The top of this "shelf," referred to as the "ordinary high water mark" (OHW) ranged approximately 6- 12 inches above the surface of the water. Water entry into the pond system is by means of two inlet culverts, one at the northeast end and the other along the southeast side of the pond. Water exits the pond by means of another culvert on the western edge of the pond and is then conveyed underground. In addition, the pond appears to have been constructed along or adjacent to a "blue -line" stream as shown by the USGS topographical maps, which would mean that the pond is considered a "Waters of the United States" and as such, falls under federal jurisdiction. Soils. Only at one location, at the soil sample pit 2-1, was there any exposed ground below the top of the bank and this location clearly contained hydric soil with saturated, gleyed soils about six inches below the surface. "Gleyed" soils occur due to chemical reactions in anaerobic soil conditions caused by prolonged saturation. This is the only area where OHW was somewhat set back (approximately two feet) from the water's edge. Throughout the rest of the pond area, OHW cut off sharply at the water's edge leaving no area for any other soil sample pits to be placed below OHW. Consequently, all other sample pits were located about one-two feet from the edge of OHW. Hydric soils were not found in any sample pit located above OHW. Vegetation. Psomas Page 5 April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT Hydrophytic vegetation was found at the following sample pit locations: 1-1, 2-1 and 2-2, 4- 1, and 6-1. This vegetation consisted of cattails ()phaspp.; pits 1-1, 2-land 2'-2) and bulrushes (Scirjis spp.; pits 4-1 and 6-1). All of these locations were also characterized by exotic ornamental landscape plantings. Soil sample pit number 5-1 was characterized by black mustard (Brassica nigra) and ornamental plantings. Pit number 7-1 and 8-lcontained only ornamental plantings. Sensitive Species and Biotic Communities. The pond is surrounded along its periphery primarily by ornamental plantings with some native plant species (e.g. cattails, bulrushes, black mustard, and wild radish) growing adjacent to the pond. The only animals observed during the survey were several bird species (Table 2). Because of the lack of' suitable habitat in the already existing development (a golf course), it is not expected that any sensitive species will occur on the project site. However„ the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory bird species that are protected by the California Fish and Game Code and Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Table 2. Bird s Scientific name Common name Family Podicipedidae Grebes Podilymbus podiceps Pied -billed grebe Family Ardeidae Herons Nycticorax nycticorax Black -crowned night heron Ouvenile) Family Anatidae Swans, geese, ducks Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Family Rallidae Rails,.gallinules, coots Fulica americana American coot • Family Trochilidae Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Family Corvidae Jays, crows, magpies Corms brachyrbynchos American crow Family Sturnidae Starlings Sturnus mrlgaris European starling Family Emberizidae Warblers, sparrows (new world) Dendmica petechia Yellow warbler Geotblypis tricbis Common yellowthroat Melospi;a melodia Song sparrow • • Psomas Page 6 April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT CONCLUSIONS Table 3 provides total acreage for state and federal jurisdictional areas. Table 3. Total acreage for state and federal jurisdictional areas. Jurisdiction State (CDFG) Designation Acres Federal (Corps) Federal (Corps) Pond and Wetland Non -wetland Waters of the United States Wetlands 0.643 0.027 0.643 Federaljurirdiction. The pond appears to be located along an historical "blue -line" stream, according to the USGS 7.5 minute topographical map. This means that the pond is considered a "Waters of the United States" and falls under federal jurisdiction. As previously stated, federal jurisdictional wetlands require the presence of all three of the diagnostic features: hydrology, soils and vegetation. If one of these features is missing, it is not a federally jurisdictional wetland. Only at one location, at the soil sample pit 2-1, was there any exposed ground below OHW and this location clearly contained hydric soil with saturated, gleyed soils about six inches below the surface. It was not possible to place any other soil sample pits below the top OHW because the rest of the pond contained water right up to the edge. The rest of the pond area was characterized by a sharp edge that dropped directly into the water, above which there were no hydric soils and no signs of hydrology beyond the edge of the pond itself. Even though hydric soil was only found in sample pit 2-1, the inclusion of all area below OHW (in other words, the pond itself) as jurisdictional was extrapolated from the results of sample pit 2-1 and the fact that all other area below OHW was under water. Consequently, this water feature constitutes a federally jurisdictional wetland with the boundaries being the top of the Ordinary High Water mark. In addition to the pond itself, at the northeast edge there is a drainage from which water enters the pond. This drainage constitutes a federal jurisdictional non -wetland 'Water of the United States." State jurisdiction. As mentioned previously, state jurisdiction encompasses streambeds and bodies of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks, and supports fish or other aquatic life. While no fish were observed in the pond, several species of aquatic birds were observed in and near the pond (see Table 2). Determination of state jurisdictional wetlands requires only one of the diagnostic features rather than all three as required by the Corps, provided that the area in question is associated with a streambed, river, lake or pond. Following this definition, this pond is a state jurisdictional wetland with the boundaries being the top of the bank (same as OHW). Psomas Page 7 April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT LITERATURE CITED California Department of Fish and Garne, Natural Heritage Division. 1997. Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. Hickman, J.C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley. Psomas. 2000. Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik, eds. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1 (Fifth Edition). Sacramento, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.10). St. Petersburg, Florida. ht/Big Canyon Counuy Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States/costamesa2/21Ag010100 Psomas Page e. April 13, 2000 Big Canyon Country Club: Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States - DRAFT APPENDIX 1: Field Survey Forms Psomas Page 9 April 13, 2000 • • ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION -DATA FORM 1987MANUA:/^lue Project/Site• Applicant/OWner: InvestigateJ/ (s); �� Date' -f-1 County: State. r Community ID. Transec ID' Plot ID: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site/ YES NO Is the site significantly & recently disturbed9(Atyplcal Situation) YES NO Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) Y=_s No VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator r 1. 1/0,f 3(/ . t 1 4 El 6. 8 tilt tC Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present'/ Yes No REMARKS: w, % RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks): Strewn. t ake ur Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ None Avadable TIEl U OBSERVATIONS Depth ul Surface Wader (in ) Depth to Free Water m Pd prh I (tenth In Saturated Bud —__On ) Wetland 1 Iydmkrgy Pinsenl? Yee Mt /t REMARKS, 71 i.o F(l PRIMARY Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12' ❑ Water Marks ❑ DIM Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits n Drainage Pallerns In Wellands SECONDARY Indicators ❑ Oxidized Rool Channels in llPPER IY ❑ Water Stained leaves ❑ Local Sal Survey Data ❑PAC -Neutral Test ❑Other Explain in Remarks) ea �f5i3• !LA SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgioup): _ PROFILE DESCRIPTION Depth Make Coto( (Able Mollie Texan% Inches) Iloo+m Mansell Must) Munsex Mdsq AlxndvnrlCoMrasl Cmcmuwlssimckne,etc J Drainage Class* iLiby AJOT-L Field Observations Confirm -Mapped Type: Yes No f IYURIC SOIL INDICATORS Olhslosul Reducing Conditions ❑ Ikshe Ephpedon ❑ Sulhac Odot ❑ Aspic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sods ❑ Gleyed or Low Cluana Colors 0 Listed on Local Hydric Solis List ❑ Concretions 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils 1 ist ❑ High Organic Streaking in Sudace Layer in Sandy Solis HydrIcSud Present? Yes No REMARKS. ania its Sri WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Welland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? REMARKS: Yes Yes Yes No No No. Is this sampling point a Welland? Yes No O t(uutlot kith 'II�7]LAULI /DEIERMI��NAIION/-DATA FORM 19oTMANUAL ProjecVSile•_ LRza.a •/n1, C(?t ApphcanVOwner- Investigator ):. Dale. ('onuhuuilyID: County:_._—___ I trusnrI If/•___.____.__• Slate' _ _.. __ _ __ __ __. Pint 111 Do Normal Circumstances exist on the silo? Is Ilse site significantly 8 lecenity ricliuhe I?(Atypical Situation) Is the area a potential Problem Alen y (Explain in final remarks) VEGETATION Dominept Piant Syecies 1 2 3 4 5 6._ 7. - 8. 9 10 Percent of Dominant Species That ate OBL, FACW or F--AC (excluding FAU) Hydrophytic Vegetation Piesenl? Yes No REMARKS: YFS NO YES NO YES txl Stratum )Irdlengt % HYDROLOGY RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks)- ❑ Strearn, t ake or Tufo Gauge ❑ Ae:NI Photographs ❑ Other ❑ None Available FIEI D ORSERVA1 IONS. Depth of Sudace Water (m ) Depth to Fine. Writer m PII - (m ) Derail to Saturated Sod �pn ) Worland Hydrology Present? Yes Elp REMARKS: S&L/ 51M loco -feet -/s PRIMARY Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12- 0 Water Marks ❑ Drill Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands SECONDARY Indicators ❑ Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12' ❑ Water Stainer) leaves ❑ Local Solt Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neulral Test lb r (Explain in em r s) `tl� lylgtn., S , SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup)* Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No PROFILE DESCRIPTION Depth Maim Color Mnllle Mollie 1 enure. nxlres 1lannxi MmrsehIMUAI (Mwrsee Man Moist) AbdancefCoulmsl Ca¢relrons Sin¢lure elL 1L _a.��x n- IIY[IRIC SOIL INDICATORS ❑ Ilislosol 0 Relic Eplpedun O SulfuricOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions O Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Cloyed or Low-Chroina Colors 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils 1 isl ❑ Concretions 0 listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ High Organic Streaking in Sudace Layer in Sandy Sods Hydric Sod Present? Yes No REMARKS: 3/4 ' at 'flit, u4c# WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? REMARKS. Yes Yes Yes No Is this sampling point a Welland? No No Yes No ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION -DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL PrajecVSlle•_LGy'( Q t / Applicant/Owner: InvestigaIIprl ,s,ll),,��x, Date fr// D-- Community ID Courtly.!____ —._—. - Ireuserl ID __..2 _ Stale: - - Plot Plot ID- 02 K Do Norrnal Circumstances exicl nn the site? Is the Bile sigmlicanliy 8 recently (fish plied?(Alyptral Situation) Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) VEGETATION Dominant PtVnl Species 2._ 3 d.— -- 5. _ -'-._ ._. " - G _ 7. 8. 9. ID Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, lACW or FAC (excluding rAC ) Hydrophytic Vegelalinn Plpse1119 Yes No REMARKS. YES NO YES NO YES NO Stratum )poloptor • Ur ulr�t.UV S RECORDED DATA (Describe In Rem_ arks): ❑ Stream, l aka or Tide Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ None Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS. Depth of Surlace Water (Ur ) Depth to Free Water an Pil (m ) Depth to Saturated Sod _prr ) Weiland I lyduitngy Present? Yes No REMARKS yh 14) /a d (ncaci 2. s /at PRIMARY Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12' ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drill Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands SECONDARY Indicators 0Oxidited Root Channels in ZIPPER 12' ❑ Water Seamed leaves ❑ 1 ocal Soil Survey Data ❑ fAC Neutral Test ❑ Oilier (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unil Name (Series and -Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup): PROFILE DESCRIPTION uqm Mains Wog LJ Homan (_MuirselMast) taY4/yf3 IlYDRIC SOU INDICATORS ❑ Ikslosol ❑ H'sec Epi eden ❑ stoat Odor ❑-Agnc Moisture Regime Monte ManselMasa Abiniance/CanlnM Concretxdi SSliuxWre ele.. �tZ ___•—t�_llll�'6TC j—�CLX—iiy-' Dninage Class* Field Observations Conhrrn Mapped Type: Yes No Mottle te•teie. ❑ Redwing Candllwas ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Saes ❑ Gleyed ur Low Chrome Corers O Listed m Local I lyddc Snits List ❑ Conaeiioos ❑ 1 isted on National l lydric Sells List ❑ High Organic Streaking xi Surface 1 ayer In Sandy Sods Hydric Soll Present? Yes No REMARKS: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Welland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? REMARKS: Yes Yes Yes No Is this sampling poinla Welland? No Yes No No ROUTINE WEB AND DETERMINATION•DATA FOR1937 MANUAL Projecl/site: Applicant/Owner Investigator s)- Date: (E�_,_ _ -- t'.rnumunily ID:__ . County: ... Transact II 1' Slate- Plot ID Do Normal Circumslmrras existnn Ilie site? Is the site signilicanlly ° recently di Iurhed?(Atypir-al Situation) Is the area a potential I'inMenr Area' (Fxrilnin in final remarks) YES NO YES NO YES NO VEGETATION flatflpaut Pipet Species Stratum judicator �-. - & ,� 2. 3 4. 6 7. R. 9_ 10 Percent al Dominant Species Ihal are ORL. FACW or rAC (excluding PAC-) liydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes No REMARI(S- RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake or Lee Gauge ❑ Mural Photographs ❑ Other ❑ None Available FIEI N OBSERVATIONS Depth of Surface W nor (in ) Depth to I Inc Wrier in P11• (in ) Devil i to Saturated Still (m ) Wetland l lydrnlogy Present? Yes No �tARKS. Ai /�I,v /p / r {I r SOILS Map Unit Narne (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup): PRIMARY Indicators: El Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12' ❑ Water Marks ❑ Dull Lines ❑ Sediment Deposits ❑ Drainage Patterns In Wetlands SECONDARY Indicators ❑ Oxidized fluid Channels m UPPER 12' ❑ Water Slanted leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ FAC-Neutral Test ❑-0-1'hIe�r (Explain In Remarks) INmFaI Cie PROFIL E DESCRIPTION Depth Maley Color Motile Mottle 1 extiaa, venes Ilonzon warn rn M xsll IMoiisetl Moist)AOondancelConirast Concretions Structure etc 12 A Ati y 5LZ{ IrtFs. - Drainage Class. Field Observahnns Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No HYDRIC S011. INDICATORS ❑ 111510501 ❑ Reducing Conditions 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Itistic Epipedon 0 Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors 0 Listed on Local Ilydnc Soils List ❑ Sinitic Odor 0 Concretions 0 Listed on National Hydnc Soils List ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ I tiglr Organic Streaking in Sudace Layer in Sandy Soils Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No REMARKS: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydropllylic Vegetation Present? Welland Hydrology Present? Hydnc Sods Present? REMARKS: Yes Yes Yes No Is This sampling point a Welland? No Yes No No CIL Ira fl n NUN au¢ rr c I LAND Ut ItH((��MII1A1IUN-UA IA YUHMU M IBMANUAL PmjecVSite-�TrA, ApplicanVOwnerLy/� Investigator /)): jj11..li.)L Date. f .6 (/v Community ID.____ _ County: / // Tnnaecl ID 7 - Stale: Plot ID• Do Normal Circumstances exist on Me sun? Is the site signdicanlly 8 recPrilly i kchnbed?(AlypiraI Sihralion) Is the area a potential Problem Arra? (Explain in Ural remarks) VEGETATION Dominant PIanI Species 1 Se Ct4,l — 4. 5 ?. e 9 1D. __ Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI_, FACW or FAC (excluding FAG) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yrs No REMARKS: YES NO YES NO YES NO Stratum tpolpetar • • • HYDROLOGY �LCORI II I) DATA (Describe m Remarks): W1 Stream. l eke Of Tide (large ❑ Aonal I'0 itunanlls I„)Oilier (.] 11nw• r rn111 II f if i D (11n:F11VAMIUN4 Lapin at ':nl:are Mar _ _ .. pn 1 ninth lit I ua: Wainr nl NI —_ . NO 1 Depth Iu fialuralyd Sod . __Jot ) Weiland 1 Iyrludogy Pnmt nf? Yns Dn IIf IAAIIM; Pj f' .5 htir „N��/ PRIMARY Indicators ❑ Inundated ❑ Saluraledin Upp?r 12' (_) Water Marks I-) Dult 1 Inns (1 seutme•nl Rnprwds Cl drainage Patterns In Wr•Ilands SEGOIIUA11Y Indicators ❑ Oxidized Rent Channels in IIPPER la- 0 Water Stained leaves ❑ Local Sod Survey Data ❑ FA('•I leuhafl esl utter xdaln it entarks) SOII.S Map thud Name.-- - _ _._ (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup): . --- Priory E DESCRIP'I ION mot Maim Coln Monk IDS 11 x'rm (Munsci 1Ausll (hknsel 'loll — Drainage Class _--_. _ _ _ Field Observations Confirm Mapped type: Yes 1•ln Mtn le.kaa. _ Fixxxn cetudrast crnxxisinndutetie rza D• 11YDruc: SOH It 1DICAl 0118 ❑ Illslosul LT IIIstic Fplpedun Sitlkrkc Odor rT Agiric Mo slum Rryiim Hydro: Soil PiesenP IIEMA111(S• t-7 ❑ 11011001111Cautions ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils • conditions G Gleyed or Low Choima Colas ❑ listed on local Hyddc Sods list ta Clmaeliruis ❑ Listed on Nallonal Hytkic Soils List n t ligh Organic Streaking kiSullace layer ki Sandy Sods Yes On WETLAND DETERMINATION Ilydulplryllc Yegelaliotl Present? Yes Welland I lyric/11a y Present? Yes tlyduc Soils Present? Yes HE.MARI(S. No Is this sampling point a. Weiland/ No Yes No No q ern ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION -DATA FORM 1911�INUAL PlojerilEile:u(-G _ G AppllcanUOwnee•.r�7J",,,��" levesligalul S). I L,CSsi� ___ Dale.. If (d fin) ... __. 1 nnuuuuity III' County:— _-_- ._ .. _ - 11:Ineerl lUr . • .... Stale .... . _ . Plot ID Do Mimed Cilclnnstances exist on the site? Is Ilan silesiyniliranlly & yecetaly di<hnharl7(Alypinal Situation) 1s the area a polar lial Problem Aron? (Explain it: final remarks) VEGETATION Dum'ijJ(,app1 Mao Species Stratum Indic}tot .lI ("! Ca: _,_ -- . _ --- :1 YES ta) YES Nn YES NO 4 Percent nI Dominant Species Ilnl are OBI.. PACW nr rAG (exctuninq rri: ) I-Iytltnptlylic Vegnlallnll Plese1117 Yes No DL•MADRS- 0; llCCOIfUFO DATA (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream I aye. or Tide Gauge Aortal l•irrlugr,rphs O1lin I71luno Av,n6iblu I ILI U rmSFRVAiIOt1S Depth 01 Malden Wafer __.... (in ) Depth to I me Water m 1'd _-_— (III Ueplli 1•. Shcumled Soil .___._.(m ) PRIMARY Indicators. o Inunrlaied ❑ Saluraled In Upper 12' D Water Maiks 17 Dolt Lines )] Sednueni Deposits f 1 Drainage Patterns ni Wetlands SECONDARY Indicators I� Oxudrzed Root Channels in UPPER 12' ❑ Water Stained leaves Wed dnd I lydrok igy Present? ❑ 1 oval Sod Survey Data !Ps No ❑ FAC Neutral Test RCMAPI:S Pti H q L nOdlnr (Er in or Remarks) SOILS Afie Map (Hill Name ^ _ _ _________ _ Drainage Chss' (Series and Phase) l axeflnuly (Subgroup): _ ..__.. __. __.__._.. _ Field Observations Confirm Mapped I ype: Yes No PROI-II E DESCRIPI ION Depth 16ilnn Oche Mollie Mollie l wino e. xici•s lluuren wisely, ins Mimd MonMonAbundanuldrn ce/Csl Concielion ,Sl uOuieefe_ _laan . GL Sit fl fl AMEN IIYIINi• MII INIDICA fi II 15 LI Irisl :or fl Rudunng Condimmns 0 Organic Soealung in Sandy Sods ❑ I ksm Fpipedim (]Glnyednr Low Chime Colors ❑Ifistedon Local llydnc Soils List ll Sdbun.Odai ❑ Concrebnns O Listed on National Rydric Sods Usl O Anew Misters Reprise L7Nigh Organic Streaking in Sudan I ayer in Sandy Soils I lydnc Soil Presem'l Yeti No I IEMAI IRS WEfI AND DETERMINATION I lyilmpliylic Veneration Present? Welland I lydrology Presnnl•! Ilydnc Suns Present? REMAUIs Yes Yes Yes pq Is this sampling point a Wetland? No Yes No No rat rzit . 'Liu , sin- ioa ..lieu ucl c/uuuIUt llul-uMl A YUNM 19d /MANUAL ProjecUSile:a9 _ ,2[(421/____b ApplcenVOwnw"c�J____ Date: y1( _Oa__ Y-- i oumminly ID' County: ._. I tar MPcl II •_ G __ _Phi In' _ / nD Normal Cosi ensiances nyisl rn the site? IS Ilip site signilirnrtlly & l rCPI III y iliclmhed?(Atypic al Silualinn) Is the area a pidenlial FR11.ln01 Al Pal (Explain in final remarks) VEGETATION Von; tanl Plant Species 3 _ G. ------'------ 7. G ---- 9.—'---- -----'— -- Percent of Uomnrnil Species Ihnl ern ODL. FACW of FAG (excluding Nydropliylic, Veueralirnl Precool? Yes Nn REMARKS: YFS NO YES NO IFS NO Stratum Indicator • • • EC011pl U DATA (Describe in Remarks): Struruu, 1 alto or lute (Lange Aerial Plumpraphs Cl Other 17 Mote available I 1E1 D OII!:EIIVAI IONS. Depth N 'enlace Water _, __ Uri ) Depth to 1 lee Wales nI 1'tl 1lepllrin '.aterdcrl Seal _ _ ___1m ) Y/elland l Iydridoty 1'rnsenl? •✓c Nu fll MAfte'. pd. ^i3 SOILS PRIMARY Indicators: ❑ Inutulaled ❑ Saturated In Upper 12' ❑ Wain: Marks 0 Drill Lines 0 Sediment Deposes [_) Omurage Patterns In Wellands SECONDARY Indic:alors ❑ Oxidund Root Channels in TIPPER 12' ❑ Wale! Slanted leaves [3 Local Soil Suiv('y Data Cl /AC Neutral Test I.1Caller (Fr d7lmlwlk,/� Map Unit Name Drainalle Class: (Sete:. and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup) PROFIT I. DESCRIPTION L'elth man. Calm Indite) II•Nntxl ayoses MP_S JL f oyt.. 11Y0111C •:rill MI III:A1 oils O I kslnxt4 r.I segueing Catid kwns ❑ Oranrq Streaking in Sandy Soils El I rsllr 1 piperirin ❑ Diryed of 1 ew Chaska CNnrs 0 Lislml on Local Hyddc Sods list ❑ Stalnkc Odor 17 CwMletions 0 Listed on National Ilydric Snits list ❑ Aquir Uoislnre Regime [71lieli ° panic Sliea)ing m Snlare layer in Sandy Soils Hyrric»-toil Piesnnn' Yes No IIEMAFII.S. Field O1!:elvaiions Confirm Mapped type: Yes No LMn4! Made Texlxe, (MUKexfltxsri Mxn•lancei:miast Gausses S wevieele WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrnphyric Vegetation Present? Welland Hydrology Peasant? Hydrk Snds Present? IIEMARIts. Yes Yes Yes No Nu No Ic Iids sampling point a_Wetland? Yes No n fl HUI111N&WEILANDBET MINAIION•DATAFORM 1987 NUAL ProjectlSite: $(j_ Applicant/Owner: 6rvnchyato sp Pala' __ ` fr County _ _ -- Slain Slain _ • r I I. enmanrily it):_ _ tenant RP._ . . _PI•n111' Do 1 Inulemma' Clio eosin Urns prig( PP NW site.' Is Ile' cite side nhrnndy R rarenlly Ira alma .(Alypirnl ^.iumlinld IS Ilrn area a pnlni dint Prnt•Inrn Atha: IF -plain in lit .•I rnnmncel VEGETATION purnifiant Plant Species l_A 5 8 -- 9 ID Paolait of (Intuit in ur Sprains 11 in, ate OIII , FAr.W nu r • r • (.t.;r norms r41: I1yainpltylit, Vennrllion flacon!: Yoe Ili. nEAMARKS' Stratum .rs Nn YFS NO %PS NO Indicator TIPCOf11 PO DATA (Describe in Remarks): 0 threats,. l ake or Iide Gauge ❑ Aerial l'blqugraplrs ❑ Other ❑ trine Available I In ll (11 rall.RVAT IONS Papua nl 6wr:lre Water _ _._._ (m ) Depth lu I we Water In Pa _.._..-_ (m ) Ih:pih In a.dmelnrl 5nll .. bn ) Weilrud I lylllningy Present? .. 11u PRIMARY Indicators' ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in Upper 12' ❑ Water Marks Drill l hies ❑ Sediment Deposils f 1 Du mane Penwns in Wetlands SI COt WARY ludienlnls (. 1 Oxullterl Moil Channels in IMPEL) IP' f] Wader Stained leaves [) t ucal Suli Survey Data )_ I rAT; llerliral test RFMARj%l:. I7OIher (Explain illRemarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series oral PI lase) Tantrummy (Sibgroup) PNOPII I DESCRIPTION Morn (ixbusi Drainage Class: Feld Observations Confirm Mapped 1 ype: Yes No Mali. Color Mallle Mallle Texture. I luurnri MuysdlM si) Munsel plomsli AbuolancefColorast Cu¢relionsslmcmreelc. A_'Q%�' h�-- - IIYDFiic; 4)11 INI iCATORS ❑ Dishes.' ❑ Reducing Conditions 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Distil- l'hipedull ❑ Cloyed or Low Clnoma Colors 0 listed on local Rydnc Sods List ❑ Sulhdi Odor ❑ Conrrenmis rl listed nn Halional I lydric Soils I Is! 0 Aquir I tcuxbue fleginie j711igh Organic Sneaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ltyduc S•ii Pre sell? Yes No iirmnrCi WETLAND DETERMINATION Rydmphybe Vegelalion Present? Yes Wetland I tydroiogy Presenl? Yes Ilydnc Suds Prosonl? Yes REMARI• S No No No Is this sampling pout a Welland? Yes Nn AEI Project/Site: AppllcanI/OwnGcp/,,-, hwps�lig�ator(s)).! L{„ _ Dale r` Community lD _ —_- - • County -.__. I Inir era US_ g Slnle -- I'Int If): / Dn Normal Circlniiclancee exist an the site? vr s is Ilia site SINIIIIII:R'IIIV & rPcP111ly r ll" Il 1111Pri 7( A l ypirnl SIII Ia11ni1) NES NO Is Ilse area a pc'lelpal Problem Area? (F-plant in lint remarks) NFS NO VEGE EAT ION Dorn/ill nt plant Specnr les Stratum liidlegt /-/ etell a thaeOlgl --- HOU I INE WEILAIJU DETERMINATION -DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL 31:45- _Garr ..._ 1 2. 4 6 ? Pml Pi t of florid' aul Sperins Ihnl are 0111 rACw or r•Ar (errludiug rAC: ) Hyr Itpiiylic Vegetation PiecWll? Yes IIn RFl•1ani(S. • • • HYDROLOGY RECORDED DATA (Desenoe in Remarks): ❑ Stream, Lake or Tioe Gauge ❑ Aerial Photographs ❑ Other ❑ None Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS. Depth of Surface Water: (In.) Depth to Free Water m °a•_ In t Depth to Saturated Soil: pn.t Wetland Hydrology °resent/ Yes No RE.MARKS.4 PRIMARY Indicators. ❑Inundated Saturated in Upper 12' ❑ Water Marks ❑ Drift Lines ❑ Sediment Decosns ❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlancs SECONDARY Indicators 0 Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12' ❑ Water Stained leaves ❑ Local Soil Survey Data ❑ PAC -Neutral Test ❑OthIqsR8 1fQon�/ ps SOILS Mao Unit Name Drainage Cass' (Series and Rhase, Taxonomy (Subgroup,: PROFILE DESCRIRT1ON Damn maim Cm, Motile „noes% Homm NNene.' Me sil 'Munsell Mosn a Field Observaucns Confirm Mapped type: Yes No Matte -enure Abunoa^.ee,COlfllesl Cenereliens.Sllu°ure el: NYDPIC SCIL :@:C:TCPE Histosol 9eaucng Conditions = Organic Sunning in Sanely Sods 0 wisac Eoioeaon _ Ilevea nr Low•Chmma Colors ❑ Listed on Local Hvdne Sous List Su hdc COOT C:ncreecns Usted on National 'vone Soils usi G Aauie Moisure °enrne = Hien Dmaric Streaking m Sunace aver in Sandy Sans Hvrnc Soil ntesentn 'ves '•IC REMARKS. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hvoroonyllc vegetation P•esent? Wellana Hydrology present" byanc Scils Present? REMARKS. • Yes Yes 'res No No No! is this Samonng point a Wetland? Yes No • s • Appendix D Public Comments Submitted to City of Newport Beach IS/MND (May 26, 2000) • • LIVD-i4.111Vh1INV oar'. iJ • 7-,7-6r11-:J“D • Gray Davis GOVERNOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: June 22, 2000 TO: Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project SCH#: 2000051118 (4111 ) •NM Steve Nissen ACTING DIRICTOR RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NIFINPngT r,EACH AM JUN 2 G 2060 PM 701611011111F1;1;213141816 This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: Review End Date: May 26, 2000 June 26, 2000 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Coastal Commission Caltrans, District 12 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 Department of Parks and Recreation Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Resources Agency State Lands Commission State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Program The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. I400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMFNTO, CALIFORNIA 938r2-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-301a N'1F'1Y.Ol'R.C:A.C:OY/C3.EARINC:IICIUSE.HTMI. v California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region isinston w fickox Secr Seereraryjor Environmental Protection June 30, 2000 Internet Address: httpi/www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb8 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3348 Phone (909) 782-4130 - FAX (909) 781-6233 Mr. Jay Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^ i.1 AM JUL 0 3 2060 PM 718191101111121112131=i515 • RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB STORM DRAIN PROJECT (SCH #2000051118), CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Dear Mr. Garcia: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed the Notice Of Completion for the above referenced project. The Notice of Intent for this same project was received on June 01, 2000. We request a 30-day review period to submit our comments to insure a response back. 1. The 0.64 acres of the existing artificial pond proposed to be filled is located along a blue -line stream and is therefore considered a "Waters of the United States". RWQCB personnel have determined that this project will require coverage under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, water quality certification for dredge and fill operations. Please contact Kelly Schmoker (909) 782-4990 with the Regional Board's Planning Section to further discuss your project. 2. The proposed project intends to disturb approximately 0.64 acres of state and federal wetlands and 0.03 acres of adjoining non -wetland area. Compliance with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations may be required. 3. Dewatering during construction at the site will require either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for the discharge of wastes to land, be obtained from the Regional Board. Gary Stewart with the Regional Board's Regulation Section may be contacted to discuss your project. 4. Impacts and removal of habitat and vegetation should be discussed and mitigated for. Gray Davis Governor California Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach Planning Department - 2 June 30, 2000 • 5. The use of native vegetation in replanting and hydroseeding operations has been found to be protective for slope soil retention, helps filter and clean runoff, maintains habitat for native animal species, and other water quality benefits. Therefore, we recommend that native vegetation be utilized as much as possible. 6. Mitigation for the loss of the wetland pond values (e.g. captures first flush from run storms, roostingsitesfor birds) should be addressed. 7. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) should be developed and implemented during site preparation (e.g. grading), excavation, and construction to control the discharge of pollutants, prevent sewage spills, and to avoid tracking of sediments into the streets, storm water conveyance channels, or waterways. 8. Controls for soil characteristics related to water quality (potential for erosion and subsequent siltation, increase or decrease in percolation) and impacts of toxic substances handling and/or disposal (if appropriate) should be addressed. 9. No waste material should be discharged to any drainage areas, channels or streams. Spoil sites should not be located within any streams or areas where spoil material could be washed in a waterbody. 10. Construction equipment should not be stored within the streambeds. Fueling, lubrication or maintenance should not be located within any streams or areas where contaminants could be washed into a waterbody. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-4468 or you may contact Stephanie M. Gasca at (909) 782-3221. Sincerely, CUlleu:(a.- Wanda Smith, Chief Planning Section — Coastal Waters cc: Scott Morgan — State Clearinghouse Susan Sturges — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Branch Terri Dickerson — California Department of Fish and Game, Long Beach Branch • California Environmental Protection Agency et n .. . . prAt'E QaAUFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Louth Coast Region ii49 VlawrWoe Avenue ire Cdlomli 92123 tent 447.4201 FAX t96a1467.4236 • June 26, 2000 GRAY DAVI �m�r Mr. Javier S. Garcia City of Newport Beaoh Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658.8915 Comments on the Draft Initial Study and Proposed MitigatedNegative Declaration for Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Improvement Project City of Newport Beach, Orange County Dear Mr. Garcia: The Department of Fish and Game (Department), has reviewed the Draft Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for impacts to biological resources, The proposed project includes the filling of an existing artificial pond and improvements to existing storm drains, underground/surface pipes, removal/construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and the relocation of an existing water line. In addition, the removal of existing trees, cattails and bulrushes are a part of the proposed Big Canyon project. The proposed project is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course in the City of Newport Beach (City). The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Deparmient's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CRQA) Section 15386 and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency touter CEQA Section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA, Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq) and Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. Impacts to Riparian Resources 1. The proposed project will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) between the Operator and the Department pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1603. The Department's issuance of an SAA is for a project that is subject to CEQA. To facilitate our review for consideration of issuance of any agreement associated with the proposed project, the Department, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, may consider the local jurisdiction's (lead agency) document for the project. To minimize additional requirements by the Department under CEQA, the Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration must fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the agreement. Project modifications may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildilfe resources, The Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration faits to provide the level of dauil necessary for the Department to consider issuing 49 SAA at Javier S. Garcia June 26, 2000. Page 2 this tune. Impacts to Other Biubgical Resources and Mitigation Mansura4. 1. According to.the MND, the project includes the filling of an existing artificial pond and improvements to existing storm drains, undergrotntd/setface pipes, removsyconsttuction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and the relocation of an existing water line. In addition, the removal of cxisttng trues, cattails and.bulrushes are a part of the proposed Big Canyon project and will result in a permanent degradation of habitat for numerous plant/animal species —including the black.crowned night heron (.NyeNcorar nycttcotaz, heron) andyellow warbler (Dendroica petea/ta, a California Species of Special Concern). Removal of trees will result in the lots of eggs, nestlings and/or fledglings of the night heron. Significant impacts to riparian resources described in the MND are proposed to be mitigated to achieve "no•netloss." A. The Department recommends avoidance of construction activities during the avian nesting season (generally from March 1" through August 3 1.), impacts to nesting birds and their eggs are unlawful pursuant to Fish and Came Code 3503 as well as the Migratory Bird Act. Final impact avoidance and mitigation measures for the heron and other species as well as associated riparian vegetation will be determined during consultation with the Department's Environmental Specialist for issuanceof a Streantbcd Alteration Agreement. Due of reduction of suitable habitat and both localized. and statewide population declines, any State and/or Federal Species of Concern may be regarded as cudaagered, threatened or rare by the Deparuncnt for purposes of CEQA compliance (CEQA Section 15380). The Department recommends that consideration be given to avoid "take" and other adverse impacts to the species and/or their habitat. Unavoidable impacts to sensitive species should be minimized surd mitigated fully. In conclusion, the Department recommends that the above concerns be addressed before lead agency approval of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please contact Ms. Leslie MacNair at.(949) 583-0943 to discuss this further. B. 'Sincerely, mat! Ai t William E. Tippets Habitat Conservation Supervisor • • • Javier S.• Gerais June 26, 2000'• Page 3 cc: Department of Fish and Game File ' • ' • • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicc U.S. Army Corps of deers State Clearinghouse STATE OF OALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY CRAYDAVIS. Gown( • • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 Michelson DIIW SWe 100 'Mn*, CA 928124661 June 22, 2000 Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project • Dear Mr. Garcia, File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2000051060 Log #: 740 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project. The protect site is located on 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Country Club golf course. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing artificial pond and construction of associated improvements. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. Please continue to keep us Informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our Transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. RECEIVE BY 'PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 7R NE0A11DfRT r•.e'A:H AM PM 2 7 2060 PM 7181811011111211121314 A8 cc: Terry Roberts, OPR A Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning Sincerely, Robert F. J eph, Chi Advanced Planning Branch Y • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 23, 2000 Dr. and Mrs. Charles Klieman 21 Lochmoor Lane Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Kiieman: Thank you for your Ietter relating to the proposed grading and removal of the lake at Big Canyon ("Project"). The City has received correspondence from at least one other resident of Big Canyon and two letters from the Big Canyon Community Association raising inquiries about or objections to this Project. Here is what we know: • History and Status of the Project. The Big Canyon Country Club submitted plans and an application for grading permits on October 14,1999. Upon review: we determined that the lake was located on a USGS designated "blueline." Therefore, as a streambed classified as "waters of the United States," the Project is subject to review and permitting by the US Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE). Further, the California Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) must review the Project as a "streambed alteration" and can authorize the work via a Streambed Alteration Agreement. To satisfy requirements of other.affected agencies in their permit process — and since the City of Newport Beach is the designated "lead agency" in this case — we required project proponents to complete an environmental review,. Big Canyon Country Club submitted then environmental review application in mid -March of this year. We made a qualifications -based selection of a consultant to prepare and review the required environmental documentation (in this case, a "mitigated negative declaration"). We posted the draft mitigated negative declaration for 30-day public review on May 26, 2000. The Planning Department extended the review period to July 10, 2000, to accommodate a request for additional time from the Orange County Sanitation District (there was a delay in their receipt of the document). You may review this document at the by visiting our Planning Department here at City 1-[all (3300 Newport Boulevard) - ask for State Clearinghouse k2000-51118. If you'd like the document copied for you (at a per -copy • charge), please call in advance at 949-644.3225. As we understand it today, the applicant will soon begin the permit process with US ACE and DF&C. If those permits are issued, the City's Building Department will issue a grading permit for the Project, Assuming issuance of all permits by the affected agencies, the proponents may begin work on the Project shortly after to the closing of the review period and preparation of the final mitigated negative declaration. The final document City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659.1768 Lettgr to the Ktientats June 23, 2000 Page 2 will incorporate responses to comments from the public and other agencies and will recommend changes and/or additional mitigadon measures. • City's Review. As you can tell from the above description of the process, at no time does the City enforce private homeowners assodation,(HOA) covenants, conditions, and restrictions ("CC&Rs") as a part of the grading permit and environmental review process. The City considers these agreements between HOAs and other private parties to be fully private concerns. We strongly believe that it is inappropriate for city government to enforce private CC&Rs in any part of our community. • Your Next Steps. As we see it, if your objections to the proposed Project continue, you should work with the Big Canyon C:ountry Club directly. The City's discretion to deny a' grading permit is very limited •• we can only do so if the Project proponents fail to comply with the grading requirements as outlined in Chapter 15.10 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (attached as a reference). Again, we do not review or consider a community's CC&Rs when simultaneously reviewing a building or grading permit. Thank you again for your inquiry. If you have any questions about the City's position on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me (949-644.3000). Sincerely, HOMER L. BLUDAU City Manager cc: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jay Whetter, Building Director Patty Temple, Planning Director Don Webb, Director of Public tVorks i N • • astelsitealkt Sin t4 *CAW 4.t1/41/0.,.nisi.4S./.w.?JJ s-4eW/ a.mt, s► tar .... May 17, 2000 Dear Canyon Ells Community Association iiotneowncr: The Directors of Your Association have become aware that the Big Canyon Country Club may be proceeiin$ with plans to fill in the last remaining lake in the Club's driving range area. In its place, apply rare is consideration m cousuuct additional Club taci nia. The exact nattme of these fsoilides is unknown to the Association as the Club has not formally disclosed what facilities are being proposed. You need to be aware that in a 1974 Corporate Gnat Deed transferring ownsrchip of the property from The Irvine Company to the Dig Canyon Country Club there were certain atuaually agreed upon stipulation; of dde acceptance. One of the agtecments was that any driving lunge lake modification or removal would require the approval of the Csnyou Hills Community Association, The Club has proceeded in the put to =literally remove the lakes. And now, without consultation with your Association, they appuendy an planing to remove the last lake and construct further Club expansion and impmvements mitt to residential homes. The Association is making contact with members of the City Cotmcil to make them await: of the severe implications of allowing the Club plans to proceed without approval of the Aaeistion. We urge you, if you shwa ow concerns, to contact Council Mambas with these concerns. Time is of the essenet_and we urge you so contact than inunediarely. We have tried to bring our concerns to the Country Club and were advised that communications must be directed through their legal Counsel. Enclosed for your tnli;teaee is a copy of a letter from our legal counsel advising them of the tesidems rights and coacems. Agues if you share our concerns for the community. please allow your voice to be beard by the members of the Newport Beach City Council. Directors of the Canyon Hills Community Association Encl: Letter dated May 5, 2000 to Big Canyon Country Club Legal Counsel cc: Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659• I768 (949) 644-3000 Wheel gmrg imaitonh Na4maisossanarrEnt0 ALL en liOMBowWW<s • COOP OS AM' otrmast 100.DOC saaTSM b• 6tt sal! W Itl • assn.& • larT- MICMAt{.!IflOOOOO•• • &Mal. Naa• asMlat •• mar a. save •N!I *SOW. w ssnM tali MMMla ,M "MO" J.aw prices R'CLO*OTT, Let i, FCINSCNO P 1,,,, .M► WCWU. ••IIM11$►•••6 a►•MNa•Mt a Cane Pl ales Mali 200 NtWPONT O**OM, tab110NM1a 0**00 •eaa171a.sf•t IaCa1M11.5 Isa/J •aa,aa./ May 6.2000 Brett Williamson p'Metwny & Meyers. LLP Newport620 Newport Center Drive,Floor Mach, CaliforniaCaliforn ai 926 0 Re: Ma Gannon Community Associattge MAY A 8 2061) 11as tsesis esuM•• Nn Wsw r MI TNt fraA• Sun t kat .Yal�ti. Co ■••0, 1101 Nllrfaa •aaa,M,Nt Slab asa•sata ytMTUes CQuMVt aso tsr ttaurNL slot Suitt saes •OOOOO, sa,/•OaNla aallt Ofl• ea. -moss •*SSIN...s It0111 saa•at►a $7 ..TlMbWIt4 WI` apMUtab. OsaWT. Mal•tD4 ♦ Wm tat, Na11TM Tfnava ' ,.as fans Mflus Hall •MW 0a ►aCpwgt irea N••.aal Dear Mr. Williamson: This offioe serves as legal counsel tobothCanyon Hilts Community Association and Big Canyon Master Association, we have been asked to contact you on behalf of both Boards of Directors regarding several conditions that the country club has caused, and which are addressed In detail heroin. Prior to drafting this latter, we made an independent inspection of the property and both extensive homeowners ssoolatio s4Grant and obligate theµcounnCludel try dub inaregard thec,overeto. ts which favor 1. 7HlaCE To begin, we understand that the country club is considering the removal of the lake adjacent to the putting greens and the stream which tuns along the tidying range. As you probably Malin, the grant deed specifically requires the country club to obtain consent from the mernbera of Canyon Hills Community Association prior to modifying the configuration or location of any 'ekes located on the driving range from the state the takes were in atthe time the deed was executed. A reviewof anal mops and investigation regarding previous modifications tothe lakes have disclosed that then was a large lake on the driving range that no longer exists. Apparently, the Country club moved the lake to its present condition. This was done without the consent of tare Canyon Hills Community Association's members. We understand Chet tt is now the desire of the country club to remove this lake altogether. Please be Informed that should the country dub deoidetofollow through with this plan, the association has authorized this office to review the etcooiatton's options which would undoubtedly include tiling suit in order to obtain an injunction prohibiting this action. Thus, we hereby request that you inform this Act of your intentions at this time. • oil frgi-pion. LEE G FltiNBERG May 5, 2000 Pape -3- 2. IHE HFDGES it is apparent when driving along Big Canyon Drive that the homeowners have lost the view of the golf course which was a large factor in the price of their hornes. This view has been lost because the country club has relocated hedges within a restricted setback area and because the hedges have been allowed to grow to gnat heights. I realize that in your Aprll 13, 2000 Iettert° Martin Greenbaum. Esq., regarding this subject, you requested a detailed breakdown of the violations. I believe that this is altogether unnecessary ln•that if anyone took the time to drive up Big Canyon Drive they would see that the violations are obvious and widespread. In regard to natural fencing, the grant deed states as follows: '...there shell not be constructed any fencing, walls or the like whether living or inert materiels (herein "enclosures"), upon the proper conveyed hereby which unreasonable obstructs the view of the p if course upon the property conveyed hereby (herein the "golf course') of "contiguous owners" (as defined in paragraph (II) hereof) or from contiguous streets. The question of reasonableness of enclosures is to be determined In light of the desire of contiguous owners to enjoy reasonably unobstructed view of the golf course and in light of the Grantee's desire to limit vehicular and pedestrian access to the Grantee's golf course, to protect against flying balls, and to provide physical separation between ceratin greens, tees and fairways." The grant deed includes several attachmentswhich Include descriptions and drawings depicting the limitations on the height of the trees as well as the setback requirements, tt is hereby demanded that the shrubs be trimmed and/or removed in order to bring the property into compliant. 3. THE CART TURN-AlIOUNQ One must wonder how the cart tum-around could have bean constructed without fun knowledge that the construction was an encroachment on the master association's property and constitutes a willful trespass. The cart turn -around comes dear up to Big Canyon Drive just put Rue Pournainsbleau and practically abuts the gutter. The encroachment does not allow room for landscaping ea was originally provided. It is hereby requested that the cart turn -around be removed. • FCL.Dsott. LCE s Fs:INSCRG • LSS NN/NJN7w'P ifspwasay ns?S*SIMI1. tyrl May 5, 2000 Page -3- 4 EiE DLSAPINS 2ONE Apparently. the country club hes taken It upon itself to make the master association's backyard its own personal dumping site. Currently, ples of orgsnicwatts 'top masses of din in what was once a halts and landscaped area. A review of Attachment A-4 to the grant deed, reveals that the area was Intended to be landscaped and although the deed may not have been artfully worded, the Irvine CoMpany intended the Country Club to keep surrounding areas in a vegetative state rather than s dirt and concrete mound. it is hereby demanded that corrective action be taken. We request your response within ten (10) days of the date of this letter as to what action the county dub will take to bring the property Into compliance with the grant deed. Very truly yours, FELDSOTT. LEE & FEINSE STANLTY FELDSO sFivllkc cc: Client • • UNRED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 0/410e nt 7S Hawthorne Shoot ' San Frandaw. CA 941064901 2 February 2000 Mr. David Voorhees, General Manager Big Canyon Country Club Newport Beach, CA Sent Via FAN: (949) 720-9338 Dear Mr. Voorhees: Mr. Jae Chung of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District ("the Corps"), has informed me that, based on new information, he has rescinded his "non -jurisdictional" determination for the water body (i.e., "pond") on the Big Canyon Country Club property for which plans had been prepared to fill for purposes of expanding the Club's golf course. That is, the "pond" has now been determined to be a "water of the United States" by the Corps, and therefore, dredge and fill activities conducted in "waters of the United States" requires prior authorization trom the Corps via Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Please be sure to have a Section 404 Permit prior to conducting any dredge and fill activities in this pond, and any other "water of the United States". If you have ing is r can contact me directly aty(714)t389-0365. ions dThankhyoumforeu your attention. Sincerely, Aaron C. 9etran, Biologist wetlands Regulatory Office CC J. Chung, COE, Los Angeles, CA L. Garcia, RWQCH, Riverside, CA T. Dickerson, CADF&G, Long Beach, CA Prvad e.. flock/ Paw Way. f %vs ,.4.1ci .ek AsaSOR Sias l4 / aw February 11, 2000 David Voorhees Big Canyon Country Club 1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Res CANYON HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCLITION Lake Modification Via FAX (949) 720-9338 Dear Mr. Voorhees: As the management agent for the Canyon Hills Community Association, I have been directed to make the club aware of the following concern. The Association has become aware of a 1974 Corporate Gant Deed which states, in pact: " 3(clLaketi. By accepting this Grant Deed, Grantee hereby covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns that the location and conf:gtaatioa of talcs on the driving range located on the property conveyed hereby existing at the time of execution hereof shall not be substantially modified without the prior written consent of Canyon Hills Community Association, a California corporation." Although we understand that the Big Canyon Country Club has submitted some drawings to the City of Newport Beach, be advised that in accordance with the above noted Grant Deed conditions the Canyon Hills Community Association has not received any drawings for review and therefore any Big Canyon Country Club plans for construction in this area would be unapproved. The Canyon Hills Community Association rescues all rights, Sincerely, Michael T. ICubas, PCAMO, CCAM® Property Manager Villagew►y Management, Inc. At the Direction of the Board of Directors MTK:som cc: Canyon Hills Community Association City of Newport Beach, Planning Department (via mail & fax) Denise Iger—Feldsott, Lee & Feinberg (via mail & fax) Mr. & Mrs. Klieman 21 Lochmoor Mr, & Mrs. Betel —19 Locbmoor wiiiag wsyetj+ojka\Caryon mitOaeitapiDAVID VOORHEES • POND issue • 24woo, roe 6;2.1.4A..irarewasiess awe February 23, 2000 Via FAX (949) 720-933$ David Voorhis.* Big Canyon Country Club 1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: BIG CANYON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Corporate Grant Deed Dear Mr. Voorhees: As the management agent for the Big Canyon Community Association, I have been directed to contact the club for the following concern. The Association has become aware of a 1974 Corporate Grant Deed providing certain conditions that both the Country Club and the Community Association should be sassing to. Be advised that we have forwarded the referenced document to our legal council for review and they will be in touch with you directly. Although the Corporate Grant Deed dictates that arbitration should be used, we believe a meeting Is required now to review and. discuss some of the issues highlighted in the document. Possibly we can discuss this et our March 1, 2000 meeting, We also request the Country Club to formally advise us if they know of any other existing document that covers conditions, restrictions or other pertinent matter between the Club and the Associedon. Michael T. Kobel, PCAMS, CCAMS Property Manager ViUageway Management, Inc. At the Direction of the Board of Directors MTX:mk ce: Canyon Hills Community, Association City of Newport Beach, Phrasing Department (via mall & fax) Denise Igo—Feldsott, Lee & Feinberg (via mail & fax) \\vi0eaeeNy0Aptejeotreaig CUM 0304ephDAVWD VOORHEES • CORPORATE GRANT DUD [HHUI.241.00.DOC • • • • i PAONE CALLAI IAN MCHOLIv1 z WINTON IAWYIRS Itl' 19100 VON KARMAN EIGHTH FLOOR P.O. BOX 19613 IRVINE. CA 92623-9613 PHONE: 949-955-2900 FAX: 949-955-9009 E-MAIL: Infoepaone.com WEB SITE: http://www.paone.com June 21, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ROBERT E. CALLAHAN RICHARD J. FOSTER ROGER A. GRABLE SUSAN K. HORI ALAN J. KESSEL KENNETH S. KRAMER STEVEN A. McHOLM Re: Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Proiect Dear Mr. Garcia: TIM PAONE KATHLEEN CAROTHERS PAONE CLAY H.SHEVLIN MARTIN J. STEIN L. ELIZABETH STRAHLSTROM WILLIAM P. TANNER, III DANIEL K. WINTON RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Or 'IrtalanrT EACH JUNK 2 3 Z000 AM PM ?1819110111112111213141516 Our paralegal was down to review the file on the above project this morning. Apparently, the attached letters were not in that file. I am forwarding these copies to you for inclusion in the City's file regarding the project. Additionally, it is our understanding that the review period has been extended until July 10, 2000. If this is not the case, please contact Alan Kessel or me immediately. KCP/mw Enclosures 062100/14:51 /38774-001/124187.1 Sincerely, Kathleen Carothers Paone Ryon . °set g' vlsl� . aoa;zhon /3218,I4S0-tsfS/.was/22033 SBS-0146'/i-nr+isnr'C'i->f"f"ros May 17, 2000 Dear Canyon Hills Community Association Homeowner: The Directors of your Association have become aware that the Big Canyon Country Club may be proceeding with plans to fill in the last remaining lake in the Club's driving range area. In its place. apparently there is consideration to construct additional Club facilities. The exact nature of these facilities is unknown to the Association as the 'Club has not formally disclosed what facilities are being proposed. You need to be aware that in a 1974 Corporate Grant Deed transferring ownership of the properry from The Irvine Company to the Big Canyon Country Club there were certain mutually agreed upon stipulations of title acceptance. One of the agreements was that any driving range lake modification or removal would require the approval of the Canyon Hills Community Association. The Club has proceeded in the past to unilaterally remove the lakes. And now, without consultation with your Association. they apparently are planning to remove the last lake and construct further Club expansion and improvements next to residential homes. The Association is making contact with members of the City Council to make them aware of the severe implications of allowing the Club plans to proceed without approval of the Association. We urge you, if you share our concerns, to contact Council Members with these concerns. Time is of the essence and we urge you to contact them immediately. We have tried to bring our concerns to the Country Club and were advised that communications must be directed through their legal counsel. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of a letter from our legal counsel advising them of the residents rights and concerns. Again, if you share our concerns for the community, please allow your voice to be heard by the members of the Newport Beach City Council. Directors ofthe Canyon Hills Community Association Encl: Letter dated May 5, 2000 to Big Canyon Country Club Legal Counsel cc: Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (949) 644-3000 • 1Willaaeway011pmnetsCanyon HiIIz 0O81tspl120001LE TER TO ALL CH HOMEOWNERS - CORP GRANT DEED 051 IOO.DOC •MAYD 8260i? LCT MARTIN L. LCC ROSS W rCINSCRO' JOSCRM MANCOA• M. LITT' MICMACL S• reemorao p. MARTMANNI• 0tN1st O. I0t11• a. LSW •ALSO ADMRTLD IN MN.DA 'ALSO ADMITTED is MIMOSA LAw otrIcts FELDSOTT. LEE SI FEINBERG neres3IONAL IONS A LAM • INCLUDING A CIVIC SUITE 300 NCWRORT ■CALM. CALIROIIN/A 111311160 •LAZA ISASI 7as•S002 rACa1M16t ISASI Tal•S01z Brett Williamson O'Melveny & Meyers, LLP 620 Newport Center Drive, 1701 Floor Newport Beach, Califomia 92660 Re: Bil+ Canyon Communi May 5, 2000 Association 6=5 ANacrS COVNrY 1000 AVCNUC Or net STARS as•r. r600a LOS ANOCI.CS. CA S000 13101 SS3•ASSO •ACSIM.LC 1a101 s1a•sAZC VCNTUSA COUNTY 300 CAST CS•I.ANAOC ORIVC SUITE SO0 ONN.wt. CALI_0RM1A.11303C (SCSI SS.•3SSA r*CSIMILC 10051 SSS•OSTO IN ArrILl*TION WITr Rn,NetR0. o.ANT. MANcOA A WT.' ZSzl MORTM WAY LAa VCOAS. MLVAOA S913111 17021 SAT-ASOO •ACSIMILC nazi SATmSOI Dear Mr. Williamson: This office serves as legal counsel to both Canyon Hills Community Association and Big Canyon Master Association. We have been asked to contact you on behalf of both Boards of Directors regarding several conditions that the country club has caused. and which are addressed in detail herein. Prior to drafting this letter, we made an independent inspection of the property and an extensive review of the 1974 Grant Deed, which includes many covenants which favor both homeowners associations and obligate the country club in regard thereto. 1, THE LAKE To begin, we understand that the country club is considering the removal of the lake adjacent to the putting greens and the stream which runs along the driving range. As you probably realize, the grant deed specifically requires the country club to obtain consent from the members of Canyon Hills Community Association prior to modifying the configuration or location of any lakes located on the driving range from the state the lakes were in at the time the deed was executed. A review of areal maps and investigation regarding previous modifications to the lakes have disclosed that there was a large lake on the driving range that no longer exists. Apparently, the country club moved the lake to its present condition. This was done without the consent of the Canyon Hills Community Association's members. We understand that it is now the desire of the country club to remove this lake altogether. Please be informed that shoutd the country club decide to follow through with this plan, the association has authorized this office to review the association's options which would undoubtedly include filing suit in order to obtain an injunction prohibiting this action. Thus, we hereby request that you inform this office of your intentions at this time. FELOSOTT. LEE & FEINBERG A L."• i" WCLUOW"O MOICSStO,UL CO""O".fIONS May 5, 2000 Page -3- 2. THE HEDGES It is apparent when driving along 'Big Canyon Drive that the homeowners have lost the view of the golf course which was a large factor in the price of their homes. This view has been lost because the country club has relocated hedges within a restricted setback area and because the hedges have been allowed to grow to great heights. I realize that in your April 13, 2000 letter to Martin Greenbaum, Esq., regarding this subject, you requested a detailed breakdown of the violations. I believe that this is altogether unnecessary in that if anyone took the, time to drive up Big Canyon Drive they would see that the violations are obvious and widespread. In regard to natural fencing, the grant deed states as follows: "...there shall not be constructed any fencing, walls or the like whether living or inert materials (herein "enclosures"), upon the property conveyed hereby which unreasonable obstructs the view of the golf course upon the property conveyed hereby (herein the "golf course") of "contiguous owners" (as defined in paragraph (ii) hereof) or from contiguous streets. The question of reasonableness of enclosures is to be determined in light of the desire of contiguous owners to enjoy reasonably unobstructed view of the golf course and in light of the Grantee's desire to limit vehicular and pedestrian access to the Grantee's golf course, to protect against flying balls, and to provide physical separation between ceratin greens, teesand fairways." The grant deed includes several attachments which include descriptions and drawings depicting the limitations on the height of the -trees as well as the Setback requirements. It is hereby demanded that the shrubs be trimmed and/or removed in order to bring the property into compliance. 3. THE CART TURN -AROUND One must wonder how the cart turn -around could have been constructed without full knowledge that the construction was an encroachment on the master association's property and constitutes a willful trespass. The cart turn -around comes clear up to Big Canyon Drive just past Rue Fountainebleau and practically abuts the gutter. The encroachment does not allow room for landscaping as was originally provided. It is hereby requested that the cart Aura -around be removed. • • • • • • FELDSOTT. LEE & FEINBERG • LAIN III INCLUDING PIN OICSSIOw,1l COAOtl?4ONS May 5, 2000 Page -3- 4. THE DUMPING ZONE Apparently, the country club has taken it upon itself to make the master association's backyard its own personal dumping site. Currently, piles of organic waste top masses of dirt in what was once a lake and landscaped area. A review of Attachment A-4 to the grant deed, reveals that the area was intended to be landscaped and although the deed may not have been artfully worded, the Irvine Company intended the Country Club to keep surrounding areas in a vegetative state rather than a dirt and concrete mound. It is hereby demanded that corrective action be. taken. We request your response within ten (10) days of the date Of this letter as to what action the county club will take to bring the property into compliance with the grant deed. Very truly yours, FELDSOTT, LEE & FEINBER SF/DI/kc cc: Client STANCE"( FELDSO L7141462-2411 I *lig ski/:tat _...20 8a4 e127• vale)•. CA • •-" •8272848127 ":ar.c ...si aai •• 10344SUAvenue • rqa can.valkey. CA. . 927080018• ::Attica-„ • ";,Anaheim+.: -• : 'Steno -Perk •• Cypress %Woo -mein Valley • • Fullerton G'anden•Crave • iamitgton. Bcesn • twne • . •La Fabra' Le 'Palma .. Lae Aiemjtos ttwpors Beech 'Orange Plecanoe -: • SenorAne Seer Beech 5tenton • .Thum. Vga Perk • "4** Versa Linde' trier et Orange. Clatricts : '- "Cosa Masa paten uistricts._ trline•Rai¢h • ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT July 10, 2000 Jay Garcia, AICP Senior Planner Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: Draft initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Improvement Project This is in response to the City of Newport Beach's Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above referenced project. The proposed project involves placement of fill materials within an existing artificial pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size and construction of associated improvements, including drainage pipes connecting to existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The area is within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District (District). Specifically, the project is located directly above the District's easement, containing the 15-inch diameter Big Canyon Trunk Sewer. The proposed project would construct two 78-inch drain lines near the District's sewer and would significantly increase the depth of soil fill above the pipe. These issues are not discussed in Section X:01, Public Services, in the Negative Declaration, and will require close coordination with the District during design and construction. This project should be closely coordinated with Mark Tomko of the District's Engineering Department staff. Mark can be reached at (714)-593-7339. David A. Ludwin Director of Engineering DAL:JDH:jo HAwp.d4\sng1EIRS120001b1geynfill.doc • • To Protect we Public Health end the Environment through Excellence in VVectewacer Systems' • • EIS Environmental Impact Sciences 26051 Via Concha Mission Viejo, California 92691-5614 (949) 837-1195 (949) 837-3935 FAX July 10, 2000 Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach - Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Improvement Project Dear Mr. Garcia: VIA HAND DELIVERY Environmental Impact Sciences (EIS) has been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Klieman, owners of property located at 21 Lochmoor Lane, Newport Beach, to review and comment on the above referenced document. These comments are submitted to the City of Newport Beach (City or Lead Agency) within the comment period established by the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the presentation of written comments on the "Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Initial Study). By their presentation within the established comment period, it is EIS' intent that the information provided therein become part of the environmental review record for the project and be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of their deliberations on the proposed "Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Improvement Project." As indicated in the enclosed material, substantial evidence is provided supporting a fair argument that the proposed project will produce significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the Lead Agency is required to either augment and recirculate the Initial Study or to commence the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) more thoroughly assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project. Based on our independent analysis, EIS believes that the latter approach (i.e., commence the preparation of an EIR) is the appropriate means of demonstrating compliance with the City's CEQA obligations. This letter further serves as a formal request to be added to the City's mailing list for the receipt of all future environmental notices concerning the proposed project. Should you have any questions on the enclosed material, please feel free to contact me at (949) 837-1195. Sificer¢ly, r4 Peter Lewandowski, AICP Principal Enclosure RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPOR T SEACH AM PM 1 0 2000 PM 7181911011142111213141516 c: Candy Klieman (w/ enclosure) Environmental Consultants environment@home.com • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The following comments are submitted in response to the City of Newport Beach's (City or Lead Agency) release of the "Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration - Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project" (Initial Study) and are submitted within the comment period established by the Lead Agency for written comments thereupon. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), codified as Section 21000 et seq. in the Public Resources Code (PRC), and the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines), codified as Section 15000 etseq. in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the Lead Agency is required to consider all comments received on the Initial Study as part of its deliberations concerning the proposed project (e.g., Section 15074[b], Guidelines). The comments presented herein are intended to assist the advisory and decision -making bodies of the Lead Agency in those deliberations. As indicated in Section 15074(b) of the Guidelines, "thedecisionmaking body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment" [emphasis added]. As evidenced by these comments, there exists substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Big Canyon County Club Storm Drain Project (project) will produce significant unmitigable environmental effects. These comments serve to demonstrate that more environmental review of the proposed project is required. There exists substantial evidence that the project, as now proposed, will produce significant adverse environmental consequences; therefore, pending further environmental review, the Lead Agency is precluded from adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the City is now required to commence the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) addressing the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project. As indicated in Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (3rd Dist., 1981, the "requirement of a detailed statement helps insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." As this stage of the environmental process, the goal of CEQA is to ensure full and objective disclosure of the project's environmental effects. At the public hearings concerning the discretionary actions that may follow, opportunities will exist to express support or opposition to the proposed project. As a result, the following comments are not intended to declare support or opposition to the project but are only intended to ensure the adequacy of the project's environmental review. Only through the preparation of a project -specific EIR can all relevant information concerning the project's impacts be presented for public and agency review. Only when presented with that information can the Planning Commission (Commission) and City Council (Council) be fully aware of the project's environmental implications and make an informed decision concerning the project. It is, therefore, the purpose of these comments to encourage the Lead Agency to immediately commence the preparation of an EIR based upon a revised Initial Study that attempts to accomplish more than to minimize the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 1 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project What benefits would occur through the preparation of an EIR? In addition to a more detailed, technical analysis of the proposed project (e.g., hydrology/hydraulic analysis), one of the most important benefits associated with the commencement of an EIR relates to the Lead Agency's obligation to consider other alternative means of accomplishing the applicant's undisclosed objectives (e.g., expansion of the golf course). As indicated under Section 15002(a)(3) of the Guidelines, one of the "basic purposes" of CEQA is to "prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible" [emphasis added]. The following statement can be found in the text of the Initial Study: "The project applicant has indicated that the request to place fill material in the pond is due to the considerable build up of algae in the pond and the resulting noxious odors emitted" (p. 6). Filling in the lake seems an extreme solution merely to address an existing algae problem. Are there other solutions available to the applicant to eliminate that existing problem? Has the City received any odor complaints concerning the "noxious odors emitted" from the lake? If, in reality, the golf course's expansion and/or the elimination of algae is the primary motivating reasons for the proposed development application, then the resulting EIR would consider other ways that expansion could occur at a lesser environmental cost while at the same time accomplishing the applicant's objectives. Since no alternative analysis is contained in the Initial Study, there exists no evidence that either the applicant or the City considered other available means of accomplishing those desired end results. The City is precluded under CEQA from: (1) authorizing environmental destruction merely by stating (without supporting documentation) that the total destruction of a valuable resource area is less than significant; and (2) avoiding any discussion of potential projec: alternatives merely by erroneously asserting that a MND is the appropriate form of CEQA compliance. Should the City mistakenly elect not to commence the preparation of an EIR for the proposed project, based on the project's highly controversial nature, the extent of deficiencies now evident in the Initial Study, and the presentation of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will in fact produce one or more significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects, it is formally requested that the Lead Agency prepare formal detailed, written responses to each of the comments, issues, inquiries, and specific questions raised herein and toprovide the commentor with a copy of the Lead Agency's draft written response thereto prior to any action by the City's advisory or decision -making bodies concerning the proposed development application. As required under Section 15064(c) of the Guidelines, "the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected." As further required under Section 15088(b) of the Guidelines, "the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving the reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be a good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice" [emphasis added]. In accordance with that obligation, the Lead Agency is directed to either incorporate these comments and the analysis requested herein into the project's environmental documentation or to formally state the Lead Agency's factual basis for its failure to undertake the actions specified. By submitting these comments within the established comment period for the project, this document becomes part of the environmental review record for the project and can be used by the commentor Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 200 Page 2 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project or others should further actions be required to ensure the Lead Agency's compliance with its environmental review and disclosure obligations under CEQA and the Guidelines. 1.2 Authority to Comment The following comments are submitted to the City pursuant to the authorization provided under Sections 21000(a), 21003.1, 21082.1(b), 21091(b), and 21092(b) of CEQA and Sections 15002(j), 15022(a)(5), 15044, 15064(c), 15074(b), and 15204(b)-of the Guidelines. As required under Section 15204(b) in the Guidelines, "in reviewing negative declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect, (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant." In accordance therewith, the following comments describe the commentor's reasons for asserting the Lead Agency's obligations to immediately commence the preparation of an EIR (and not the proposed draft MND) in fulfillment of the City's CEQA requirements. 1.3 Lead Agency Responsibilities As required under Section 15020 of the Guidelines, "each public agency is responsible for complying with CEQA and these Guidelines. A public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or private citizens as a substitute for work CEQA requires the lead agency to accomplish. As further inaicated uncier Section 21003(a) of CEQA, "the Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the State that noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of Sections 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with those provisions." In order to ensure full public disclosure of project -related and cumulative impacts, the courts in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1" Dist., 1988) stated that when the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, the resulting deficiency in the record may actually enlarge the scope of any fair argument by leading to a "logical plausibility" to a wider range of inferences concerning the significance of those impacts. For example, absent from the Initial Study is any discussion, of any kind, addressing the indirect (e.g., operational) and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, limiting the environmental analysis exclusively to the direct physical changes to the project site. As a further example of the Lead Agency's failure to fulfill its own obligations under CEQA, a reader needs only to examine the manner in which the proposed project is described. The project description presented in the applicant's own "Big Canyon County Club Evaluation of Biological Resources" (Biological Study), included as Appendix B in the Initial Study (see Appendix B, p. 1), is repeated virtually verbatim in the Checklist (see Checklist, p. 1) and again in the Initial Study (see Initial Study, p. 1). No attempt has been made to elaborate thereupon; rather, the Lead Agency appears to merely parrot the information, analysis, and self -promotional findings that have been formulated by or directly under contract by others working on the applicant's behalf. It is, therefore, not surprising that very little information is, in fact, presented concerning the precise nature of the proposed project and even less • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 3 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project information and analysis is provided concerning the project's potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. • Since the proposed project and he direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting therefrom are not adequately described or evaluated in the Initial Study, it is not possible to fully evaluate those potential environmental effects and to submit a complete set of comments thereupon. The failure on the part of the Lead Agency to present an adequate environmental assessment of the proposed project cannot be used as the basis to exempt the project or the agency from future challenges -to the adequacy of the environmental process. As a result of the City's failure to provide sufficient information concerning the project and its potential impacts, the public has been deprived access to information critical to the project's understanding which is either in the possession of the Lead Agency or could be•known to the City as a result of the agency's obligations to fulfill its own CEQA obligations. The public does not have the opportunity to consult with the applicant or those Responsible Agencies from whom subsequent entitlements may be required and must base its comments on the information that the Lead Agency chooses to disclose. As a result, any defects in these comments originate from the defects in the Lead Agency's own,actions and analysis and cannot serve as a shield behind which the agency can now seek to hide. 2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 2.1 Mischaracterization of the Project As indicated in the Initial Study, the proposed action is identified as a "storm drain improvement project" (Initial Study, cover). Although there are no project objectives identified in the Initial Study (e.g., implement an engineering solution addressing existing drainage deficiencies), any project so identified is clearly an infrastructure improvement project wherein the issues of hydrology and hydraulic are important and critical considerations. Storm drain improvement projects that are designed with insufficient capacity may, in fact, create greater flooding hazards than no project at all since water could back-up and flood upstream areas or bypass the inadequately sized conduit and flood adjoining areas. Any flood control project would, therefore, be both expected and required to include a detailed civil engineering analysis • conducted in accordance with City and County of Orange flood control standards. In accordance therewith, the methodology contained in the "Orange County Hydrology Manual" (OCHM) would constitute the appropriate analytical basis for the analysis of any existing flooding hazards and the sizing of any proposed storm drain facilities. Absent from the Initial Study, however, are any engineering studies which: (1) demonstrate the presence of existing deficiencies in the storm drain system (e.g., identification of need); (2) quantify pre- and post - project flows, including an identification of the entire watershed from which storm flows originate; (3) present an independently verifiable engineering analysis addressing the size of the proposed drainage pipes (e.g., "improvements include drainage pipes," Checklist, p.1); and (4) examine alternative means of accomplishing the project's undisclosed objectives. Similarly, the Initial Study contains no reference to a site -specific and project -specific hydrology/hydraulic analysis or to the OCHM. In the absence of that information, as an analogy, the approach now proposed by the Lead Agency is similar to the City's initiation of a street improvement project absent a detailed traffic study. Without a clear understanding of existing deficiencies and future need, how can an agency determine whether . Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 4 • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Dram Improvement Project the proposed infrastructure improvements adequately respond to existing and future needs? How can a project characterized as a "storm drain improvement project" be prepared and processed absent a detailed hydrology/hydraulic study? In the absence of that information, how has the Lead Agency documented and disclosed the size (e.g., "instead of water flowing through the existing pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond," p. 16) of the proposed drainage facilities that will be installed should the project be approved as now proposed? Since a "storm drain improvement project" is proposed absent a storm drain improvement study conforming to the OCHM and since no mitigation measures are now proposed requiring such a study, it is immediately apparent that the project now under consideration is being intentionally misrepresented either by the Lead Agency or the project proponent for the sole purpose of camouflaging the project's true intent (e.g., destruction of wetlands, loss of jurisdictional waters, and elimination of those biological resources dependent thereupon), inferring a need for infrastructure improvements when no such need has yet to be established, turning public and agency attention away from the project's true environmental impacts, and seeking to avoid the preparation and level of analysis otherwise required in an environmental impact report (e.g., "an initial study is neither intended nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR," Section 15063[a][3], Guidelines). Where in the Initial Study has the Lead Agency documented that "storm drain improvements" are either necessary or required to address an existing drainage deficiency? Since no such need has been established, in reality, the project has little to do with the conveyance of storm waters and merely constitutes a veiled attempt to expand "the driving range depth" (p. 1) for the benefit of a few members of a private country club. The benefits to be obtained by those few golfers are, however, at the expense of the diminishing biological resources of the area and the wildlife that are dependent thereupon. The environmental costs of the project (e.g., diminution of regional biological resources) must, therefore, be borne by all County residents for the sole benefit of a very few. As required under Section 15063(a)(1) of the Guidelines, "all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study of the project." Although a portion of the project may, in fact, include a "storm drain improvement" component, in actuality, the applicant's motivation may have less to do with addressing undisclosed drainage concerns than in expanding the use of the existing golf course. To, therefore, call the project a "storm drain improvement project" would be the same as attempting to categorize the proposed action as either a "landscape restoration project" (e.g., "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped," p. 2) or a "landslide remediation project" (e.g., "the Public Safety Element fo the City's General Plan does designate the project area as a high potential for landslides," p. 12) or a "migratory bird habitat enhancement project" (e.g., "the biological assessment includes a recommendation that mature trees be relocated on other ponds in the vicinity to reduce potential impacts to the black -crowned night heron," p. 7). The manner in which the project is described has important implications in the focus of the resulting analysis. Even if defined as a "storm drain improvement project," the Lead Agency has presented a woefully inadequate analysis of the drainage needs of the area upon which the project is purportedly based. If the project were more correctly characterized as a golf course expansion project, the resulting analysis would logically address the impacts associated with that expansion. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion concerning whether the proposed expansion would or could increase. the number of • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 5 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project individuals that could be on the project site at any one time. Therefore, one of the possible direct impacts of the project (Le., intensification of use) is never even addressed. Since that direct impact is never disclosed, the indirect impacts (e.g., increased traffic, noise, air pollution) are themselves virtually ignored. As required under Section 15004(b)(3) of the Guidelines, "with private projects, the Lead Agency shall encourage the project proponent to incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning at the earliest feasible time." As defined in Section 15005(a) therein, "'shall' identifies a mandatory element which all publicagencies are required to follow." As further defined in Section 15364 "'feasible' means capable of being accomplished .ih a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." If the project is correctly described as a golf course expansion project, those "environmental considerations" incorporated into the "conceptualization, design, and planning" of the proposed project would focus on the preservation of the area's biological and aesthetic resources and would examine other means of accomplishing the same objectives at a lesser environmental cost. As now presented, there exists no evidence that either, the applicant considered or the Lead Agency required the incorporation of "environmental considerations" as part of the proposed action. As mandated under CEQA, how has the Lead Agency sought to incorporate "environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and [project] planning"? 2.2 Failure to Describe the Environmental Setting As required under Section 15063(d)(2) of the Guidelines, an initial study "shall" contain "an identification of the environmental setting." Although the physical characteristics of the project site are briefly discussed in various sections of the Initial Study, totally absent is any discussion of the operational characteristics of both the project site and the golf course itself. Since the project involves the "expansion" of the golf course, in order to understand the long-term impacts and implications of the project beyond the mere alternation of the project site, it is first necessary to understand the operational characteristics of the existing golf course, including any limitations or constraints to play that may be eliminated or reduced through the project's implementation. Only by understanding the existing conditions is it then possible to identify and evaluate the changes thereto that may result from the project's implementation. Not only does the Initial Study fail to address the manner in which the project site is presently utilized (which cannot be discerned from the Initial Study since the physical boundaries of the project are never disclosed) but the Initial Study also lacks any discussion of the golf course's current operation. In order to provide information beneficial in assessing the project's potential impacts, that discussion must include both a detailed description of the existing driving range and putting green (including their current defects which are purportedly the reasons behind the proposed project) and a more general discussion of the entire operation of the.golfcourse. That latter discussionshould include an overview of the number of members and rounds of golf played, number of buckets of driving range balls purchased, number of individuals that can be accommodated on the existing putting green, and number and type of annual golf events now scheduled at the facility. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 6 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project What is never disclosed is the motivation behind the project. The request to eliminate a valuable biological resource merely to extend an existing driving range so that a limited number of "heavy hitters" can drive their golf balls a few feet farther seems to hide a larger objective that may encompass some operational changes in the manner in which the golf course itself is utilized. Only by understanding the "baseline" condition, as well as any existing constraints that may limit golf course operations, is it possible to fully assessing the impacts that may ultimately result from the project's development. 2.3 Failure to Identify Physical Changes to the Site and to Golf Course Operations CEQA focuses upon physical changes to the environment and, based on the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts attributable to those physical changes, to determine whether the difference between pre- and post -project conditions are "significant." As defined under Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines, "a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project" [emphasis added]. As further defined therein, "'significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance" [emphasis added]. Although the term "substantial or potentially substantial adverse change" is not defined under CEQA, "Webster's New World Dictionary" defines "substantial" as "considerable; ample; large" and "with regard to essential elements." Clearing, the total destruction of the existing pond (e.g., "filling pond," p. 6), the elimination of any water features upon the project site, the elimination of a natural element and its replacement with pavement, the elimination of any habitat value, the removai of all riparian vegetation, the conversion from a passive resource to an active area, and the resulting change in the site's use (e.g., from presently inaccessible for human use to intensely utilized) all constitute "substantial" changes. To suggest otherwise would be to disregard both the -intent of CEQA and the literal meaning of the English language. If the total destruction of a freshwater habitat is considered not to be significant, under the City's own logic, why would the filing of the Back Bay not also be considered as not "substantial"? Before the Big Canyon area was developed, what was the total quantity of wetland areas and other jurisdictional waters that were located on the project site and how was that figure determined? As now exists thereupon, what is the total area of wetlands and jurisdictional waters and how was that figure determined? Was the existing lake provided as partial mitigation for the loss of then existing resources? Does the existing lake serve to mitigate, in whole or part, for the historic loss of wetland and jurisdictional waters that may once have existed on the project site? If the existing lake now serves as a replacement resource or if the lake has functioned as a viable habitat area for an extended time period, it now serves a valuable resource role whether of natural creation or artificial creation. Its historic development (e.g., "artificial pond," p. 1), therefore, may have less importance than its current functional value (e.g., "the pond is surrounded by ornamental planting with some native plant species," p. 7). What is the Lead Agency's definition of a "substantial adverse change"? Why would the total destruction of the existing pond (e.g., "filling the pond," p. 1) not constitute a "substantial adverse change"? What examples can be cited as to what would constitute a "substantial adverse change"? Are there any specific quantitative limitation (e.g., size, number of individuals effects) which must be exceeded before a physical change is considered to be "significant"? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 7 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project CEQA obligates the Lead Agency to present an objective analyses of a proposed action (e.g., "CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced," Section 15003[j], Guidelines). To suggest that the substitution of a lake for asphalt, and a total destruction of a viable habitat area for a site with -no habitat value does not constitute "a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project," suggests either the Lead Agency's failure to conduct an analyses which conforms to CEQA (e.g., "CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment, Section 15003[f],Guidelines) or a predetermination wherein the Initial Study merely presents window-dressing for a back -room decision that has already been made. As used in Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines,- the term "change in the physical conditions" should not be so narrowly defined as to artificially limit the project's environmental analysis to only the changes to the physical environment. Beyond the direct physical changes that will occur to the project site (e.g., filling the lake), it is apparent that other indirect physical changes will occur in the mariner in which the golf course is itself utilized. Nowhere in the Initial', Study, however, is there any discussion of any intensification of golf course or facility use or the operational changes that may result from the "expansion" of the driving range and relocation of the putting green. While these changes may outwardly seem minor, should those changes to the physical environment allow an intensification of course use or alternation in the type, manner, or frequency of activities thereupon, the operational changes to the course could potentially create other significant impacts beyond the substantial and permanent loss of a valuable habitat area. The Initial Study is, therefore, seriously defective by failing to include not only a discussion of the project's existing operational setting but also a discussion and analysis of the operational changes (which themselves constitute a "physical change") that could manifest from the physical a;terations of the project site. 2.4 Failure to Articulate the Lead Agency's Threshold of Significance Standards The primary roles of CEQA are to inform public agencies and the general public about the effects of public and private actions affecting the environment, to create a formal mechanism to receive public input as a mean of assisting those public agencies to understand the impacts of their actions, to explore ways to mitigate significant adverse effects, and to determine whether there are alternatives to the proposed action that could reduce or avoid identified significant environmental effects. Under CEQA, agencies are asked to drawing a "line in the sand" beyond which any impact would be deemed to be "significant." Although guidance is provided under CEQA, except where other State or federal regulations take precedence, the threshold determination ultimately rests with the Lead Agency. The yardstick that the Lead Agency utilizes, however, must be fully disclosed and consistently applied so that all participants can understand the basis used to determine significance, establish mitigation measures, and address project alternatives (e.g., "the basic purposes of CEQA are to. ..inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities," Section 15002[a][1], Guidelines). Judgments of "significance" are made at three different points in the CEQA process: (1) in determining whether a project may have a significant effect and thus require an EIR (Section 21082.2[a], CEQA); (2) in the EIR's discussions of which environmental impacts are significant and warranting mitigation (Section 15126.4[a][4], State CEQA Guidelines); and (3) in making findings following EIR completion on whether a project's significant environmental effects have been avoided or substantially reduced (Section 21081 [a], CEQA). At this stage in the CEQA process,the determination of whether an impact Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 8 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Dram Improvement Project is significant is critical since that determination dictates whether the Lead Agency can prepare a MND for the project or must commence the preparation of an EIR. As indicated under Section 15064.7(a) of the Guidelines, "each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significant of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant." As further indicated under Section 15064(h)(3) of the Guidelines, "for the purposes of this subsection a 'standard' means a standard of general application that is all of the following: (A) a quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in a statute, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other standard of general application; (B) adopted for the purpose of environmental protection; (C) adopted by a public agency through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency; (D) one that governs the same environmental effect which the change in the environment is impacting; and, (E) one that governs within the jurisdiction where the project is located." Has the Lead Agency developed and published threshold of significance standards and, if so, on what date were those standards adopted and in what document are those criterion contained? Where in the Initial Study has the Lead Agency clearly defined the threshold of significance standards that it has applied in evaluating the project's environmental impacts? In the absence of clearly defined standards, what factual basis has the Lead Agency utilized to determine the significance of pre- and post -mitigated environmental effects? For each of the topical issues addressed in the Initial Study, what quantitative, qualitative, or performance -based standard has been used to assess significance? How does the Lead Agency's failure to identify its threshold standards serve to demonstrate the City's objective consideration of the proposed project? 2.4.1 Threshold Standard for Commencement of an EIR Under CEQA, the standard to be used by a Lead Agency as the basis for commencing the preparation of an EIR is substantially lower that the threshold used by that same agency once an EIR has been commenced for determining whether a potential environmental effect will be significant and, therefore, predicating the formulation of mitigation measures and project alternatives. Negative declarations can only be prepared when, after completing ah initial study, an agency determines that a project "does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment" (Section 21080[c], CEQA). Such a determination can only be made if "there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" [emphasis added]. As further indicated in Section 15064(f)(1) of the Guidelines: "If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR. Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect" [emphasis added]. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 9 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project As further indicated in Section 15073.5(d) of the Guidelines, "if during the negative declaration process, there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving therproject." Additionally, "the lead agency shall be guided by the following principal: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR" (Section 15064[g], Guidelines). When a "fair argument" is presented to the Lead Agency that significant effects "may" occur, CEQA obligates the agency to commence the preparation of an EIR, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. EIRs are necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and "to substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation" (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles [1975]). Where the environmental record includes "substantial evidence" supporting a "fair argument" that significant effects may occur, the decision to prepare an EIR is not dependent upon whether such evidence is persuasive. In order to require the preparation of an EIR, the agency need not find the argument compelling but only that the argument has been made and is supported by substantial evidence (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward [1" Dist., 1980]). The general public lacks the resources which are available to the Lead Agency to conduct a detailed environmental assessment of the project. Similarly, the affected public lacks access to information critical to an understanding of the proposed project and, based on the comment period established by the Lead Agency, lacks sufficient time to conduct independent technical studies. As such, the standard that the City must apply in determining whether to prepare an EIR as opposed to a negative declaration relates to the presentation of conflicting expert opinion (as presented herein) and the existence of some uncertainty (i.e., "may") concerning the project's environmental effects. In recognition of the above constraints, these comments, as well as such other comments that may be submitted to the Lead Agency under separate cover, present substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will, in fact, produce a significant environmental effect. Based upon the lower threshold standards established under CEQA for the commencement of an EIR, the Lead Agency is obligated to prepare an EIR for the proposed project. 2.4.2 Threshold of Significance Criteria The determination of whether an impact is significant or insignificant rests, in whole or in part, upon the yardstick against which significance is determined. Nowhere in the Initial Study does the Lead Agency present the standards against which the project's impacts are being judged. In the absence of an articulated, measurable set of criterion, no factual basis is presented to support the agency's preliminary determination that an identified impact is either significant or less than significant. In Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of lnyo (4'h Dist., 1985), the court held that, although the use of a checklist was permissible, an initial study must "disclose the data or evidence upon which the person(s) conducting the study relied. Mere conclusions simply provide no vehicle for judicial review." Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 10 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Since the Lead Agency has failed to identify the threshold standards that it seeks to utilize as the basis for assessing the significance of the project's environmental effects, even assuming the adequacy of the resulting analyses, no basis is provided to determine whether the impact is significant and whether mitigation is required. From the Initial Study, it is evident that the Lead Agency has sought to require mitigation even when it concludes that the post -project impact remains less than significant in the absence of those measures. As indicated in the document's cover, the CEQA document under review herein is referenced as a "mitigated negative declaration." Section 21064.3 of CEQA defines a MND as "a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions to the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." From this definition, it must be construed (although not evident from the information presented in the Initial Study) that the project would result in significant unavoidable adverse effects unless mitigation measures or other revisions to the project were to occur. Since the document is represented as a MND, by definition one or more of the topical issues addressed therein would be impacted to a significant or potentially significant level (i.e, exceed the Lead Agency's threshold of significance standards). When the Checklist is examined, only one topical issue (i.e., "substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands," Checklist, p. 5) is so identified. If the Lead Agency's own analysis is assumed to be correct (which is obviously not the case based on the comments presented herein), in order to substantiate the continued use of the MND, the recommended mitigation measures must be sufficient to demonstrate that, through their implementation, the post-project's impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance. While three mitigation measures (i.e., Mitigation Measure Nos. 3-5) are identified in the Initial Study under this topical issue, only one of those measures (i.e., Mitigation Measure No. 3) deal specifically with the project's impacts on "federally protected wetlands." Rather than presenting a definitive plan demonstrating the manner in which those impacts will be reduced or eliminated, including the identification of a conceptual mitigation plan illustrating the location where mitigation will occur, the Lead Agency merely states that the applicant shall obtain "all required permits/agreements" from the "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game" (Mitigation Measure No. 3, p. 7). Since the Lead Agency "must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA" (Section 15020, Guidelines), the City is precluded from avoiding the preparation of, at minimum, a conceptual mitigation plan that demonstrates the manner in which mitigation will occur and the feasibility of such actions. Since the receipt of requisite permits and approvals from those agencies is a preexisting obligation that would otherwise exist in the absent of the above referenced mitigation measure, in actually, no valid mitigation for this identified significant impact has been formulated. As a result, this unmitigated impact remains significant and the Lead Agency is obligated to either formulate and present its mitigation plan or commence the preparation of an EIR. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 11 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 2.4.3 Mandatory Findings of Significance Section 21083 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the Guidelines contain certain "mandatory findings of significance." These mandatory findings exist because both public agencies and project proponents have an inevitable incentive to understate the significance of project impacts to escape the time and expense of preparing El Rs and the diminished discretion that occur when projects are subject to the mandatory project modifications policy of Section 21002 of CEQA. As indicated in the Discussion following Section 15065 of the Guidelines, "this section is necessary to insure that public agencies follow the concerns of the Legislature in determining that certain effects shall be found significant and then take the actions at different stages of the process that are required with significant effects." As further required under Section 15065 of the Guidelines: A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where any of the following conditions occur: (a) The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitatof a fish -or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (b) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. (c) The project has potential environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. ..(d) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Since many of these mandatory threshold standards are exceeded by the proposed project, the Lead Agency is obligated to immediately commence the preparation of an EIR addressing the proposed action. Each of the above referenced "mandatory findings of significance" are repeated below and the project's potential exceedance of those standards briefly illustrated. As required under CEQA, the Lead Agency is mandated to commence the preparation of an EIR when the project has the potential to: • Substantially degrade the quality of the environment. As indicated under Section 21001(c) of CEQA, the State.Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the State to "prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of major periods of California history." As indicated in the Biological Study, "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat fro one or more common migratory bird species that are protected by the California Fish ancFGame Code and Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act' (Appendix B, p. 4). In fact, a protected bird species (i.e., black -crowned night heron) was observed on the project site. Project implementation will result in the total destruction of that existing, viable, occupied habitat. Once developed, the site will possess none of its existing characteristics and will no longer serve any role or function as a habitat area for that or any other protected species. Since the site's habitat value will diminish to near zero, from a biological perspective, the project's development will substantially and permanently degrade the quality of the existingienvironment. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 12 • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project • . • • Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The mandate of Section 15065 of the Guidelines are expressed in Mira Monte Homeowners Association v. Ventura County (2"d Dist. 1985) which involved impacts to wetlands containing a protected plant species. In that case, the court rejected the respondent agency's argument that substantial evidence supported its expert's view that 'the impact in question was insignificant. Instead, the court reasoned that the impact was significant "by definition," treating the issue as a pure legal question in which no deference to agency experts was proper. As indicated in the Biological Study, "as presently designed, the project will also require removal of the trees that provide roosting site for the black -crowned night heron. The black - crowned night heron is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act...Removal of these roosting trees will potentially impact individuals of this species. This impact would occur regardless of what time of year the work is done because although the black -crowned night heron is migratory and winters as far south as South America, southern California is included in the northern parts of its winter range as well as its summer breeding range, so that there are some birds here all year round" (Appendix B, pp. 4-5). As mitigation for this impact, the Lead Agency merely recommends that a pre -construction nesting survey be conducted and that the trees and vegetation around the project site be relocated (see Mitigation Measure Nos. 4-5). Clearly, these feeble attempts at mitigation fail to compensate for the lost of a value habitat area which is comprised of more than a assemblage of trees and shrubs and includes the existing lake and the habitat that surrounds that water feature. The Lead Agency would have the public believe that the mere relocation of a limited number of trees is all that is required to support the habitat requirements of a protected species. If hab:`=,- -equirements could be addressed merely through the planting of specific trees, the nation's endangered species problems could be effectively solved by planting a sufficient number of trees. It is naive to assume that the agency's mitigation measures will have anything other that "PR" value. The Lead Agency has failed to demonstrate that the recommended measures will either fully compensate for the project's biological impacts (e.g., "this impact would occur regardless of what time of year the work is done") or result in the replacement of a viable habitat area conducive to the habitat requirements of not only the black -crowned night heron but other protected species (e.g., "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory bird species," Appendix B, p. 4). • Achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Proposed is the elimination of a viable, occupied habitat and the replacement of that natural or naturalized area with a golf course putting green expansion of the course's existing driving range. As a public trade out, the City is being asked to exchange a sustainable biological resource which has been provide to support a population of protected species for the short-term enjoyment of a limited number of golfers. Since the golf course is already in place, sports enthusiasts already have an opportunity to play at that facility. By extending the driving range a few yards, those that may be able to drive a golf ball that distance may experience some enjoyment for those few extra yards. In exchange for that brief sense of exhilaration, all other parties (be they residents of the site or merely members of the human race) must access a diminishment in the biological diversity and natural (or naturalized) resources that now exist and support a diminishing wildlife population. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 13 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project The flight of protected wildlife able to survive in the southern California area must be balanced against the few extra yards that a single golf ball may fly. The preservation of the region's bio- diversity (long-term environmental goals) must, therefore, be given greater credence that the needs of a few recreationalists (short-term benefit). • Produce environmental,effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As proposed, the project will result in the elimination of an existing wetland area that now supports a diversity of riparian plants and supports the habitat needs of protected wildlife. Although the Initial Study recommends the off -site provision of a substitute resource, the resulting resource will not have the same habitat value for a number of years, if at all. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the nationwide loss of these resource areas. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) indicates that "recent estimates of wetlands trends on non-federal lands indicate a loss rate between 70,000 to 90,000 acres annually. ..in addition to these losses, many other wetlands have suffered degradation of functions, although calculating the magnitude of the degradation is difficult. These losses, as well as degradation, have greatly diminished our nation's wetlands resources; as a result, we no longer have the benefits they provided" (America's Wetlands: Our Link between Land and Water). Although the Lead Agency seeks to examine the project in isolation of this national trend, in reality, the project constitute a component of the 70,000 to 90,000 acres of wetlands that will be lost this year alone. The cumulative impacts of that loss include, but are not limited to: (1) Because many species depend on wetlands, whatever harms wetlands harms these species; the well-being of waterfowl populations is tied directly to the status and abundance of wetland habitats; (2) if wetlands are lost or degraded, the ability to control flooding is diminished; and (3) destroying or degrading wetlands results in lower water quality (USEPA, Wetlands Factsheet: Consequences of Losing or Degrading Wetlands). Like the ostrich, the Lead Agency seeks to bury its head in the sand and ignore the project's contribution to those cumulative environmental effects. Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. As indicated by the USEPA: Wetlands are among the most biologically productive natural ecosystems in the world. They can be compared to tropical rain forests and coral reefs in the diversity of species they support. Wetlands are vital to the survival of various animals and plants. ..The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that up to 43% of the threatened and endangered species rely directly or indirectly on wetlands for their survival. For many other species. . .wetlands are primary habitats. For others, wetlands provide important seasonal habitats where food, water, and cover are plentiful. Because wetlands are so productive and because they greatly influence the flow and quality of water, they are valuable to us. ..Wetlands often function like natural tubs or sponges, storing water (floodwater, or surface water that collects in isolated depressions) and slowly releasing it. Trees and other wetland vegetation help slow floodwaters. This combined action, storage and slowing, can lower flood heights and reduce the water's erosive potential. Wetlands thus • Initial Study &Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 14 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project -reduce the likelihood of flood damage to crops in agricultural areas; help control increases in the rate and volume ofrunoff in urban areas; buffer shorelines against erosion. Wetlands help improve water quality, including that of drinking water, by intercepting surface runoff and removing or retaining its nutrients, processing organic wastes, and reducing sediment before it reaches open water (USEPA, Wetlands Factsheet: Value and Function of Wetlands). It is apparent that wetlands serve a value role and function which both directly and indirectly affects mankind. Since the Lead Agency has yet to demonstrate that the project's proposed mitigation will not allow for the provision of a comparable resource that provides the same benefits that currently accrue from the on -site lake, the loss of that resource would produce a substantial adverse impact on not only the project site but the nation's natural resources. 2.5 Failure, to Address the Project's Cumulative Impacts As indicated in Section 15065(d) of the Guidelines, "a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where any of the. . .project has potential environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the cumulative impact associated with the permanent loss of an existing wetland. As indicated in the USEPA's "305(b) Report to Congress (1996/1998)," "the loss or degradation of wetlands can lead to serious consequences, including increased flooding; species decline, deformity, or extinction; and declines in water quality. . .Another consequence of wetlands loss or degradation is decline, deformity from toxic contamination, or extinction of wildlife and plant species. Forty-five percent of the threatened and endangered species listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service rely directly or indirectly on wetlands for their survival." As further indicated therein, "according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's, the three States that have sustained the greatest percentage of wetlands loss are California (91 %), Ohio (90%), and Iowa (89°/o)." As evident by that excerpt, past and current activities have nearly eliminated all wetland areas in California. By failing to examine the proposed project in a broader context, the project's approval will continue to this trend and will contribute, incrementally, to the cumulative impacts identified by the USEPA. Additionally, since the project involves the expansion of operations of the golf course, the assessment of the cumulative impacts of the project must also include an assessment of the entire operation of the golf course itself, including the opportunities and consequences associated with the course's expansion. This is particularly the case if the proposed expansion were to alter the potential use of the golf course, expand its operations, or elevate the course to a different status whereby it could be utilized in some different fashion than otherwise possible in the absence of the expansion. If the expansion of the course results in the elimination of some constraint(s) that limits or otherwise defines its operational characteristics, then the project constitutes substantially more than the physical improvements themselves and includes the operational changes that would or could result therefrom. As an analogy, environmental analysis of the construction of a pipeline must include not only the physical impacts associated with the installation -of the infrastructure improvements themselves but also the development opportunities that would result therefrom. While the development that may follow could be consider the growth -inducing impacts of the project, they nonetheless represent the logical • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 15 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project consequences (e.g., indirect effects) of an activity in which a development constraint is removed and must, therefore, become part of the project's environmental. review. As a result, the environmental assessment cannot be confined to only the physical changes that are now proposed on the project site but also must include the operational changes that may result therefrom. Absent from the Initial Study is a� discussion of the actual operational consequences of the project. Since the project cannot be narrowly defined as only the physical improvements but must also consider the operational implications of those improvements, the Lead Agency's environmental analysis is defective by failing to even discuss the project's long-term, implications. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the cumulative or growth -inducing impacts that may result from the proposed project. Since the impacts deal, in whole or part, with the operational changes to the golf course itself, the Lead Agency's environmental analysis cannot be so narrowly defined as to examine only the improvements while ignoring the impacts produced by the golf course itself. From a cumulative impact perspective, the entire golf course operation must be examined and the impacts resulting therefrom factored into the environmental analysis. - Where in the Initial Study does the Lead Agency discuss the existing operational characteristics of the golf course? How would the project's implementation directly, indirectly, or ultimately change the nature or manner in which the course is utilized? Could the proposed project, either directly or indirectly, increase the number of individuals that may be on the site at any one time? Could the project itself result in a change in the manner of play (e.g., changing the course's status or stature)? 2.6 Failure to Conduct Independent Review and Demonstrate Independent Judgment As required under Section 15063(d)(6) of the Guidelines, the Initial Study is obligated to list "the names of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the initial study" [emphasis added]. Where in the Initial Study is that list presented? What representatives of the applicant "participated" in the preparation of the Initial Study and what form (e.g., submission of a draft Initial Study) did that participation take? As indicated in the Initial Study, "a biological resource assessment and wetland delineation was conducted by Psomas. ..The evaluation and information presented in this section are based on the biological report contained in its entirety in the appendix of this document" (p. 6). Absent from the Initial Study, however, is any evident that the Lead Agency has applied its own independent judgment in assessing the adequacy and accuracy with respect to the information provided by the applicant. Both the Biological Study and its accompanying "Big Canyon County Club jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States" (Wetland Delineation), as prepared under contract to the applicant by the applicant's own consultant (i.e., Psomas), were "prepared for: Big Canyon County Club." Nowhere in the Initial Study is there any indication that qualified City staff, possessing the experience and qualifications to evaluate the adequacy of a biological resource assessment and jurisdictional delineation, conducted any detailed review of the applicant's studies or directed any changes thereto. Was Psomas under contract to the City or to the applicant for the preparation of those studies? Did the City independently contract with a biological and resource specialist to review the applicant's submittals and, if yes, where in the Initial Study is evidence of that review? What additional role is Psomas playing in the design, development, or implementation of the project? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 16 • • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain improvement Project Does the City's Senior Planner, identified as the individual that "submitted" the Initial Study (Checklist, p. 3) possess any State licenses for the surveying of protected wildlife and, if so, what are the license numbers? Has the Senior Planner completed the Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation training program and on what date was that course completed? Is the Senior Planner a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer, hydrologist, or civil engineer? What additional City staff or consultants operating under contract to the Lead Agencyparticipated in the preparation of the Initial Study? Where in the Initial Study are all contributors to that document cited and what role did each individual play? Based on a review of the Initial Study, what appears to be the case is that the City merely accepted those studies submitted by the applicant as adequate and incorporated the information, without change or modification, into the Initial Study. Does the applicant have any economic motivation not to commence the preparation of an EIR for the proposed project? Does the applicant have an economic motivation to define the area of impacted wetlands and jurisdictional waters in the smallest amount possible? What changes to the Biological Study and Wetlands Delineation were directed by the City following the City's receipt of those documents from the applicant? Were any other portions of the Initial Study prepared directly by the applicant or the applicant's consultants (e.g., "the lead agency shall conduct an initial study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment," Section 15063(a], Guidelines)? As further required under Section 15063(g) of the Guidelines, "as soon as a lead agency has determined that an initial study will be required for the project, the lead agency shall consult informally with all responsible agencies and all trustee agencies responsible for resources affected by the project to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or a negative declaration should be prepared." The Initial Study identifies "other public agencies whose approval is required" as including the "US Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish & Game, & Regional Water Quality Control Board" (p. 2). Does the California Coastal Commission also have a discretionary role in the approval of the project? Absent from the Initial Study is an evidence that such mandatory (i.e, "shall") consultation occurred. On what date and in what manner was "consultation" conducted with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies? Which agencies were so contacted and what written and/or oral comments were received from those agencies? Where in the Initial Study are those comments or evidence of any consultation provided? As required under Section 15072(a) of the Guidelines, "a lead agency shall provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk of each county within which theproposed project is, located." As further indicated in Section 15073(d) therein, "where one or more State agencies will be a responsible agency or a trustee agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project. ..the lead agency shall send copies of the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the State agencies." Were copies of the Initial Study forwarded to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and, if so, on what date was such notice provided and what proof of such delivery is available at the office of the Lead Agency? Was a notice of intent also forwarded to the County Clerk and on what date did the County Clerk receive and post that notice? How does the absence of SCH notification and posting with the County Clerk facilitate public and agency review and ensure that all environmental issues are addressed? • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 17 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 2.7 Failure to Adopt or Update Local CEQA Guidelines ' As required under Section 15022(a) and (c) of the Guidelines, "each public agency shall adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures consistent with CEQA and these Guidelines for administering its responsibilities under CEQA, including the orderly evaluation of projects and preparation of environmental documents" and "public agencies should revise their implementing procedures to conform to amendments to these guidelines within 120 days after the effective date of the amendments." Absent from the list of sources cited in the preparation of the Initial Study (p. 16) is any reference to the City's CEQA guidelines. Has the Lead Agency adopted a set of local CEQA guidelines and, if yes, on what .date and under what resolution number? When were those 'local guidelines last amended? What provisions are contained therein concerning the receipt and utilization of technical studies provided by the project proponent? As required under Section 21001(f) of CEQA, it is the policy of the State to "require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures to protect environmental quality." Referencing Section 15064.7(a) of the Guidelines, "each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects." The threshold of significance is the identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect would be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which would mean the effect would be less than significant. Does the City's local CEQA guidelines contain any reference to or discussion of those "thresholds of significance" that the Lead Agency consistently applies to all public and private projects? In the absence of a universal set of standards, how does the Lead Agency seek to consistently apply CEQA to all discretionary projects within the community? Is it the intent of the Lead Agency to conform to CEQA and Guidelines as those laws and regulations existed at the time of the publication of the Initial Study? 2.8 Need for Recirculation of the Negative Declaration or Commencement of an El As required under Section 15073.5(a) of the Guidelines, 'a lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption." As defined therein a "substantial revision" of the negative declaration means: "(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required." The comments presented herein serve to document boththepresence of new, avoidable significant environmental effects and the need for new mitigation measures and/or project revisions. Additionally, the following information demonstrates that the "substantial revisions" are, in fact, required and predicate recirculation: A new,avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance. As evidenced by the information Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 18 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project • presented herein, the project will produce significant short-term (construction) air quality and acoustical impacts that have not been identified by the Lead Agency. In addition, based on the analytical methodology developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the project will produce a long-term aesthetic impact. Based on the City's environmental assessment of the Newport Dunes project, it is evident that the project will produce a cumulative air quality impact. • Proposed mitigation measures will not reduce potential effects to Tess than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Most of the mitigation measures cited in the Initial Study are merely restatement of existing public policy. Since those measures will produce no actual mitigation, each of those measures are illusory. As an example, the Initial Study concludes that impacts on federal wetlands will be "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated" (p. 8). The mitigation that is proposed, however, directs the applicant only to comply with its already existing obligations under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Since those obligations predate the Lead Agency's analysis, compliance with those federal and State obligations was already a factor that was considered in the derivation of the document's conclusions (e.g., the analysis cannot be based on the assumption that the applicant violates the laws and, as mitigation, is directed to comply with those same requirements). As such, no actual mitigation is proposed and the resulting impact remains significant. Alternatively, "if during the negative declaration process there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project" (Section 150 3..3[a], Guidelines). The comments presented herein provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed project will produce a significant, unavoidable adverse impact. In lieu of recirculating the N1ND, the Lead Agency is required under CEQA to immediately commence preparation of an EIR which more thoroughly analyzes the project's significant or potentially significant environmental effects. 3.0 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY 3.1 Environmental Checklist Form In what appears a self-serving description, the "City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Form" (Checklist) states that "the project involves the placement of fill within an existing artificial pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size" [emphasis added] (Checklist, p. 1). The selection of the term "artificial" blatantly seeks to diminish the biological resource and related values of the existing "pond." Whether of "artificial" or natural creation, the lake constitutes an existing resource whose habitat, aesthetic, and other values cannot be diminished merely through the assertion that the resource now exists because of human involvement. In the absence of those major landform alternations that created Big Canyon, the pond may have existed in some form in its natural state (e.g., "the biological report indicates that the pond appears to be located along an [sic] historical 'blue -line' stream, according to the USGS topographic map," p. 6). As further indicated in the "City of Newport Beach Planning Department Case Log - Pending Applications," concerning the proposed project, the Lead Agency states that "an application for a storm • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 19 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project drain project located within the streambed line in [the] Big Canyon site" [emphasis added] is being processed by the City, To now diminish the ponds value and its function because some human efforts were involved in its enhancement from a natural stream to a pond (which may have otherwise naturally existed in the absence of those efforts) would be to relegate all wetland mitigation sites, all habitat restorationprojects, all tree planting programs, and all streambeds themselves, as well as all art and architecture, to a second-class status that can be off-handedly destroyed merely since they did not result solely from God's own hands. What policies are contained in. the "City of Newport Beach General Plan" (General Plan) and the "Local Coastal Plan" (LCP) that address natural resources? Do those policies clearly differentiate between those resources which are "artificial" and those than are naturally occurring? Does the General Plan state that only "natural" resources are worthy of preservation? Are there any relevant policies that are contained in the General Plan (e.g., Conservation and Open Space Element) and the LCP that may encourage, either directly or indirectly, the preservation of freshwater resources or other habitat areas within the City? Where in the Initial Study are those policies cited and the project's consistency therewith evaluated? Based on a view of historic aerial photographs, USGS maps, and other sources, did any "waters of the United States" and did any wetland or riparian areas exist within the Big Canyon area prior to its current development? When Big Canyon was developed, did the City inventory all "waters of the United States" and all wetland and riparian areas located within that area? What is the history that lead to the provision of the pond and was that pond created as mitigation, either intentionally through City direction or voluntarily through the efforts of the developer, for the destruction of those natural resources that then existed within the project area? Have any deed restrictions, covenants,or.other restrictions of any type been recorded or imposed on the pond and, if so, what are those restrictions and/or limitations? In addition, in describing the pond, the Initial Study states "the pond is small" (p. 6). Again, the terminology used to describe this unique resource, whether of natural or man-made creation, is intended solely to diminish in the eyes of the reader the value of this water body. As indicated in the County's "The Physical Environment of Orange County: A Report on the Deteriorating Condition of Orange County's Natural Environment," the County's Planning Department states that: Of all natural resources, few are relied upon as intensively and consistently as water. And yet, in spite of its importance, water is probably the most abused and wasted resource shared with nature. Water continuously interacts with all living things, affecting not only distributions of vegetation and wildlife, but of man himself...Watef is a key element in our County's and State's environmental balance and must be utilized with extreme care and selflessness.. .just as water can be a friend or foe of man, man can similarly be a friend or foe of his water resources. The often quoted remark from Pogo, 'We have met the enemy and he is us,' is especially applicable to our use of fresh water. Concurrent with the growing utilization of our own water resources as well as those of other regions, public awareness must also increase as to the precarious relationship between the Orange County citizen and his limited water supply. Relative to the Great Lakes, the pond may, in fact, be "small." However, relative to the total surface acreage of all freshwater lakes that now exist within the City, the pond may, in fact, be quite large. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 20 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Citing the above publication, "there are no known examples of natural lakes remaining in the County other than the Laguna Lakes." Therefore, any lake, whether of natural or man-made creation is an endangered resource not only in the City but throughout the County as a whole. What is the total square footage of all freshwater lakes in the City and how was that square footage determined? What percent of total freshwater square footage within the City is the on -site pond? With the pond's total destruction, excluding the Back Bay and the water reservoirs, how will the total inventory of all freshwater resources within standing bodies within the City be diminished? Is the pond "small" relative to that total quantity of freshwater lakes within the City? Are freshwater ponds plentiful resources or scare resources within the City? Is retention of those areas possessing existing habitat value and preservation of those areas that currently serve some habitat role or function encouraged or discouraged in the General Plan? What corresponding policies address that issue? Although the Checklist appears to include most of the topical issues contained in Appendix G of the Guidelines, noticeably absent from the Checklist is any discussion of parks (see Appendix G, Section XIII[a], Guidelines). Why have "parks" been excluded from the City's Checklist (Checklist, p. 12)? Included in the Checklist is a "source list" (Checklist, p. 16); however, an inadequate description of those documents is provided (e.g., the author, agency, date, and precise titles are missing from most of the documents cited). Additionally, it is evident that other documents are referenced in the Initial Study that are not referenced herein or, if referenced, presented in such fashion as to prevent a reader from equating the statement in the text to the list of documents that are cited. For example, the Initial Study states that "the Final EIR/GPA 82-2 (pages 37-41) include a complete discussion of existing conditions, impacts and City poiicies pertaining to geology and soil' (p. 10). No reference to "Final EIR/GPA 82-2" is, however, presented among the "source list." How can public agencies and the affected public review those documents which are purported to be the basis for the Initial Study's findings when no or inadequate references are provided thereto? By referencing "Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan" (Checklist, p. 16), the Lead Agency indicated the presence of a "program EIR" that may contain information germane or critical to any understanding of the project, its potential cumulative impacts, and any programmatic mitigation measures or alternatives relevant thereto. By referencing the "Final Program EIR," is the Lead Agency seeking to "tier" this MND based upon the information and analysis contained therein? Does the "Final Program EIR" address the project site? Were any mitigation measures adopted as part of that document and, if so, what program -level measures were so adopted? What is the relevancy of those measures to the proposed project? Additionally, has any previous CEQA documentation been prepared for any portion of the Big Canyon Country Club site or for the Big Canyon area itself? In what year were those facilities permitted and was CEQA in effect at that time? If yes, why has that previous CEQA documentation not been referenced in the Initial Study or the findings of that previous EIR not been specifically addressed therein? Were any mitigation measures adopted by the City at that time? What is the relevancy between that previously adopted CEQA documentation and later activities that may occur within the geographic area addressed therein? How does the Lead Agency's failure to identify that earlier EIR facilitate an understanding of the project and its potential environmental effects? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments )uly 2000 Page 21 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 3.2 Initial Study 3.2.1 Project Description Physical Changes to the Project Site Although Section 15071(a) of the Guidelines do not provide a clear definition of what constitutes an adequate project description, the project description must both address the "whole of the action" and contain a sufficient explanation of the proposed action to provide a clear explanation of what is being requested and to allow for meaningful analysis. The courts have found initial studies to be inadequate if they omit necessary information and inaccurately characterize the proposed project. In Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (4'h Dist., 1986), the court found deficient a project description that omitted the projectaddress.and legal description, described the project in only vague terms, failed to recognize its place within a larger project, and failed to acknowledge its probable effects on the land use patterns and character of the affected area. Many of those same defects are evident in this Initial Study. The project description that is provided therein presents little meaningful information concerning the precise nature of the proposed project. Although "the application is a request to -permit the approval of a Grading Permit" (p. 1), no grading plan is ever presented, no geotechnical report is included that would define the parameters and conditions required for the proposed grading operation, no cut -and -fill quantities are ever identified, the site pre- and post -project topographic is never addressed, the number of haul trucks required to import soil material are not estimated, and the precise area of physical site disturbance never described or illustrated. As a result, virtuallyno information is provided upon which grading and its associated impacts (e.g., fugitive dust, noise, (raffia can be examined. The project description states that "the project involvesahe placement of fill materials within an existing artificial pond and construction of associated improvements" (p. 1). The "associated improvements" are, however, never clearly described such that neither the "storm drain improvements" (which are purported the basis for the project) nor the post -project uses (which will occur thereupon) are identified in any fashion which would allow a public agency or the affected public to clearly understand what is now proposed. Has a geotechnical report been submitted by the project proponent and, if so, where in the Initial Study is that report referenced? Has a conceptual grading plan been formulated that quantities the area of disturbance and the quantity of materials to be moved? Where in the Initial. Study is that grading plan discussed and graphically presented? Although later in the Initial Study, the Lead Agency states that "it is estimated that the project will involve 500 cubic yards of excavation, 18,000 cubic yards of embankment, and 17,500 cubic yard of import fill material" (p. 11), no source document upon which this information is derived is referenced anywhere in the Initial Study. It is, therefore, apparent that the City has withheld the presentation (or reference to) information critical to an understanding of the project's precise characteristics and resulting impacts. Since that critical material is absent from the Initial Study (and no references are provided to the source of that information or where copies of any associated studies can be reviewed), no basis exists to independently verify the accuracy of the information provided. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 22 • • • • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Although "improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drain" (p. 1), from that description it is not known whether the resulting "drainage pipes" will be elevated above ground (i.e., "above surface") or constructed underground. No infrastructure improvement plans are presented, no pipeline alignments are illustrated or discussed, no pipe sizes are identified, and no area of disturbance referenced. The project is further described as including the "relocation of an existing water line" (p. 1). Nowhere in the Initial Study, however, is that water line further discussed, its location illustrated, or the applicant's plans to ensure the continuing availability of potable water and fire flow described. All that is presented is the unsupported conclusion that "the project will not result in the significant alteration or expansion of existing utility and service systems" (p. 26), but no factual basis is ever presented to allow either an understanding of the project or to allow an independent verification of those findings. As indicated in the Checklist, "improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line" (Checklist, p. 1). Absent from the Initial Study, however, is any graphic that reasonably represents the precise location and specific nature of those improvements, defines the geographic area of physical disturbance, or identifies a project area extending beyond the "existing artificial pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size" (Checklist, p. 1). What is the precise area of physical disturbance and where in the project description is that area described and illustrated? The Initial Study further states that "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to complement the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance" (p. 1). No site plan is, however, ever presented illustrating the proposed improvements; therefore, no basis exists to know the precise nature of the post -project land uses. No landscape plan is included or referenced that might support the statement that the resulting uses will "complement the existing golf course." All that is presented is the unsupported and unsubstantiated conclusions (which were probably prepared by the applicant). How does the absence of a proposed site plan allow for a reasonable understanding of the proposed post -project conditions? Has a site plan been provided by the project proponent and, if so, what is the Lead Agency's rationale for its non - inclusion in the Initial Study? Where in the Initial Study is the proposed landscape plan presented (e.g., "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped," p. 1)? What is the size, location, and precise configuration of the proposed putting green (e.g., "replaced with a putting green," p. 1)? How will the driving range be extended and what is the current and post -project configuration and depth of that facility (e.g., "the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance," p. 1)? What is the current "depth" of the driving range? What percentage of amateur golfers can routinely drive a golf ball that distance? What effects will the expanded depth have on play? What documentation exists that additional depth is, in fact, required to allow for the continuing use of that facility? Since the Initial Study is required to present "a description of the project including the location of the project" (Section 15063[d][1], Guidelines), the Lead Agency's failure to present anything other than a generalized vicinity map fails to provide sufficient information upon which the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project can be assessed. Even the Lead Agency's own Checklist requires the project description to "describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 23 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain ImprovementProject the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation" [emphasis added] (Checklist, p. 1). Without knowing what portion of the project exists "on -site" and what portion of the project exists "off -site," no basis is presented against which the resulting physical changes can be examined. While "the regional location of the site is depicted on Exhibit 1 and the project vicinity on Exhibit 2" (p. 1), why is the project site itself never depicted or illustrated? How does the Lead Agency's failure to accurately illustrate the precise project site "provide more meaningful public disclosure" (Section 2100.1, CEQA)? Since one of "the basic purposes of CEQA" is to "inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant effects of proposed' actions," in the absence of a graphic depicting the project site, how does the Initial Study serve to adequately inform those parties about the geographic area to be impacted? As defined under Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines, "a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project [emphasis added]. Without a detailed exhibit, how are public agencies and the affected public suppose to know the precise boundaries of the "area affected"? Does the "area affected" extend, either directly or indirectly, beyond the 28,000 square foot pond area? Since "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory bird species that are protected by the California Fish and Game Code and Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act" (Biological Study, p. 4), does the "area affected" extend beyond the project site to include impacts upon other nesting areas that will now be impacted through increased demand imposed by a greater number of migratory birds competing for fewer resource areas? Also absent from the projectdescription is any listing of the permits, approval, or other entitlements that are required for project implementation, other than the issuance of a grading permit. In the absence of that information, it is not possible to understand the full extent of the project or the roles, responsibilities, or statutory/regulatory requirements that are applicable to the actions of other Responsible Agencies (e.g., Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act; Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code). Additionally, since no or only minimal information is provided in the Initial Study concerning applicable provisions of the "City of Newport Beach Municipal Code" (Municipal Code), it is not possible to understand local procedures or provisions that apply to the proposed project. For example, is the project subject to site plan review pursuant to Chapfer 20.92 of the Municipal Code? Subject to a use permit or variance pursuant to Chapter 20.91 therein? Is the site located within a plan review overlay district as defined under Chapter 20.55 of the Municipal Code? Is the project located within an open space district as established under Chapter 20.30? The Checklist indicated that the site's General Plan designation is "Recreation/Open Space" and is zoned "Open Space" (Checklist, p, 1). No further discussion of either designation is, however, provided in the Initial Study. In the absence of that information, no factual basis exists to determine the proposed project's consistency or inconsistency therewith. Are there any General Plan policies that deal with the retention of water resources and/or the destruction of existing habitat areas? Where in the Initial Study are those policies cited and the project's consistency therewith examined? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 24 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Relocation of the Putting Green and Potential Future Use of that Site As indicated in the Initial Study, "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green" (p. 1). Although never disclosed, it is assumed that an existing putting green (or other facilities) now exists on the project site whose location will be relocated as part of the proposed project. Should one or more facilities or uses be relocated or otherwise altered as a result of the project's development (e.g., golf cart parking), the relocated facility(ies) as well as the vacated site and the potential future use(s) thereof must be included as part of the project description. Beyond the project site itself, should the project produce, allow, or otherwise facilitate other changes to existing facilities and should those changes allow for the introduction, expansion, alternation, or modification of uses within the totality of the golf course property, those "off -site" areas must be considered as part of the project site and any such "uses" thereupon considered as part of the proposed project. The impacts resulting therefrom must then be identified and evaluated as part of the Initial Study. Will the project allow from the relocation or expansion of any existing or proposed facilities or uses within the golf course? Will the use, or character of any property beyond the lake's boundaries be modified in any way, either now or in the future? What "off -site" changes may occur should the project be implemented? What other areas of the golf course would or could be affected by the proposed project and in what way? What is the planned or potential use for any "off -site" areas that are so affected? What additional physical changes (inclusive of both the physical environment and operational characteristics) could result directly or indirectly from the proposed project? What are the potential impacts that would result therefrom and where in the Initial Study are those impacts now examined? Operational Changes Resulting from the Proposed Physical Changes to the Project Site Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the operational characteristics of the project. Where in the Initial Study are the operational changes of the golf course resulting from the physical improvements to that facility identified and the impacts resulting therefrom examined? It is obvious that the Lead Agency has failed to provide a thorough and adequate project description since the description that is provided deals only with the physical changes to the project site. Since the project is intended for human use, will it result in an "expansion" of existing facilities, and has the potential to alter the operational characteristics of the existing facilities, the Initial Study is defective by failing to describe the operational changes that the project could allow. Beyond the impacts resulting directly from the physical changes to the project site, an entire range of potential indirect impacts will or may result from the subsequent use of the new or expanded facilities that are created. By focusing exclusively on the changes to the physical environment, the Lead Agency has ignored the manner in which the project could induce changes to the type or intensity of use of not only the project site but the entire golf course itself. Since the "project" addressed herein must include both the "direct physical change in the environment" and the "reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment" (Section 15378[a], Guidelines), only one-half of the project is ever described (and subsequently evaluated) in the Initial Study. What are the reasons behind the relocation of 'the putting green and expansion of the driving range? How could the project directly, indirectly, or ultimately alter the operational characteristics of the existing golf course? Does the project result in the elimination, removal, or reduction to some Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 25 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project constraint that currently limits the use of the golf course? Could the project alter or otherwise effect the type, frequency, or intensity of play thereupon? Could the project increase the number or change the character of course users? Could the post -project golf course be used in some fashion which is in any way different from pre -project conditions? Will putting green and driving range use be restricted to specific hours of operation and, if so, what hours of use would be authorized should the proposed project be approved? How many individuals would be on the•project site at any one time and how was that figure determined? Would the project expand or potentially expand the use of the existing golf course? If implemented, could a different level of play occur on the project site since the golf course would then meet specific standards allowing for a change in the way the course is classified or utilized? Could other future uses be conducted on the project site (e.g., golf cart parking)? Uncertainty as to the Proposed Use of the Project Site As indicated in the Initial Study, "the project applicant has indicated that the pond area may potentially be utilized as a putting green area" [emphasis added] (p. 23). From this statement, it appears that the post -project use of the site has yet to be determined or, if determined, is subject to potential future changes that could alter the assumptions and analyses presented in the Initial Study. If there still exists some question as to the end use of the project site or if the applicant (and not the City) is provided discretion concerning the use of that area, the environmental analysis presented in the Initial Study is meaningless unless the City imposes specific conditions of approval that limit the type, intensity, and specific use of that area to reflect the same assumptions as presented therein. Through the Initial Study, the Lead Agency repeatedly tells reviewing agencies and the general public that "the pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth will be expanded to provide additional distance" (Checklist, p. 1). Lost in the text of the Initial Study (p. 23) is the statement that those uses may not, in fact, be developed thereupon but some other unspecified (and unexamined) use may ultimately replace the putting green and driving range. Since there apparently exists no limitations as to the nature of that end use, the site could potentially be converted to a parking lot, golf cart storage area, and/or maintenance area (including the storage of pesticides and fertilizers). Once the lake is destroyed and the area leveled, notwithstanding any declarations as to the intended use, it is apparent that a broad range of other uses could occur thereupon. To the extent that such uses did not involve a discretionary action on the part of the Lead Agency, those *Uses could be implemented without any future environmental review or public notice. To the extent that some use other that a putting green and expansion of the driving range could ever occur thereupon, the project description and subsequent environmental analysis needs to be revised to identify the range of uses that could be developed thereupon and to evaluate the use -specific impacts associated with each of those activities. What is the intendeduse of the project site? Could an alternative use be developed thereupon? Can the Lead Agency guarantee that any change in the proposed use would subject the applicant to a new Initial Study process and full public disclosure of the impacts resulting therefrom? Is it the Lead Agency's intent to impose a condition of approval or require the recordation of deed restrictions that would permanently limit the use of the project site to only that associated with a putting green and driving range use? • • • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 26 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Potential Need to Upgrade other Components of the Drainage System Although the proposed project is identified as the "Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project" (cover), once the Initial Study comes to the question concerning whether the project will "require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects" (p. 26), the totality of the Lead Agency's analysis states: "See response to Section XVI(b) above" (p. 26). That "response" is itself limited to a single paragraph. Absent therefrom is any hydrology or hydraulic study which would serve to define the need for and precise characteristics of the proposed "storm drain improvements." It is inconceivable that a "storm drain project" could be undertaken, much less authorized by the City, absent any engineering studies addressing the proposed improvements. A typical analysis would include the presentation of a hydrology/hydraulic report prepared in conformity to the "Orange County Hydrology Manual" (OCHM). The County requires that impact analysis for hydrology be based on a 100-year expected value discharge (i.e., 50 percent chance that the value would be exceeded in a 100-year flood). Any storm drain project would, logically, include an analysis examining pre -project conditions, project -related impacts, and containing appropriate mitigation measures derived through that site -specific investigation. In the absence of a detailed engineering study, it is not possible to determine whether the existing drainage system, including those components located both upstream and downstream from the project site are presently adequate to accommodate design flows. If those system components are themselves inadequate, it would appear meaningless and potentially hazardous to construct a linking segment that itself is insufficient to accommodate storm flows. Since the project is purporting a "storm drain improvement project," prior to formulating any plans for those facilities (much less releasing a CEQA document), the complete storm drain system would need to be analyzed to identify any additional improvements or modifications to that system that would be required to accommodate the anticipated flow rates. If either the upstream or downstream segment is found to be deficient, the project would need to be expanded to include those additional improvements. As such, this "storm drain improvement project" cannot be examined in isolation of the detailed engineering studies focusing upon the entire watershed. Rather than attempting to piecemeal storm drain improvements, any modifications to that system should conform to the City's "Drainage Area Master Plan" (DAMP). Absent from the Initial Study, however, is any discussion of the project's conformity thereto and any references contained in the DAMP concerning the adequacy of the existing storm drain system within the project area. To the extent that the DAMP or site -specific analysis identified the need for areawide improvements, the storm drain project should be expanded to encompass those improvements and not merely one isolated component thereof. 3.2.2 Aesthetics Referencing Section 21000(b) of CEQA, "it is necessary to provide a high -quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man." As further indicated under Section 21001(b) of CEQA, it is the policy of the State to "take all actions necessary to provide the people of this State with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetics, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise." Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 27 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement • Project It has been noted that "whether in surroundings that are largely natural or largely man-made...the environment, &from being of little account to human personality development, constitutes one of the most basically important ingredients of human psychological existence" (P.F. Smith, The Syntax of Cities). Visual- resources, therefore, include both the natural and man-made physical features that give a particular landscape its character and aesthetic value as an environmental factor. The Initial Study asserts that "the proposed project is not located in an area that contains a scenic vista" (p. 1). In arid 'southern California, a freshwater lake is both a rarity and a resource of significant aesthetic value. To, therefore, assert that the lake is neither a "scenic vista" (p. 1) nor a "scenic resource" (p. 2) would be to suggest that all freshwater resources, wetland areas, and riparian habitats are not valued within this community. What is the Lead Agency's definition of "aesthetics" and from what source document is that definition extracted? What is the City's definition of a "scenic vista" and "scenic resource" and what characteristics must an area exhibit to be so considered? What criteria has the City utilized to evaluate the significance of the proposed change in the site's aesthetic character and what factual basis exists to support the statement that "the •project will not result in substantial adverse significant aesthetic impacts" (p. 1)? Why does the filling of a water body and the destruction of a habitat area not constitute a "substantial adverse significant aesthetic impact"? At what size must a natural or naturalized body of water be before its removal would constitute a significant environmental effect? Would the filling of the Back Bay be a significant impact? The only rationale provided by the Lead Agency for its preliminary findings is that "the project. will be designed so that it's compatible with the adjacent existing Big Canyon Country Club golf course" (pp. 1-2). If "compatibility" with adjacent uses was the sole criteria for assessing the significance of physical changes to the environment, one could argue the removal of an ancient grove of redwood trees could be removed to expand a parking lot used by individuals wishing to view those trees since the expanded parking lot would be compatible with the existing parking facilities. It is the loss of the affected resource (i.e., physical change) and not merely compatibility with other near -site uses that must serve as the basis for assessing the project's aesthetic impacts. As indicate in the "Public Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Dunes Resort," the "increase in development intensity of the site and changes to the aesthetic values of the area will result in significant cumulative impacts to public views in Newport Beach." From this statement, it is evident that the Lead Agency has sought to apply to separate sets of threshold of significance standards to two proximal projects. Since the Lead Agency has established, as a precedence, a determination that "changes to the aesthetic values" of an area "will result in significant cumulative impacts," the Initial Study errors in now asserting that the proposed project will have "no impact" relative to the site's existing scenic resources. What "aesthetic values" does a freshwater lake possess? Does a freshwater lake contain the same or comparable "aesthetic values" as a driving range? Although no such mechanism exists in CEQA and/or in the Guidelines, at least one public agency has attempted to formulate a framework through which this issue can be objectively addressed. The BLM has developed and implements a "visual resource management"(VRM) system designed to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the scenic quality of the nation's public lands, As described in BLM's Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 28 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project publication "Visual Resource Management Program," the VRM system evaluates the quality of existing scenery, takes into account the distance from which that scenery is viewed, and looks at peoples' sensitivity to changes in the landscape. There are seven "key factors" in the BLM rating procedure: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity and cultural modifications. Each of these factors are assigned a particular "score" based on their physical characteristics. Relative to the "water" resources, the VRM assigns a value of 5 to areas possessing "clear and clean appearing, still, or cascading white water, any of which are a dominant factor in the landscape" and a factor of zero to those areas where water is "absent or not noticeable." Relative to "vegetation," the VRM assigns a value of 5 to areas possessing "variety of vegetative types in interesting forms, textures, and patterns" and a one when "little or no variety or contrast in vegetation" exists. Relative to "scarcity," the VRM assigns a value of six to features that are "one of a kind; or unusually memorable; chance for exceptional wildlife or wildflower viewing" and a value of one features that are "interesting within its setting, but fairly common within the region." Based solely on those three indicators, the scenic value of the affected resource is diminished by a factor of 15 and the "scenic quality class" of the affected landscape would diminish a minimum of one if not two class levels. That measurable change would constitute a significant aesthetic change to the project site. Therefore, in accordance with one of the few quantifiable methodologies that are broadly utilized to evaluate aesthetic impacts, the filling of the lake and the removal of the vegetation associated therewith would constitute an unavoidable adverse impact. Since no mitigation measures are now proposed by the Lead Agency, the post -mitigated impact remains significant and requires the Lead Agency to commence the preparation of an EIR. Although the Initial Study acknowledges that "the existing visual character of the site will be altered as a result of the project" (p. 2), the Lead Agency does not attempt to define, describe, or quantify the nature, magnitude, or significance of that alteration or compare the resulting change to any threshold of significance standard. Again, the sole basis for asserting the resulting impact is "less than significant" is the assertion that "the proposed project is compatible with the existing golf course" (p. 2). Under the Lead Agency's own logic, any proposed use that possesses the characteristics of an adjoining use would not produce a significant environmental effect, notwithstanding the physical change that might result therefrom. The mere assertion of "compatibility" does not serve as a substitution for a reasoned analysis of the project's environmental impacts. Even if "compatibility" is asserted, no factual evidence is presented supporting that assertion. From a biological resource perspective, is the post -project environment "compatible" as a replacement habitat for those species that now utilize the lake for all or a portion of their habitat demands? As indicated in Section 15064(d) of the Guidelines, "in evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. ..A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project...An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project but which is caused indirectly by the project." The obvious direct physical change is the filling of the existing pond, the elimination of the existing water resource, the removal of all associated vegetation, and the elimination of surface drainage flows which themselves may have an undisclosed and unaddressed aesthetic value. In place of those features, a level grass area and Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 29 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project paved cart path is proposed. Since the Lead Agency has stated that "changes to the aesthetic values of the area will result in significant cumulative impacts," based on the Lead Agency's.own criteria (although applied to an unrelated project), the resulting impact is obviously significant. Referencing Section 15064(b) of the Guidelines, "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." What scientific and factual data has the Lead Agency utilized to evaluate the potential significance of the physical changes to the project site upon the site's existing aesthetic resources? Since no lighting plan is presented for public review, no factual basis exists to supportthe assertion that "the project does not propose any new lighting" (p. 2). Since a putting green and driving range extension will replace the existing lake, it is reasonable to assume that some form of illumination will be provided for those areas. That lighting could include new lighting fixtures or reorientation of existing lighting. In the absence of an adequate project description, including the presentation of a proposed lighting plan or declaration from the applicant that no new or altered lighting is proposed, upon what basis is the Lead Agency's conclusions derived? Is the issuance of an electrical permit a discretionary or ministerial action in the City? If ministerial, could additional outdoor lighting be added to the project area absent any further CEQA review? If lighting could be subsequently added or modified without further discretionary review and absent any public review, why has the Lead Agency failed to either evaluate potential light impacts or to impose reasonable conditions of approval that would prohibit or regulate such later actions? 3.2.3 Air Quality Pursuant to Section15126.4(a)(3) of the Guidelines, "mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant." Since the Initial Study states that "the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce short-term construction related air quality impacts to a level of less than significant" (pp. 4-5), it can be construed that the post -mitigated impact is deemed by the Lead Agency to be significant. Should the recommended mitigation measures not be adopted or should their efficacy be less than anticipated, significant "short-term construction related air quality impacts" would, therefore, be expected to remain. Since the Lead Agency has failed to quantify the type, amount, or duration of emissions that would be generated by the project, no factual basis exists to compare project -induced emissions to any threshold standards established either by the City or by other public resource agencies (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District). What is the projected construction term? What is the anticipated daily and quarterly quantity of particulate matter (PM,0), carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NO„), and sulfur oxides (SOO) that will be generated by the project during the construction process? How were emission levels determined? What is the anticipated number and type of heavy-duty construction equipment that will be utilized? How many construction employees will be involved in the project's development? How many haul trips will be required for the importation of fill material and exportation of organic and other materials (e.g., "itis anticipated that the project will require exporting debris (concrete from removed cart path] and importing fill material to be placed inthe pond," p. 11)? Where is the "borrow site" from Which fill material will be imported? To what landfill or other disposal site will export material be transported? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 30 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project As defined in Section 15370 of the Guidelines, "'mitigation' includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by. limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." As indicated by the above definition, mitigation does not include compliance with existing laws, standards, and regulations where compliance would otherwise be required notwithstanding the inclusion of a specific mitigation measure obligating the applicant to so perform, the payment of fees which constitute fulfillment of statutory or regulatory requirements or are otherwise imposed by either the Lead or other Responsible Agencies under then existing policies, or actions that are either identified as components of the proposed project or for which the applicant has made a firm commitment to voluntarily implement. As mitigation Of construction -term air quality impacts, the Lead Agehcy merely obligates the applicant to comply with those existing regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) that are already obligations upon the project (i.e., Rule 402 and Rule 403 compliance). Since compliance with SCAQMD regulations are already factored into the analysis of air quality impacts (e.g., one cannot assume a violation of the law as a basis for analysis and compliance with the law as mitigation for the resulting impact), in reality, no mitigation has been proposed by the applicant. In the absence of mitigation, the project's air quality impacts must be assumed to remain significant. Under CEQA, there must exist a "nexus" (Section 15041 [a], Guidelines) or relationship between the mitigation measures which are established and the impacts that will result from the project's development. The two mitigation measures identified by the Lead Agency seek to reduce "fugitive dust" and "odor from construction activities" (p. 5). By their inclusion, the Lead Agency appears to be stating that fugitive dust impacts and construction odors are either significant or potentially significant. No attempt to quantify fugitive dust and odors, however, has been made by the Lead Agency. What is the precise quantity of fugitive dust that will be generated by the project and how was that figure determined? What is the precise quantity of construction odors, including the specific composition of those odors, and how was that figure determined? What is the threshold of significance standards that the Lead Agency has utilized to assess fugitive dust and odor impacts? How are odor impacts measured? In order to protect public health, in 1983, the State Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of toxic air contaminants (TAC) and to reduce exposure to those contaminants. In August 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate emissions'from diesel -fueled engines as TACs. Preliminary estimates indicate that the particulate (PM) emissions from diesel -fueled engines are the most significant toxic risk faced by the State's residents. In November 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published an assessment (updating previous 1994 and 1998 studies) of possible health hazards from human exposure to diesel engine exhaust emissions. The 1999 report focused on health hazard identification and dose - response analysis of diesel PM for the purpose of characterizing the risk of diesel exhaust exposure. The USEPA concluded that diesel exhaust is "highly likely" to be carcinogenic. Epidemiological studies suggest that lung cancer increases about 33-47 percent in occupational exposures to diesel exhaust. The USEPA concluded that the level of cancer hazard is also applicable to ambient exposure. • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 31 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Two classes of possible health effects are addressed in the USEPA report: nonmalignant respiratory effects and carcinogenic effects. The USEPA confirmed its earlier findings on the non -cancer effects of ambient PM, such as increased mortality and morbidity, and its recommended chronic exposure level without appreciable hazard for diesel particulates. What fuel source will be used to power heavy-duty construction equipment? Will diesel fuels be utilized? Ate diesel emissions the potentially significant impact that the Lead Agency's mitigation measures (i.e., "during construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, to reduce odors from construction activities," p. 5) seek to minimize? Where in the Initial Study are the potential health risks associated with exposure to diesel PM addressed? In the absence of any disclosure on the part of the Lead Agency, the following independent air quality analysis is provided. The ARB's URBEMIS7 computer model includes both construction and. operational emissions for assessing the impacts of a proposed project. The URBEMIS7 model sets default values for construction equipment operations. As a default, URBEMIS7G will assume that one tracked loader, one wheeled loader, and one motor grader (all diesel powered) would be needed for each 10 acres of land disturbed. That is, for any amount of land disturbance up to 10 acres, those three pieces of equipment would each be used for 8 hours per day. For the purposes of this analysis a water truck (to assist in dust control) is also included among the equipment associated with the project's construction. Although the number of haul trips are never disclosed, the Initial Study states that "500 cubic yards of excavation, 18,000 cubic yards of embankment, and 17,500 cubic yards of import fill material" (p. 11). If grading operations are assumed to take up to 30 days to complete and if each haul truck is assumed to transport only 9 cubic yards of soil, as many as 66 truck trips could be generated on a daily basis (18,000 _ 30 + 9 — 66.6). Each truck is assumed to have a round trip of 50 miles. Associated emissions are based on the average emissions per mile as predicted in the MVEI7G model. Based on those assumptions, emissions projections for this construction equipment are included below. As indicated therein, NOx emissions could exceed the SCAQMD's threshold of significance standard, producing a potentially significant impact. Source CO NOx , ROG SOx PM1a Track Loader 1.6 6.6 0.8 0,6 0.5 Wheel Loader 4.6 15.2 1.8 1.5 1.4 Motor Grader 1.2 5.7 0.3 0.7 0:5 Water Truck 2.9 6.3 1.8 0.7 0.4 Haul Trucks 56.1 79.9 7.9 3.8 9.4 Fugitive Dust - - - - 25.0 Total Daily Emissions 67.5 113.7 15.2 7.3 37.2 SCAQMD Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 Projected to Exceed Threshold ? No YES No No No Since the above estimates do not include worker trips, actual emissions would be anticipated to be even higher. The above information constitutes substantial evidence that the project will directly Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 32 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project produce a significant air quality impact. Since no measures have even been formulated by the Lead Agency to address NOx emissions, the resulting impacts will remain significant. Based on that non -disclosure and the analytical limitations resulting therefrom, the City is precluded from asserting that the above assumptions are not consistent with the proposed project. The above assumptions are based on the default values of the computer models and, therefore, represent reasonable and defensible assumptions that can and should be used in the absence of specific project information. Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of other projects that could combine with the proposed activity to generate cumulative environmental effects. As indicated in the Lead Agency's own "Public Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Dunes Resort" (NOA) "construction emissions from airborne dust and heavy equipment will result in short-term adverse impacts. Also, operation of the proposed hotel and time-share resort will result in significant cumulative contributions of vehicle and operational emissions in a non -attainment area." From this statement, it is evident that other reasonably foreseeable future projects now in process within the City will either individually or collectively generate significant air quality impacts." Notwithstanding this public declaration, the Initial Study erroneously asserts that "the project will not result in any significant impacts cumulatively to air quality" (p. 5). This statement is reputed by the Lead Agency's own NOA. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is currently out -of -attainment for both ozone (03) and PMto (e.g., "the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin that is a designated non -attainment area," p. 5). Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality within the SCAB. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities cnat occur separately or simultaneously. In accordance with the SCAQVMD methodology, any project that produces a significant air quality impact that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level in an area that is out of attainment adds to the cumulative impact. Since the project will itself generate significant air quality impacts, the project's contribution to those cumulative emissions produced by all reasonably foreseeable future projects will be cumulatively significant. The Lead Agency mistakenly asserts that nearby residences are not "sensitive receptors" when it comes to potential air quality impacts (i.e., "the project is not located in an area that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations," p. 5). Since those homes located directly adjacent to the project site are mischaracterized as not containing "sensitive receptors," no analysis of air quality impacts thereupon are even presented in the Initial Study (i.e., "it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to sensitive receptors," p. 5). Nowhere in the Initial Study does the Lead Agency even disclose the proximity between adjoining homes and the construction site. Since separation distances are never stated and since air quality impacts upon children playing in rear yard areas or elderly residents are examined, other than through the statement that "dust generated by such activities is considered a local nuisance" (p. 4), no basis exists to support the conclusion that the project will produce "no impacts" relative to the exposure of "sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations" (p. 5). At its nearest location, what is the separation distance between the construction site and adjoining residential property lines (e.g., "beyond the pond area, there is...single-family homes to the north," p. 6)? What potential health impacts could result from exposure to air emissions? Are certain groups (e.g., children and elderly) more susceptible to those health hazards? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 33 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 3.2.4 Biological Resources As indicated in Section 15065(b) of the Guidelines, a project shall be deemed to produce a significant effect on the environment if "the project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals." Nowhere is that stipulation more evident than in the context of the project's proposed elimination of an existing sustainable habitat area and its replacement by a putting green and extension to an existing driving range (both of which have no habitat value). As indicated in the Initial Study, "the project site was visited by a biologist from Psomas on April 6, 2000" (p. 6). From this statement, it can be concluded that only a single site visit by a biologist was conducted and serves as the basis for the Lead Agency's biological assessment. As evident in the "field survey form" contained in Appendix 1 of the Biological Study (included as Appendix B in the Initial Study), the biologist was only actually on the site for only two hours (i.e., 10:30 AM to 12:40 PM). The entire biological assessment is, therefore, based on an extremely limited period of observation (Le., single day for only two hours). During that same two hour period, the same biologist was conducting the wetland delineation. Therefore, much of that time appears to have devoted to other than a biological assessment of the project area. Actual time spent in investigating biological resources was, in all likelihood, even Tess than indicated. As further indicated therein, "database searches showed 42 sensitive or special status species of animals and 21 sensitive or special status species of plants that occur within the general region of the proposed project. Because of the lack of suitable habitat in the already existing development, it is not expected that any of these special plants or animals are present at the proposed project site" (Appendix B, p. 4). The list of "sensitive or special status species," however, is never disclosed so no basis exists to independently determine whether the biologist's assessment (i.e., "lack of suitable habitat") is accurate or whether certain species could even be observed within the limited field investigation (e.g.; "the survey was conducted outside of the reproductive season for the cattails and bulrushes, therefore, any confirmed species identification for these genera was not possible," Appendix B, p. 2). Additionally, no reference is provided whether any of those species are aquatic and would be extirpated from the site should the project be developed as now proposed. Again, the Lead Agency has failed to disclose information critical to an understanding of the project's potential impacts. Many species (e.g., California gnatcatchers, least Bell's vireo) have established survey "protocols" that must be followed in order to determine the presence or absence of those species. Many of those protocols require multiple site inspections over extended time periods during certain times of the year. Clearly, based on a single site visit, no supportable basis exists to definitively conclude the presence or absence of those species (e.g., "it is probable that other species such as small mammals and reptiles occur; however, no sign of these species was found during the survey" [emphasis added], Appendix B, p 2; "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory bird. species" [emphasis added], Appendix B, p. 4). Why has the Lead Agency failed to identify those "42 sensitiveor special status species of animals and 21 sensitive or special status species of plants that occur within the general region"? How does the non -disclosure of that information promote informed decision making? How does that non -disclosure • • • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 34 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project facilitate public review and independent validation of the Lead Agency's preliminary findings? What are the "42 sensitive or special status species of animals" and the "21 sensitive or special status species of plants"? The Initial Study asserts that "the pond is an isolated feature located within the golf course and it is not associated with any wildlife corridors" (p. 7). Again, the Lead Agency presents an unsupported statement absence any factual basis. Those individuals who live in the area can attest to the fact that a broad array of wildlife does, in fact, utilize the golf course as a wildlife corridor. A number of terms have been used in various wildlife movement studies to refer to areas in which wildlife move from one area to another. Those terms include: (1) "travel routes" are landscape features (e.g., ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites); (2) "wildlife corridors" are pieces of habitat, usually linear in nature, that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another; (3) "habitat or landscape linkages" provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species; and (4) "wildlife crossings" are small, narrow area, relatively short in length and generally constricted in nature, that allows wildlife to pass under or through an obstacle or barrier that otherwise hinders or prevents movement. Although the site may not be a "wildlife corridor," it clearly serves as part of a "travel route" that provides wildlife access to food and water resources. To off-handedly disregard the site's habitat role, therefore, ignores the empirical evidence that now exists. As previously indicated, "mitigation" neither includes mere compliance with existing laws and regulations nor fulfillment of obligations otherwise required by the applicant absent those measures. Although the Initial Study states that "the project is subject to compliance of the regulatory permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Code Section 1603) will be required for the project" [emphasis added] (p. 7), as mitigation, the Lead Agency requires compliance with the same regulations. As a result, all such mitigation measures are illusory since they impose no additional obligations upon the applicant. To be both enforceable and of some benefit, mitigation measures must be feasible. Although the Initial Study includes a mitigation measure requiring the off -site replacement of those wetland areas and jurisdictional waters impacted by the project (i.e., "the total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a 'no net loss' minimum ratio," p. 7), no conceptual mitigation plan has been presented indicating that such replacement is feasible, will occur within a reasonable time frame, and will not result in other indirect impacts that would then need to be examined in the project's Initial Study. It is not sufficient to merely indicate that replacement resources will be required. The City shall require the applicant to prepare and submit (and disclose for agency and public review), the applicant's precise plan for the provision of those replacement resources. Since a project constitutes the "whole of the action," why would the actual mitigation plan not be considered an integral component of the project? What is the applicant's proposed mitigation plan for impacts to wetland areas and jurisdictional waters? Why has the City not required the applicant to submit a conceptual mitigation plan and to include that plan in the Initial Study? As required under Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the Guidelines, "if a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 35 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." In the absence of the applicant's disclosure of the conceptual mitigation plan, what basis exists upon which the Lead Agency can evaluate the potential impacts of the above referenced mitigation, measure? What are the potential impacts that may result therefrom? As further mitigation of the project's biological impacts, the Initial Study states that "the project applicant in consultation with a qualified biologist shall relocate the trees and vegetation (i.e., cattails and bulrushes) that provide roosting sites for the black -crowned night -heron to other ponds on the golf course" (p. 8). First, cattails and bulrushes do not offer "rooster sites for the black -crowned night - heron"; therefore, no relocation of that vegetation would likely result from the above mitigation measure. Secondly, since no plant inventory has been conducted and no landscape plan submitted, there exists no basis to precisely know what is being required hereunder. What is the type, size, and location of all "trees and vegetation" that must relocated? Can a site map be provided that illustrates the current location of each of those "trees and vegetation"? Since the Biological Study states that "the -California Department of Fish and Game usually defines the breeding season aas (sic) March 1-August 31" (Appendix B, p. 4), why has the Lead Agency not imposed a condition restricting all site disturbance during that time period? Since "the pond vegetation may provide nesting habitat for one or more common migratory bird species" (Appendix B, p. 4), why is the above referenced mitigation measure restricted solely to impacts upon "black -crowned night heron"? Golf courses often use large quantities of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Many golf courses, in fact, use more pesticides per acre than do agricultural lands. Once applied, pesticides can be transported to different locations via a number of different ways, including: (1) aerial drift and evaporation from application sites; (2) deposition of airborne pesticides; (3) transportation through the food chain; and (4) irrigation or rainwater runoff. In "Disrupting the Balance: Ecological Impacts of Pesticides in California," Dr. Susan Kegley states that: An estimated 672 million birds are exposed to pesticides every year in the United States from agricultural pesticide use alone. An estimated ten percent, or 67 million of these birds die. The loss of even a few individuals from rare, endangered, or threatened species - for example, burrowing owls, Aleutian Canada geese, or raptors like the bald eagle, Swainson's hawk, and the peregrine falcon - pushes the entire species that much closer to extinction. Research and observations have documented that: The insecticides diazinon and carbofuran are responsible for most documented bird kills in California.. .Organochlorine pesticides (like DDT) continue to impair avian reproduction, years after most organochlorine pesticide use was discontinued, ..Birds exposd'd to sublethal doses of pesticides are afflicted with chronic symptoms that affect their behavior, reproduction and nervous system. Weight loss, increased susceptibility to predation, decreased disease resistance, lack of interest in mating and defending territory, and abandonment of nestlings have all been observed as side -effects of pesticide exposures...In an ecosystem that is already stressed from too many dams, diversion of water to farms and cities, and invasion of exotic species, the influx of toxic pesticides int California streams, sloughs, rivers, and bays is particularly damaging to many aquatic species. Several well documented facts emerge from recent studies on pesticides and aquatic organisms in California. Multiple pesticides are commonly found in California waters and • • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 36 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project sediment, frequently at concentrations that exceed lethal levels for many species of zooplankton, small organisms eaten by fish. ..Toxic pulses of pesticides are a routine occurrence in California rivers, as stormwater and irrigation runoff carry pesticides from urban and agricultural areas into surface waters...Broad-spectrum pesticides such as the organophosphorus, cabamate, and organnochlorine insecticides destroy both pest and beneficial organisms indiscriminately, upsetting the balance between pest and predator insects...Research and experience have shown that: Beneficial organisms serve many valuable functions in an agricultural ecosystem, including pollination, soil aeration, nutrient cycling, and pest control. Application of insecticides indiscriminately kills pests and beneficial organisms. Pest populations often recover rapidly because of their large numbers and ability to develop resistance, but beneficial insects do not, resulting in a resurgence of the target pest as well as secondary pests that reproduce rapidly with no predators to check their number. Resistance and resurgence often lead to escalation of pesticide applications, resulting in pests with even greater resistance to pesticides. Proposed is the elimination of an existing riparian habitat area and the development of the site as an active golf course area. Since those wildlife species that have historically utilized the site for all or a portion of their habitat requirements will, in all likelihood, not read the Initial Study, their continued presence on the site may occur as they search for historic nesting and feeding areas. What they will find, however, is a loss of habitat area and potential exposure to lethal or sublethal doses of pesticides. No discussion of this potential impacts is, however, provided anywhere in the Initial Study. Sublethal doses, chronic exposure, and indirect effects on aquatic organisms resulting from pesticide contamination have been recognized, despite difficulties in direct measurements. The scientific community believed that wildlife affected at sublethal levels die of exposure, predation, starvation, or dehydration. Behavioral modifications resulting from exposure may include learning impairment and reproductive effects, such as reducing nestling feeding and nest attentiveness from pesticide intoxication, reduced egg production, reduced litter sizes, low fledgling weights, and decreased post - fledgling survival. Reduced visual acuity, hypothermia, and reduced immune response resistance also have been observed. Loss of appetite is a common factor in pesticide exposure. This is particularly significant for birds and mammals with high metabolic rates. Although the project addresses only a portion of the golf course, the golf course's entire operation should be the subject of this investigation. As a condition of approval, if the golf course's historic practices have been potentially destructive to wildlife, the Lead Agency should mandate changes to those practices as a means of potentially compensating for the lost of a valuable habitat resource. While the Initial Study acknowledges that "the site contains riparian vegetation" (p. 8) and suggests that the relocation of vegetation "to other ponds on the golf course" (p. 8) constitutes adequate mitigation for those impacts, the Lead Agency fails to either understand or recognize the finite carrying capacity of natural systems. The relocation of plants will, in all likelihood, have minimal benefits in compensating for the permanent loss of a habitat area. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either be diminished or will be displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they may overcrowd, disrupt, and compete with the existing local population. Increased competition and predation may act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels. This may result in a net loss of wildlife. The severity of Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 37 'BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project the resulting impact is dependent upon the relative importance ofhabitats, the abundance and diversity of wildlife that these habitat areas support, the availability of these habitats in surrounding areas, and the habitat dependency of associated wildlife. Project implementation, therefore, can be expected to produce an overall reduction in wildlife populations. No recognition of or mitigation for this impact is, however, provided in the Initial Study. Causal factors generated by human activities are collectively termed "harassment." Harassment is defined as those activities of man that increase the physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction in wildlife populations. The most common forms of harassment include increased human presence, construction and background noise, light intrusion, the introduction of non-native species (e.g., ornamental plants), and the introduction of environmental contaminants. The effects of harassment manifest primarily on wildlife. These predominately occur through habitat degradation. Although the impacts of harassment are not as complete as total habitat removal, they can nonetheless be significant. Wildlife exhibit varying degrees of resilience and sensitivity to these impacts. While some species are generally highly tolerant, other species are affected with very little apparent disturbance. Where in the Initial Study is there any discussion of the potential harassment to remaining wildlife that would be anticipated should the site be developed? Which of the "42 sensitive or special status species of animals" are potentially susceptible to the effects of increased harassment? 3.2.5 Geology & Soils As indicated in the Initial Study, "compliance with the City's Excavation and Grading Code will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level" (p. 11). As required under Chapter 15.10.060 (Grading Permit Requirements) of the Municipal Code, "no person shall do any grading without first obtaining a permit from the Building Official." As a result, it is evident that the above code provision constitutes a mandatory obligation upon the applicant. Notwithstanding this requirement, the Lead Agency requires compliance as a mitigation measure (i.e, "during construction activities, the project shall comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance," p. 11). As further required in Chapter 15.10.060(C) of the Municipal Code, "each application fora grading permit or building permit shall be accompanied by two sets of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology report, or other needed documents. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer when required by the Building Official." Since a "soils engineering and engineering geology report" is already required under the Municipal Code, why would that same requirement be recommended as a mitigation measure (i.e., "prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation," p. 11)? How could the application for a grading permit be "deemed complete" in the absence of the applicant's submittal of a "soil engineering and engineering geology report"? How could the CEQA process commence prior to the development application being "deemed complete"? As indicated in above referenced code citation "each application for a grading permit shall be accompanied by two sets of plans and specifications." Since 'the applicationisa request to permit the approval of a grading permit" (p. 1), pursuant to City requirements, a grading plan and accompanying engineering report must have already been submitted to the City. Why was the grading "plan and • • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 38 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project specifications, and supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology report" not referenced in the Initial Study or made available for public and agency review? How does the Lead Agency's sequestering of that potentially critical information fulfill the City's disclosure obligations under CEQA? If a geotechnical investigation has already been submitted, why would that obligation be identified as a mitigation measure in the Initial Study? If no geotechnical investigation has, however, been submitted, the Lead Agency's failure to require such study (when required under the provisions of the Municipal Code at the time the application is submitted) constitutes deferral of critical analysis to a later time period, beyond the disclosure and public review opportunities provided under the CEQA process, when such information would have limited benefit in terms of influencing the actions of the Lead Agency and other Responsible Agencies concerning the approval, conditional approval, or denial of the proposed project. Since "a public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEQA" (Section 15020, Guidelines), the Lead Agency is precluded from deferring an analysis of potentially significant project -related impacts until after the project is approved or conditionally approved. The Lead Agency's failure to examine potential project -related and cumulative impacts resulting from the project's construction and operation is clearly inconsistent with the CEQA obligation to "focus [the analysis] on the significant effects on the environment" (Section 15143, Guidelines) and "to provide more meaningful public disclosure" (Section 21002.1(e), CEQA) of the project's potential effects. As indicated in the Initial Study, "the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan does designate the project area as a high potential for landslides" (p. 12). Without further study or investigation, the Lead Agency then concludes that "the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with landslides" (p. 12). Since no analysis is provided in support of that conclusion and since the information required to support or refute the Lead Agency's preliminary findings (e.g., geotechnical investigation) has been deferred to a later date, not only can the conclusion not be supported by any factual information but the feasibility of the entire project must be brought into question when substantial remedial work could be required to eliminate those identified hazards. The Lead Agency further states that "the project is not located on expansive soil as defined per the Uniform Building Code" (p. 13). Since no soils report has been prepared or referenced in the Initial Study, no factual basis exists to support that statement. None of the documents cited in the Initial Study (Checklist, p. 16) would provide sufficient site -specific information to allow the City to make such a definitive statement. Based on the documents cited in the Initial Study, from what document (include page and paragraph citations) is the above statement derived? Referencing Section 3309.5 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), "the soils engineering report required by Section 3309.4 shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures, including buttress fills, when necessary, and opinion on adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading as affected by soils engineering factors, including the stability of slopes." Only through the preparation of a detailed site -specific soils investigation can the Lead Agency made such definitive statement. Has a soils engineering report, as required under Section 2209.4 of the UBC, been prepared and submitted to the head Agency? If yes, on what date was that document received and why was that study not included or referenced in the Initial Study? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 39 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project As a result, the Lead Agency is precluded from deferring the preparation of a reasonable analysis of project -related environmental effects to later stages in the development process. This deferral of environmental assessment until after project approval violates CEQA's policy that impacts be identified before project momentum reduces or eliminates the agency's flexibility to subsequently change its course of action. In order to ensure a reasonable analysis of the project, the City must immediately commence the preparation or require submission of a geotechnical investigation and include that information in a new and recirculated Initial Study. The above referenced mitigation measure, as most of the measures presented in the Initial Study, are merely restatements of adopted public policy (e.g., "a mitigation measure is presented in Section VI[a][I] requiring compliance with applicable local and State building codes," p. 1) and do not establish any new requirements upon the applicant. All such measures are illusory and only serve to misrepresent the actual mitigation that is now being recommended. Through there inclusion, an unsuspecting public is led to believe that actual mitigation is being proposed when little, if any, mitigation -will actual result should the MND be adopted as now proposed. Was a draft copy of the Initial Study. prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for their review? If yes, where can a copy of the applicant's draft Initial Study be reviewed? What changes thereto were made by the City prior to the Lead Agency's release of the Initial Study? 3.2.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials In order to ascertain the potential impacts associated with a proposed action, the Guidelines contain a checklist that has been generally incorporated as the form upon which the Initial Study has been developed. In addressing the potential exposure of site users to hazardous materials, the Checklist directs the Lead Agency to determine whether the project will "be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which [sic] complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5" (p. 14). Typically, in order to determine- whether the site is located upon or proximal to such properties, a Phase I environmental site assessment is conducted. No such study, however, has been conducted for the proposed project. In lieu of any reasonable analysis, supported by factual information, the Lead Agency merely concludes that "the site is not on a list of hazardous material sites" (p. 14). Was a Phase I environmental site assessment conducted for the project site? In the absence of that analysis, what factual basis was utilized by the Lead Agency to support that conclusion? Since a proximal hazardous material site could produce off -site impacts, are there any hazardous material sites located within a one -mile radius of the project site and from what source is that information derived? 3.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality As indicated in the Initial Study, "to ensure that storm runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, mitigation measures in compliance with said City regulations will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level" (pp. 15-16). The corresponding mitigation measure (i.e., Mitigation Measure No. 8) states that "the project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" (p. 16). Is compliance with those obligations voluntary or mandatory? If mandatory, what additional obligations are imposed upon the applicant by the above referenced mitigation measure? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 40 • • • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Since no further obligations result therefrom, the mitigation measure included in the Initial Study neither constitutes a mitigation measure under CEQA nor will it produce any benefits•relative to a reduction or avoidance of the project's potential impacts (beyond that level which would be anticipated absent that measure). Unlined, open water bodies, such as the on -site lake, provide an effective means of recharging underground aquifers. In beach areas, such as the City, maintaining groundwater levels is critical to avoid saltwater intrusion into those basins. It must be assumed that the freshwater infiltration in the vicinity of the lake plays some (albeit minor) role in groundwater recharge. Elimination of that lake would, therefore, eliminate any localized or regional benefits resulting therefrom. In the absence of any technical information or supporting studies, the Lead Agency concludes that "the project will not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge" (p. 16). What is the factual basis for that assertion? Have any hydrogeologic studies been performed to determine the existing rate of infiltration? What is the porosity of existing soils and from what source document was that information determined? With the elimination of standing water, with the reconfiguration of the site's topography to prevent the future ponding of water, and with the conveyance of stormwaters via underground pipelines (e.g., "instead of water flowing through the existing pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed underground," p. 15), what quantitative change in groundwater infiltration from the project site can be anticipated? In the absence of that analysis, what factual basis can be cited to support the Lead Agency's preliminary conclusions? Although "the project will result in a change to the drainage pattern of the site" (p. 16), the Initial Study concludes that "it is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impact on groundwater" (p. 16). What quantitative, qualitative, or performance -based standard has the Lead Agency applied or sought to apply to determine the significance or potential significance of any diminishment in the quantity or quality of infiltrating into the groundwater basin? With the elimination of the pond and the construction of a putting green on the project site, substantial quantities of fertilizers and pesticides will be applied in order to maintain the turf conditions required for that facility. Greens typically receive more intensive chemical treatment that fairways or roughs. Although application rates and frequencies vary with the course and condition, greens typically receive fertilizer application between eight and twenty times per year, whereas fairway application typically range from twice to eight times annually. Other soil amendments (e.g., gypsum, wetting agents) and herbicides are applied to greens on an "as needed" basis. -Fungicides and insecticides are typically used only on greens. Under certain conditions (e.g., sand soil, low soil organic matter [< 1 percent], high precipitation, high groundwater table), groundwater contamination is possible and has been documented at a number of the nation's golf courses. Citing a recent article in the July -August 1998 issue of "Audubon Magazine": Amid increasing evidence of water and wildlife contamination, many of the chemicals [used in golf course maintenance] were taken off the market. After the deaths of hundreds of brant on Long Island, in New York, were linked to misapplications of the insecticide Diazinon on nearby courses, the product was prohibited for golf course use in 1990 (although it is still available at garden -supply stores). Fish kills linked Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 41 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement,Project What is the relationship between the "Final Program EIR - City Of Newport Beach General Plan" and all later development activities that occur within the City? Were any program -level mitigation measures adopted by the City upon certification of that EIR? Are there any programmatic mitigation measures presented in the "Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan" that encourage the preservation of the site's existing natural or naturalized resources and, if so, specifically what measures are cited therein? 3.2.9 Noise The Lead Agency asserts that "future on -site noise impacts will not significantly differ from those which now exist" (p. 19). Not only does that statement appear incorrect, but it further demonstratesithe Lead Agency's failure to consider the operational impacts that may result from the site's development. As indicated in the Initial Study, "single-family homes are located...about 30 feet above the pond's water line" (p. 10). Those adjoining home owners are currently buffered from noise associated with golf course operations as a result of the presence of the existing lake. With the lake's elimination, separation distance between operational noises and those sensitive receptors will be reduced substantially. Since the Initial Study lacks any discussion of either the existing or post -project operational characteristics of the golf course and since no site plan has been included in the Initial Study that would allow an accurate measurement of the separation distance between the putting green, extended driving range, and existing homes, the Lead Agency has failed to present information critical to both an understanding of those impacts and sufficient to allow the preparation of an independent acoustical analysis that would serve to document the change between pre- and post -project conditions. In lieu of a reasonable analysis, the Lead Agency again merely presents unsubstantiated conclusions relative to the project's potential impacts. Additionally, since the "standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance" (p. 19) are never presented, the public is not provided the yardstick that the Lead Agency has sought to utilize to determine the potential significance of the resulting change. From the information presented in the Initial Study, it is apparent than no acoustical analysis of any type was performed, no field measures conducted to ascertain pre -project conditions, no analysis conducted of short-term (construction) noise impacts, and no investigation conducted to determine the changes to the post -project environment. Again, without any factual basis, the Lead Agency claims that, although "the proposed project will generate a temporary increase in traffic associated with construction activities," the resulting "increase is minimal due to the limited size of the project" (p. 20). The greatest potential construction -term noise source relates to the use of heavy equipment associated with grading` operations. While never disclosed in the Initial Study, it isevident that grading will occur within 30 feet of adjoining residences. The City, however, asserts that the difference in noise levels associated with a tranquil pond and those associated with heavy construction equipment is "minimal." In accordance with Appendix G of the Guidelines the Lead Agency's own Checklist, a project would be deemed to produce a significant noise impact if the project would produce "a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project" (p. 20). Although the term "substantial increase" is not explicitly -defined therein, a reasonable threshold can be formulated based on that increase required to be audible'by most individuals. The human ear can detect changes in sound levels of approximately three dBA under normal conditions. • Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 43 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Changes of between one and three dBA may be notable under quiet conditions, while changes of less than one dBA are only discernable under controlled, extremely quiet conditions. Based•on that level of audibility, an increase of 3 dB CNEL or more is used by most agencies as the basis for defining a "substantial increase" and thus defining a significant acoustical impact. Temporary construction noise impacts will vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely.as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The greatest noise levels associated with construction activities are generated by large earth -moving equipment. The noise produced by an assemblage of heavy equipment involved in residential development typically range up to about 89 dBA at 50 feet from the source (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noisefrom Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971). Noise levels at the nearest receptors will, therefore, be on the order of 89 dBA during construction. In the absence of a field measurement of ambient conditions (which should have been presented in the Initial Study), a reasonable assumption is that existing noise levels are on the order of 55 dBA at those receptor locations. As a result, during construction, adjoining home owners may experience an increase in short-term noise levels of over 40 dBA. Because of the available of mitigation measures (e.g., temporary noise barriers), these impacts cannot be disregarded merely because they may be of short-term duration or simply "by limiting the hours of construction through provisionscontainedin the City Noise Control Regulation? (pp. 20-21). Notwithstanding this preexisting obligation, the Lead Agency continues to assert that compliance with existing laws and regulations constitutes mitigation under CEQA (see Mitigation Measure No. 9, p. 21). At best, they serve as mere reminders of the applicant's preexisting obligations, compliance with which is already mandated under separate provisions of law. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to examine the physical changes that will occur should the project be approved. Relative to construction noise, the actual impact represents a significant short-term increase in on -site and near -site noise levels. The Lead Agency cannot merely disregard those actual impacts merely be stating that the hours of construction operations will conform to the City's Noise Ordinance. If that was all that was required to mitigate construction -term noise impacts, then there would never exist a need to conduct acoustical analysis as part of any CEQA documentation. Since noise continues to be one of the factors listed in Appendix G of the Guidelines (and the Lead Agency's own Checklist), it is evident that the intent of the State Legislature was to seek to mitigate both short-term and long-term noise intrusion. Based on on -site field measurements, what is the existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residential property boundary? On what dates were those reading conducted and what were the conditions evident at that time? Were measurements conducted the property boundaries? How far will further uses be set back from the property line and what activities could occur both within the setback and active use area? What types and numbers of heavy construction equipment will be required for the project's construction? What is the distance between the nearest residential property line and the edge of grading? What increase in noise levels, in decibels, will occur during grading and how was that figure determined? In assessing noise impacts, what is the Lead Agency's threshold standards, in decibels, against which significance is evaluated? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 44 BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 3.2.10 Utilities and Service Systems Throughout the Initial Study, the Lead Agency incorporates mitigation measures where none are, in fact, required or needed while Ignoring the inclusion of mitigation measures where such measures may reduce or eliminate the project's significant impacts. For example, in addressing whether the project will result in new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities (which appear not to be a part of the proposed project),. the Lead Agency concludes that "no irnpacts" will result from the project's development but nonetheless imposesa mitigation measure (Le., Mitigation Measure No. 11) requiring the applicant to "coordinate with utility and service organizations" (p. 26). If there is no significant or potentially significant impact, then there exists no mitigation obligations and no "nexus" between the identified impact and the project's conditions of approval (Section 1594114 Guidelines), The referenced mitigation measure, however, gives rise to additional concerns and further suggests the non -disclosure of the project's potential impacts by the Lead Agency. As indicated therein, coordination with other utility purveyors is required "to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies" (emphasis added) (p. 26), To the extent that the proposed project results in, facilitates, or otherwise accommodates an "expansion" of existing infrastructure systems, the indirect and growth.inducing impacts associated with the removal of existing development constraints needs to be examined as a project component. What Is surprising is that, based on the above referenced mitigation measure, infrastructure improvement plans have yet to be finalized. Notwithstanding the absence of information critical to a reasonable assessment of the proposed project, the Lead Agency has nonetheless embarked upon the preparation of this Initial Study which, at best, Is incomplete pending the finalization of those plans and, at worse, represents an Inaccurate and potentially erroneous assessment of the project's potential impacts. Will any existing infrastructure systems, services, or facilities be "expanded" either as a direct or indirect consequence of the project? Has the Lead Agency initiated any consultation with those "utility and service organizations" that maintain existing facilities in the general project area in order to determine the project's impacts thereupon? Since the project description contains no discussion of any "expansion or relocation of facilities," precisely what such facilities are part of the proposed project? Where are those facilities located and what changes thereto are anticipated between pre- and post• protect conditions? Absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of the relevance of Chapter 15.50 (Flood Damage Prevention) of the Municipal Code to the proposed project. As required under Chapter15.50.040 (Methods of Reducing Flood Losses) of the Municipal Code, "in order to accomplish its purpose, this chapter includes methods and provisions to: (1) Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities; (2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flooddamage at the timetof initial construction; (3) Controlling the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters; (4) Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and (5) Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas," Initial Study k Mttiptad Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 45 • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project As further indicated in Chapter15.50.080 (Compliance), "no structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations." Absent from the Initial Study is any reference to these provisions (e.g., control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels). Clearly, these provisions are or may be applicable to the project. If applicable, should the proposed improvements serve as an impediment to the conveyance of flood waters, the proposed action would be In direct violation of these code provisions. Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 15.50.180 (Alteration of Watercourses) of the Municipal Code, "the Flood Plain Administrator shall: (1) Notify adjacent communities and the Department of Water Resources of the State of California prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal InsuranceAdministration, Federal Emergency Management Agency; [and] (2) Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained." No such notification of analysis of "flood carrying capacity" appears to have been initiated either by the applicant or the lead Agency. Although the Initial Study states that the project itself will not have any impact on solid waste disposal needs once the project is complete" (emphasis added) (p. 27), absent from the Initial Study is any discussion of construction -term impacts. As indicated elsewhere in the Initial Study, the project will require the removal of existing vegetation, the exportation of organic and other materials which are non -conducive to retention as part of the proposed grading operation, and removal and exportation of portions of the existing golf cart path. Notwithstanding the generation of these wastes, the Initial Study falls to contain any discussion of the type or quantity of those wastes, the potential to recycle or recover those materials, the mandatory source reduction and recycling requirements specified under the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (A8939), and the policies and programs contained in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Since the Initial Study contains to discussion of any of the above, no information is provided which would allow public agencies and the general public to submit comments concerning either the project's Impacts upon existing facilities or the project's compliance or noncompliance with the City's SRRE.. In lieu of unsupported and unsubstantiated conclusions, the Initial Study should contain a reasonable analysis of the project's potential impacts and then compare those impacts to a clearly articulated threshold standard. Only in that fashion is it possible to ascertain the potential significance of the project's environmental effects. What type and quality of materials will be exported from the project site and to what depository will those materials be transported? Will any waste materials be recycled either on or off the project site and, if so, what materials and in what quantities? Does the SRRE contain any provisions concerning the reduction of construction debris? Has the City obtained the 50 percent source reduction requirement mandated under A8939 and, if not, how will the proposed project further the attainment of that goal? What quantity of green wastes and other wastes are currently being generated by the gol( course and how was that information determined? What additional quantity of green wastes will be generated by the proposed project? What actions are proposed as pan of the project to reduce the quantity of those wastes? Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments Page 46 July 2000 BIC CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project 3.2.11 Mandatory Findings of Significance The Initial Study asserts that "no cumulative Impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects" (p. 28). Absent from the Initial Study, however, is any discussion of cumulative impacts. As such, no factual information is presented in support of this unsubstantiated conclusion. One only has to review the NOA for the Newport Dunes Resort to find information contradicting the above statement. As Indicated therein, cumulative traffic and air quality are disclosed based upon those reasonably foreseeable future projects now undergoing review by the City (which must be assumed to also include the proposed project since both are listed in the City's permit log). In addition, the NOA identifies significant impacts upon visual resources. In combination with the proposed project, the planned destruction of an existing freshwater lake would be expected to produce cumulatively significant aesthetic impacts. Based on the City's own public disclosure, although associated with another project, substantial evidence exists that the project will combine with other projects to contribute to the creation of significant cumulative impacts. CO OTHER COMMENTS 4.1 inconsistencies and Contradictions The Lead Agency's inclusion of mitigation measures in the Initial Study appears to foretell the presence of significant environmental effects. The precise relationship between the recommended mitigation measures, the environmental analysis, and the Lead Agency, findings, however, remain unclear. For example, the presence of mitigation under a specific topical issue is assumed to constitute (under the Guidelines) the Lead Agency's declaration that a significant environmental effect would occur relative to that topic. The discussion accompanying that topic often appears to suggest the absent of a significant impact before mitigation; a mitigation measure Is nonetheless presented. Since mitigation measures are required only when a significant effect is identified, the Lead Agency appears to be stating that those effects are, in fact, significant and mitigation is required. Additionally, theimanner In which each "box" in the Checklist is marked signifies the Lead Agency's preliminary findings. Only one topical issue has been identified as having a'Ipotentially significant unless mitigation incorporated" (Le., "substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands," Checklist, p. 5). Therefore, the Lead Agency is stating that there exists only one significant effect. All other measures,though well Intended, are meaningless since their implementation (whether effective or not) will have no relevance to the Lead Agency's CEQA findings. Then, when you compare the "boxes" to the accompanying description, again there lacks uniformity. For example, under Topic IV(a) in the Initial Study (i.e., "substantial adverse effect, either directly nr through habitat modification, on any species; p. 6), the Lead Agency states that the identified impact is "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" (p. 6); thereby stating that the impact is significant prior to mitigation. In comparison, the Checklist states that this same impact is "less than significant impact" (Checklist, p. 5). So who knows what is significant or less than significant? Who knows what mitigation measures are required and which may be only "strongly encouraged" but not overly germane to the Lead Agency's ultimate CEQA findings? Initial Study & Mitigated Neplive Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 47 • BIG CANYON COUNTY CLUB Storm Drain Improvement Project Even with a sc:ore card, it is hard to figure out what is being stated and what the actual impacts of the proposed project actually are. 4.2. Absence of Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program As required under Section 21081.6(a)(1) of CEQA, "the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." Because the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study may or may not be important (relative to a determination of which of the identified impacts are actually significant), those that are, in fact, proposed to mitigate a significant environmental effect must be effectively implemented and obtain the benefits for which those measures were proposed (i.e., reduce an otherwise significant impact to below a level of significance). In order to independently assess the efficacy of those measures, some means of evaluating performance is required. yor example, it would be a shame to loss a lake and never get back a comparable resource in return. Since no mitigation reporting or monitoring program (MRMP) was included in the Initial Study, It is not possible to independently determine whether the proposed plan has any likelihood of accomplishing its intended results. The question remains, however, as to what those results actually are (e.g. knowing what performance expectations may be required to mitigate an otherwise significant impact). As required under Section 15097(a) of the Guidelines, "in order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting an the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." Mitigation measures subsequently listed on the MRMP would, therefore, signify that the corresponding impac:t constitutes a significant environmental effect. Since the MRMP has yet to be provided by the Lead Agency, no opportunities are available to comment thereupon. To the extent that further information is provided concerning the projects environmental effects, commenter reserves the right to comment thereupon notwithstanding the absence of such comments herein. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Preliminary Comments July 2000 Page 48 • PUBLIC NOTICES Notice of Intent (Posted at Project Site) Notice of Intent (Posted at County Clerks office) Notice of Completion (State Clearinghouse) • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POSTED NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MAY 2 6 1000 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GAAY L. GRANVILLE, Clelk•Reooldei' By DEPUTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Newport Beach, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed project described below. The Draft Initial Study has determined that if the proposed conditions and mitigation measures are applied to the project there will not be a significant effect on the environment. The City therefore intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Project Name: Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project Project Location: The site is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club golf course in the City of Newport Beach. Project Proponent: Big Canyon Country Club 1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Public Review Period: May 26, 2000 to June 26, 2000 Project Description: 0 The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing artificial pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above the surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the depth of the driving range expanded to provide additional distance. Opportunities for Public Review: Interested person are invited to review the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project, and submit comments. The City of Newport Beach prior to final action on the proposed project will consider these documents and all comments received. A copy of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related documents are available for review at the following location: Newport Beach City Hall Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or the adequacy of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period stated above. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the air oject, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to iminate or reduce these impacts. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner at (949) 644-3206. NOTICE OF COMPLETION MPH to: State Clcarinehouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)445-0613 •LEAD AGENCVC• PROJECT TITLE �; j n` en 00 Vt.) Club �j fnn-Draw.). n R'CojeCk CONTACT PERSON • STREET ADDRESS =;3C%C. [' LLI o Q k- •BIvcl 1k cC T\ eui - P ctc_ h MAILING ADDRESS xlNft TELEPHONE lcl�ct� CI1Y ZIP ODE CITY ZIP CODE COUNTY A/et >C f React / Q0705?Y9/ N.puToff' ' EEntfee tit 5,Y 89i5 j ofck nq'e PROJECT LOCATION / Big 9-n./0 , 7 9j21 l� P , ,Ai to1„t•/.ie F' ;pee % 1 , (ff /1 6 • COUNTY D CROSS STREETS 9� ASSESSOR'SE NO. uy7 _ n - G/ , SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE BASE WITHIN 2 MILES- STATE HIGHWAY NO.G C Parr arc' �DOS� /iiy/7ccc: y Ails RRrye� NrrlrTc f /4fac61 / /c//nk7 ///ob J ZIP C OE TOTAL ACRES /4/ (unyerl Dr•,ve e 5/3f) 34g, 4,;/ Al 6E-0 PA CL Residential' + Office _ _ Commercial Industrial Educational Institutional Recreational AIRPORTS CITY/NEAREST COMMUNITY 5,a C477/04 DOCUMENT TYPE Soy 6e ,cc 1U SF'_t'1to^ (Ptak-109-C byy-3.,2G6 N/ RAILWAYS Q CEOA• NOP _ Early Cons • _ Neg Dec Draft EIR Supplement/Subsequent IPnor SCH No.) Other LOCAL ACTION TYPE General Plan Update General Plan Amendment fillh General Plan Element Community Plan DEVELOPMENT TYPE Units — Spit Sgft Sq ft. Specific Plan Master Plan Planned Unit Development Site Plan Acres Acres Acres Acres WATERWAYS NEPA: NOI EA Draft EIS FONSI SCHOOLS Other: _ Joint Document Final Document Other _ Rezone Annexation __ Pretone _ Redevelopment Use Permit Coastal Perm\\t Land Division' it Other C•r(et(. (l-l(� liY"1 l'�" 'ISubdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map. etc.) J Employees Employees Employees PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT Aesthetic/Visual _ Agricultural Land Au Quality _ Archeological/Historical Coastal Zone Drainage/Absorption Economic/Jobs fiscal _ Flood Plain/Flooding Forest Land/Fire Hazard _ Geologic/Seismic Water Facilities: Type MGD Transportation. Type — Mining:— Mineral Power: — Waste Treatment: Type Watts_ — Hazardous Waste: Type e g Other: MRf,fnc) rad fi/I f 4450<,e,h0c e-ka rnaye ,nip ,'.emeals' Minerals Noise _ Population/Housing Balance _ Public Services/Facilities Recreation/Parks _ Schools/Universities _ Septic Systems Sewer Capacity _ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Solid Waste Toxic/Hazardous _ Traffic/Circulation _ Vegetation _ Water Duality _ Water Supply/Groundwater Wetland/Riparian _ Wildhle _ Growth Inducing Land Use _ Cumulative Effects Other PRESENT LAND USEIZONING/GENERAL PLAN USE xrofi lc aa}rMrc;cif ,awl c!,fhl,' a y'I/ c'o /sr JECT DESCRIPTION SE 3.-tr o C.Ne17 • 2C,V.vYt�/&etl -;ctI PM Pee iCn 4(Yl / 42e.in t c6L Reviewing Agencies Checklist _5_ Resources Agency Boating & Waterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation Fish & Game Forestry & Fire Protection Office of Historic Preservation Parks &.Recreation Reclamation Board S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation &Housing Aeronautics California Highway Patrol CALTRANS District N,Z Department of Transportation Planning Iheadquarters) Housing & Community Development Food Si Agriculture Health & Welfare Health Services State & Consumer Services General Services OLA (Schools) KEY S = Document sent by lead agency X = Document sent by SCH ✓ = Suggested distribution Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Delta Unit SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights Regional WQCB N 5ffikatf'Ya. 9e lane,` ( wo.'.ec ‘,0; corn_ Youth ,& Adult Corrections _ Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Lends Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Other U.S. R cm? Co(TS cFc etleple<5 • Public Review Period (to be filled in by Lead Agency) Starting Date Signature l' tign,y 26 ZCx00 Ending Date :' f ne 2,4,1 7M C: Date 'ay as-, 2 ("CC Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Hoclie F A rc; uSej Address: ;Yogic(enr,Jnnrfv/ l�vAi lfiA247 City/state/Zip: 04,Tr,L, Reed CA cuE,.?g Contact: thegybo Find, Phone: (999) 6E(- et yf Applicant: /?re7 /kt,0t1 fiettl4-- 6/i' 7 Address: / t,5, lmryoyi .7D21,,e City/State/Zip: yi�Aff <,rf i9ene4 Gg q.7(•CG Phone: (9V9 For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: • • • • BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lead Agency City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Prepared By Hodge & Associates 24040 Camino del Avion, #A247 Monarch Beach, California 92629 May 26, 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner Planning Department (949) 644-3206 4. Project Location: The site is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club golf course in the City of Newport Beach. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Big Canyon Country Club, 1 Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach, California 92663. 6. General Plan Designation: Recreation/Open Space 7. Zoning: Open Space 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing artificial pond approximately 28,000 square feet in size and construction of associated improvements, Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth will be be expanded to provide additional distance. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Golf course artificial pond located within an existing golf course. To the north: Golf course, single-family residential To the east: Golf course driving range To the south: Golf course cart barn parking structure To the west: Golf course putting greens CHECKLIST Page 1 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, o participation agreement.) US Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish 4 Game, & Regional Water Quality Control Board. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning 0 Transportation/ 0 Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral 0 Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources O Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the, proposed project MAY have a, significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" 0 CHECKLIST Page 2 or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Submitted by:.favier S. Garcia, A1CP, Senior Planner Signature Date Planning Department j_'ZV- 2CCC Prepared by: Hodge & Associates Signature Date Cheryle L. Hodge 0 0 I:\tISI RS\PLN\SIIARIiD\I I: I MS\I hc.t)I (•d)IICKI.IST.UI)(' (IIECKI IST Page 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • Potentially Potentially' Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Eif I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect 0 on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic 0 resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? gl CI ❑ ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing 0 0 [j 0 visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? c) Create a new source of substantial 0 ❑ 0 p light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 Q 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 non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland; to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 4 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 El ❑ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively 0 0 0 H 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ 0 Q substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting 0 0 21 0 a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 0 ❑ a 0 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 0 0 0 0 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 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrologicalinterruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 5 Potentially Potentially Less then No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Interfere substantially with the 0 0 0 0 movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ 0 0 0 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an 0 0 ❑ 0 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those Interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ ❑ 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 shaking? ID) Seismic -related ground failure, 0 ❑ 0 0 including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ 0 0 the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil 0 ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 0 supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ Cd CHECKLIST Page 7 Potentially Potentially Len than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 p Included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied 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 within an airport land 0 0 ❑, 0 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a 0 0 0 p private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically Interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose peopte.or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland-fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ B 0 ❑ ❑ Q CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ 0 0 0 or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ 0 0 0 supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing 0 0 Q 0 drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ p ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or • substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water 0 0 0 p which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ 0 0 a water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year 0 0 0 (l flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? CHECICLIST Page 9 Potentially Potentially Len than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard 0 0 0 area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 p mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established 0 0 ❑ lEi community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat • conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing, elsewhere? ❑ 0 ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 • CHECKLIST Page 10 • • • Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ 0 0 0 generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or 0 ❑ Ed ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ 0 p 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 ❑ 21 0 increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an 0 ❑ ❑ 21 airport land use 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a 0 ❑ 0 p private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population 0 ❑ 0 p 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)? CHECKLIST Page 11 Potentially Potentially Len than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of 0 0 ❑ r❑ existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ 0 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the ❑ 0 0 p project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: Fire protection? ❑ 0 0 0 Police protection? ❑ 0 0 a Schools? 0 0 0 RI Other public facilities? 0 0 0 21 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parksor 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 of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ m 0 0 0 0 CHECKLIST Page 12 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XV. TRANSPORTATIOWTRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 0 substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed either individually or 0 0 0 0 cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic 0 ❑ ❑ El patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ [j to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency 0 0 ❑ lid access? f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ 0 ❑ p capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, 0 0 ❑ p or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 13 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction 0 0 0 lil of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction 0 0 p 0 of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, orare new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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 commitmehts? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 ❑ 0 0 statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGSOF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential 0 0 0 p to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? CHECKLIST Page 14 • • Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that 0 ❑ 0 Ed 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 0 0 ❑ p environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST • The following enumerated documents are available at the offices ofthe City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of"Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. Big Canyon Country Club: Evaluation of Biological Resources, April 13, 2000. Prepared by Psomas. 9. Big Canyon Country Club Jurisdictional Wetlands, Streambeds and Waters of the United States, April 12, 2000. Prepared by Psomas. • CHECKLIST Page 16 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project 1 Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach Project Description ANALYSIS The application is a request to permit the approval of a Grading Permit for the Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within an existing artificial pond and construction of associated improvements. Improvements include drainage pipes underground and above surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth expanded to provide additional distance. The regional location of the site is depicted on Exhibit 1 and the project vicinity on Exhibit 2. The project plan is presented in the appendix of this document. The project is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive within the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course in Newport Beach. The site contains an existing artificial pond approximately 0.64 acres in size. Surrounding and nearby properties include the golf course and single-family residential to the north of the pond. Currently, the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that carries the water to the bay. With the proposed filling of the pond, the existing storm drain system will remain. However, instead of the water flowing through the pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond that will connect to the existing storm drain system. The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact) The proposed project is not located in an area that contains a scenic vista. The site is located in an area that is already developed and the project itself will not result in substantial adverse significant aesthetic impacts. The project will be designed so • • LOS ANGELES r ; ``SAN COUNTYDINO• COUNTY J 3 i m Garden Grove a,, Cie .90 C/ COSTA Ooa�' MESA Hp, v Riverside p Free Freeway NEWPORT BEACH LAGUNA CPROJECT LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE aliODGE & ASSOCIATES BEACH 90 Ca DANA POINT RIVERSIDE COUNTY • ORANGE ,N COUNTY / • Orre9a••• ' SAN JUAN ; 1 9 C SAN DIEGO SAN • I • I COUNTY CLEMENTE Regional Location Map Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project EXHIBIT 1 2RT (FRY !pp crivz,(/ VV 4FS s4 • L MUS <tv CLEMENTE �(�J 900 a OR • trIEL P•Q-� C� FASHION MT ■ g ISLAND a z SAN • it 500 LL8 CLUBHOJSF r MAP NOT TO SCALE 10 GENY' L14 11 9 11SE CIR 12 LE5WE GA' 13 MIS1NJ W 15 V_NIER )41' BONITA �:. PORT ESIBQIRNE 816CAWS PLCERVP 3400 HILL •HODGE & ASSOCIATES Project Vicinity Big Canyon Country Club Storm Drain Project EXHIBIT 2 that it's compatible with the adjacent existing Big Canyon Country Club golf course. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) See response to Section I (a) above. The project will not have a significant impact to any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The site is not located within a state scenic highway. The project site does contain existing landscaping associated with the pond. A complete discussion of the existing plant and animal resources of the project site is evaluated in the Biological Resources section of this document. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located in an area that is fully developed with an existing golf course. The project site is visible from locations within and around the immediate area. The existing visual character of the site will be altered as a result of the project. The project involves the placement of fill materials within the existing artificial pond and construction of associated improvements. The improvements include drainage pipes underground and above the surface that will connect to the existing storm drains, removal and construction of golf cart paths, adjustment of manholes to grade, and relocation of an existing water line. The pond, once filled, will be landscaped and replaced with a putting green to compliment the existing golf course uses and the driving range depth will be expanded to provide additional distance. The project is compatible with the land use designation and regulations that pertain to the site. Although the existing visual character of the site will be altered as a result of the project, the proposed project is compatible with the existing golf course. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will substantially impact the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial Light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (No Impact) The project site is located in an area that is already developed and urbanized. The proposed project will involve placing fill materials in the existing artificial pond and providing associated drainage improvements. The project does not propose any new lighting. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area, which is developed with a golf course. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 2 II. Agriculture Resources 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 non-agricultural use? (No Impact) The project is located in a developed urbanized area of the City. The project site is already developed with an existing pond located within a golf course. The site is not utilized for farmland uses and/or agriculture resources. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any impacts on agriculture resources. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) See response to Section II (a) above. The project does not conflict with the existing zoning forthe site. The property is not zoned; for agricultural uses nor is subject to a Williamson Act contract. c) Involve other changes in the existingienvironment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? (No Impact) The proposed project will not have any impact on farmland or agricultural uses. The site is located in a developed area that does not contain farmland or agricultural uses. Therefore, the project will not have any impact that could result in the conversion of property to non-agricultural use. III. Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact) The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for controlling motor vehicle emissions. The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP goals include the implementation of technological and innovative changes that provide for achieving clean air goals, while maintaining a healthy economy. The AQMP also addresses state and federal planning requirements and programs. CHECKLISTEXPLANATIONS Page 3 • • • Regional and local air quality has been previously addressed in the Final Program EIR for the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which was developed by the SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) includes a comprehensive analysis of future emission forecasts which reflect demographic and economic growth forecasts provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The build -out of the City of Newport Beach (including the project area) is included in these forecasts. The 1997 AQMP provide an extensive analysis of potential impacts, including the cumulative impacts of basin -wide growth and development. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan identifies that the project site is located within Recreation/Open Space land use designation. The pond is approximately 28,000 square feet in size. The project involves placing fill materials in the pond and associated drainage improvements. It is anticipated that pond will be replaced with a putting green area compatible with the existing golf course uses and the depth of the driving range expanded to provide additional distance. Due to the limited size of the site and type of project, long-term air quality impacts will not result from the proposed project. Short-term construction related impacts are discussed in Section III (b) below. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Less Than Significant Impact) Potential air quality impacts from project construction activities will be minimized through mitigation measures, including short-term impacts to air quality from air pollutants being emitted by construction equipment and dust generated during site preparation. The project will require limited grading since the site has been previously developed with an artificial pond and golf course uses. The existing pond will be filled and replaced with a putting green area and the depth of the driving range expanded to provide additional distance. The project also involves drainage improvements and relocation of golf cart paths near the pond. The demolition activities will result in short-term air quality impacts (e.g. dust), however, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures this impact is considered less than significant. The small amount of project -related emissions will have no impact on regional particulate levels. Where construction operations are near existing businesses (e.g. golf course) and residences, the dust generated by such activities is considered a local nuisance as opposed to an actual health hazard. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. The following mitigation measures CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 4 are recommended to reduce short-term construction related air quality impacts to a level of less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 1 During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular Watering, or otherdust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project -related emissions. Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. c) 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (No Impact) See response to Section III (a) above. The project is'located in the South Coast Air Basin that is a designated non -attainment area; However, the proposed project does not represent significant growth beyond that already previously evaluated and forecasted for air quality cumulative impacts of basin -wide growth and development. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts cumulatively to air quality. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (No Impact) The project is not located in an area that would expose sensitive receptors (e.g. elementary schools etc.) to substantial pollutant concentrations. The site is located in an area already developed with an existing golf course; therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to sensitive receptors. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 5 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding developed area. The impacts to surrounding properties from construction operations (including emissions and odors associated with construction) will be short-term in duration and minimal. These effects are not considered significant. Additional potential long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are not anticipated due to the type of project (i.e., filling pond and storm drain improvements). The project applicant has indicated that the request to place fill material in the pond is due to the considerable build up of algae in the pond and the resulting noxious odors emitted. The proposed project will not result in any significant impacts of objectionable odors. IV. Biological Resources 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 With Mitigation Incorporation) The project site is currently developed with an existing artificial pond and is located within a golf course. A biological resources assessment and wetland delineation was conducted by Psomas. The reports dated April 12, 2000 and April 13, 2000 are presented in the Appendix of this document. The evaluation and information presented in this section are based on the biological report contained in its entirety in the Appendix of this document. The project site was visited by a biologist from Psomas on April 6, 2000. The biological evaluation was conducted by walking around and through the plantings of the periphery of the pond, recording plant species present on the site and evaluating habitat quality for wildlife. Additionally, the trees and understory surrounding the pond were examined for any wildlife species. The biological report indicates that the pond appears to be located along an historical "blue -line" stream, according to the USGS topographical map. Therefore, the pond is considered a "Waters of the United States" and falls under federal jurisdiction. The pond is small (approximately .64 acres) and was constructed as an artificial pond water feature of the Big Canyon Country Club golf course. Beyond the pond area there is a putting green to the east, a parking structure for golf carts to the south, a driving range to the east, and single-family homes to the north. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 6 The pond is surrounded by ornamental plantings with some native plant species growing adjacent to the pond. The native plants include sycamore, cattails, bulrushes, black mustard, and wild radish. The animals observed on the site during the survey included several bird species. The biological assessment indicated that it's probable that other species such as small mammals and reptiles occur; however, no sign of these species were found during the survey. On the south side of the pond, bird droppings were identified on shrubs in two spots at the base of some trees, indicating possible roosting sites for a large bird. During the survey, a young black crowned night -heron was observed flying to and sitting in the tree over one of these spots. The wetland delineation of the site was conducted on April 6, 2000 (report presented in Appendix). A series of soil sampling pits were dug adjacent to the pond to evaluate areas of potential jurisdictional wetlands. A complete discussion of the hydrology, soils and vegetation relative to wetlands is contained in the report presented in the Appendix of this document. The wetland delineation identified that the site contains approximately .64 acres of state and federal wetlands and 0.03 acres of adjoining non -wetland area. No fish were observed in the pond during the field survey. Additionally, the pond is an isolated feature located within the golf course and it is not associated with any wildlife corridors. The proposed project will result in impacts to the 0.64 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 0,03 acres of non -wetland area. Therefore, the project is subject to compliance of the regulatory permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) and the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) (Code Section 1603) will be required for the project. The project applicant will be required to obtain the necessary permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies. The project will also require the removal of existing trees, cattails and bulrushes the presently occupy small portions of the pond. The biological survey indicated that the trees provide roosting sites for the black -crowned night -heron. The report noted that this pond alone most likely does not provide sufficient food or other resources for this bird and that it frequents other areas in addition to the subject pond. The biological assessment includes a recommendation that mature trees be relocated on other ponds in the vicinity to reduce potential impacts to the black -crowned night - heron. Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide documentation (i.e. issued regulatory permits) to the Planning Department, indicating that all required permits/agreements have been obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish & Game. The total of 0.64 acres of riparian vegetation shall be mitigated at a "no net loss" minimum ratio. • • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 7 Mitigation Measure No. 4 Prior to the start of construction activities (within 3 to 7 days of disturbance), a pre -construction survey of the site for nesting migratory bird species shall be conducted by a qualied biologist. If nesting birds are found, the disturbance of the nesting area shall be delayed until after the young have left the nest. Mitigation Measure No.5 Prior to the completion of construction, the project applicant in consultation with a qualified biologist shall relocate the trees and vegetation (Le. cattails and bulrushes) that provide roosting sites for the black - crowned night -heron to other ponds on the golf course. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural conununity identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does contain riparian habitat and mitigation is presented in the above section that will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does contain wetlands. A wetland delineation identified that the site contains approximately 0.64 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Mitigation measures are presented in the above section to reduce potential impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level. 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) See response to Section IV (a) above. The biological resources report indicated that the black -crowned night -heron may utilize vegetation adjacent to the pond. Therefore, a mitigation measure is presented in Section IV (a) that requires relocation/replacement of trees and vegetation including wetlands. Potential impacts to migratory birds will be reduced to a level of less than significant. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 8 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does not contain any vegetation (including trees) that is protected by City policy or ordinance. Therefore, the project will not conflict with any policies or ordinance pertaining to biological resources. However, a mitigation measure is presented in Section IV (a) above that requires impacted vegetation including wetlands be mitigated to a level of less than significant. 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? (No Impact) See response to Section IV (a) and (e) above. The site does not contain any biological resources that would be subject to a conservation plan. V. Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed with an existing artificial pond located within a golf course. The proposed project involves placing fill materials in the pond, constructing associated drainage improvements, and relocating existing golf cart paths that are near the pond. Due to the Limited size of the project and grading involved, it is not anticipated that the project will have any impacts on cultural (including historical) resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (No Impact) See response to Section V (a) above. The project site is already developed. The project is limited in size and the grading associated with the project is minimal. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impact to archaeological resources. • • • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 9 • c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (No Impact) See response to Section V (a) and (b) above. It is not anticipated that the project will result in any direct or indirect impacts to unique paleontological resources or geologic features due to the existing site conditions and the project will not involve extensive excavation and/or grading (the site contains a pond within a developed golf course). d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? (No Impact) See response to Section V (a) and (b) above. It is not anticipated that the project will result in any impact since the site is already developed and located in an urbanized area of the City. VI. Geology & Soils a) Expose people or structures to 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? (No Impact) The Final EIR/GPA 82-2 (page 37-41) includes a complete discussion of existing conditions, impacts and City policy and requirements pertaining to geology and soils. The Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan identifies the potential natural physical hazards that potentially could affect properties located in Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach is located along the southwesterly edge of the Los Angeles basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The potential for damage results from seismic -related events that exists within the City as it does throughout the Southern California. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, ground failure, ground displacement, tsunamis and seiches. The topography of the site (pond) is relatively flat with embankments near the pond. There are no existing structures on -site. To the south of the pond is a cart barn parking structure. A hill slopes up from the north embankment of the pond and single-family homes are located at the top of this slope, about 30 feet above the pond's water line. The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features. There are no evident faults on the site. The closest known active or CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 10 potentially active fault is the Newport -Inglewood Fault. The site is not located within Alquist-Priolo special fault zone. The site is expected to be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking from a regional seismic event within the project life of the proposed building. The property was originally graded in conjunction with the development of the existing golf course. Site preparation (e.g. grading) will be needed in conjunction with the project. It is anticipated that the project will require exporting debris (concrete from removed cart paths) and importing fill material to be placed in the pond. It is estimated that the project will involve 500 cubic yards of excavation, 18,000 cubic yards of embankment, and 17,500 cubic yards of import fill material. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.10.140) will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. No cumulative impacts associated with geological conditions are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure No. 6 During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10). Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation that includescompaction criteria and soil specifications to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (No Impact) See response to Section VI (a)(i) above. The Newport -Inglewood Fault is believed to be capable of producing an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude. The Whittier -Elsinore Fault is estimated to potentially produce an earthquake of 7.0 magnitude. Primary hazards of an earthquake include groundshaking, ground displacement and subsidence. In the event of a regional seismic event, the site would experience moderate to severe ground shaking. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) requiring compliance with applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, potential impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 11 • iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (No Impact) See response to Section VI (a)(i) above. Ground failure, Liquefaction, seiching and dam failure are secondary seismic hazards which may result from an earthquake. Ground failure in the form of landslides, rock falls, subsidence, and other surface and near surface ground failures can occur as a result of a seismic event. In turn, this may result in complete loss of strength of water -saturated subsurface foundation soil (liquefaction). The Potential for liquefaction is associated with the soil types and shallow groundwater. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) requiring compliance with applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines. The site is currently developed with an existing artificial pond located within a golf course. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure requiring compliance with building codes and seismic design regulations it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts associated with ground failure or liquefaction. iv) Landslides? (No Impact) Landslides and erosion hazard potential is typically associated with hillside areas. The project site is located in a developed area of the City and the topography of the site (pond) is relatively flat with embankments near the pond. The Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan does designate the project area as a high potential for landslides. The project will not result in any significant impacts associated with landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (No Impact) See response to Section VI(a)(i). The project will require minimal site preparation (e.g. grading) and therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of 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? (No Impact) The project site is located in a developed area of the City and the topography of the site (pond) is relatively flat with embankments near the pond. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) that requires compliance with applicable building CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 12 codes and seismic design guidelines. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, potential impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (No Impact) The project is not located on expansive soil as defined per the Uniform Building Code. However, a mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) that requires compliance with applicable building codes and seismic design guidelines. 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? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed with an existing artificial pond within a golf course. The site will not be utilizing septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Impact) The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of any hazardous materials. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will result in any significant impacts relative to hazards and/or 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? (No Impact) See response 'to VII (a) above. The site is already developed with an existing artificial pond within a golf course. The project itself does not pose a significant hazard to the public or 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? (No Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 13 •� • See response to VII (a) above. The site is not located within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will have any impact on schools. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied 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) See response to VII (a) above. Additionally, the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project site is located over five miles from John Wayne Airport. The project will not result in a safety hazard for people working and/or residing in the project area. Additionally, the project is not anticipated to have any impacts associated with a public airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) See response to VII (a) above. Additionally, the site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City. The project itself will not result in any impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 14 The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City. The project itself (or location) will not be a significant risk involving wildland fires. Via Hydrology & Water Quality a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (No Impact) The project site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin. The site is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for issues related to water quality. Each of the nine Califomia RWQCBs is responsible for adopting and implementing water quality control plans for each basin's water bodies, regulating waste discharges from both point and nonpoint sources, and monitoring permit compliance within its designated basin. There is a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which is implemented by the Cities (including Newport Beach), County of Orange, and Orange County Flood Control District. The DAMP was prepared in compliance with specific requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. The DAMP includes a wide range of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and control techniques to further reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. The City of Newport Beach has for many years been performing many of the procedures that protect the quality of stormwater runoff, such as: site construction erosion and sediment control programs, sweeping streets, managing solid waste, recycling programs, storm drain and catch basin maintenance, enforcing prohibitions on illegal discharges, controlling spills, supervising industrial waste discharges through permitting, and enforcing ordinances prohibiting certain discharges. The proposed project would not substantially increase water runoff. The site is already developed with an existing artificial pond located in a golf course. The pond itself is approximately 0.64 acres in size. Currently, the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that then carries the water to the bay. The existing storm drain system will remain following implementation of the project. However, instead of water flowing through the existing pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed underground and above the surface in the area of the pond. The water pipes will connect to the existing storm drain system. With the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. To ensure that storm runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, mitigation measures in • • CHECKUSr EXPLANATIONS Page 15 • • compliance with said City regulations will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (No Impact) See Response to Section VIII (a) above. The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City, The project site (pond) topography is relatively flat with embankments adjacent to the pond. The project will not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The project includes placement of water pipes underground and above the surface in the existing pond that will connect to the existing storm drain system to carry the current water flows through the pond area. It is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impact on groundwater. c) Substantially alter existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section VIII (a) above. The project will result in a change to the drainage pattern of the site, however, this change is not considered significant. The site is located in an area that has existing storm drain facilities. Currently, the pond flows into an existing storm drain system that then carries the water to the bay. The existing storm drain system will remain following implementation of the project. However, instead of water flowing through the existing pond, it will flow through pipes to be placed in the area of the pond. The water pipes will connect to the existing storm drain system. Additionally, with the implementation of standard conditions of approval including compliance with NPDES requirements Best Management Practices (BMPs), it its not anticipated that the project will result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VIII(a) requiring NPDES compliance. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 16 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in 'a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section VIII (c) above. e) 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? (No Impact) See response to Section VM (a)(c) above. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) and (g) above. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) See response to Section VM (a)(c) and (g) above. Also, the project site is not located near a levee or dam. j) Inundation by selche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. • • • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 17 IX. Land Use and Planning a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The project site is located at 1 Big Canyon Drive near Rue De La Verdure within the Big Canyon Country Club golf course in Newport Beach. The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The project will not require subdivision of property or physically divide adjacent properties. Therefore, the project will not result in significant impacts to an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact) The application is a request to permit the approval of placing fill materials in an existing artificial pond and constructing associated storm drain improvements. The project is not located within the coastal zone. The project site is currently developed with an existing 0.64 acre pond located within a golf course. Nearby land uses include golf course (cart parking barn, putting greens etc.) and single-family homes to the south of the pond. The project will involve the exporting and importing material. Additionally, existing cart paths near the pond will be demolished and relocated. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan identifies that the project site is located within the Big Canyon Planned Community area of Newport Beach. The Land Use Element designates the property for Recreation and Environmental Open Space. The Recreation and Environmental Open Space designation allows for such land uses as golf courses. The proposed project complies with the City's General Plan and Zoning regulations. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) See response to IX (a)(b) above. Also, the project is not subject to any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 18 X. Mineral Resources • 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? (No Impact) The area surrounding the project is fully developed. The project consists of an application for approval of a grading permit to allow the placement of fill material in an existing pond and constructing associated storm drain improvements. The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project due to the limited size of the project. Therefore, no significant increase in the use of energy or natural resources is anticipated as a result of the project. 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? (No Impact) See response to Section X (a) above. The City's General Plan does not delineate any locally important mineral resource in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to a locally important mineral resource. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See response to Section X(a) above. The project site contains an existing pond located in a golf course. The site is not zoned for residential uses. The project will not displace people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. XI. Noise a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant Impact) The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with a golf course and nearby single-family homes. The project consists of placement of fill material in an existing pond and constructing associated storm drain improvements. Future on -site noise impacts will not significantly differ from those which now exist. • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 19 • The proposed project will generate a temporary increase in traffic associated with construction activities (workers, construction vehicles importing/exporting material). However, the increase is minimal due to the limited size of the project. The project will result in short-term construction related noise impacts, however, with the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, these short-term noise impacts will be less than significant. A mitigation measure is presented in Section XI (d) below for potential construction noise impacts. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact) Surrounding homes in the immediate vicinity may experience some groundborne vibration (removal of existing cart paths etc.) and noise associated with the construction activities. However, due to the relatively small size of the project, it is not anticipated that the construction activities will result in excessive vibration or groundbome noise levels. A mitigation measure is presented in Section XI (d) below which will reduce construction related temporary impacts to a level of less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to XI (a) above. The project involves placing fill material in an existing pond and constructing associated storm drain improvements. Following implementation of the project, the project applicant has indicated that the site may be utilized for putting greens compatible with the existing golf course uses. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will generate a substantial permanent increase in noise levels above that existing since the site is located within an existing golf course. Therefore, permanent noise levels associated with the project will not significantly differ from those, which now exist. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high noise levels. However, noise levels will be mitigated by limiting the hours of construction through CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 20 provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Mitigation Measure No. 9 The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is located over five miles from the John Wayne Airport. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan identifies that the site is located outside the CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) noise contour for the airport. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and surrounding area. The project will be required to comply with Uniform Building Code regulations and the City's noise control measures. A mitigation measure is presented in Section XI (d) above. Therefore, it is anticipated that any potential noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there are no project impacts associated with a private airstrip. XII. Population and Housing a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact) The proposed project consists of placement of fill material in an existing pond and constructing associated storm drain improvements. Therefore, no direct population and/or demand for housing increase would result from the project. • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 21 • • b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The project site contains an existing artificial pond located within a golf course. The site is not zoned for residential uses. The project will not displace any existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See response to XII (b) above. The project will not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people and/or housing. The site is not zoned for residential uses. The project will not displace people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. XIII. Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: (No Impact) Utilities and service systems are already servicing the existing golf course. The project site is located within an existing private golf course. The project involves the placement of fill material in an existing artificial pond and constructing associated storm drain improvements. Fire protection? (No Impact) The City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department are currently providing fire protection and emergency response services for the project area. Response times to the site are dependent on various factors. Response time is generally five minutes or less. Emergency calls receive the quickest response times with alarm calls and non -emergency calls having longer response times respectively. The availability of personnel and extenuating circumstances may further affect response times. The proposed project will not result in any potentially increase in the number of calls for service to the location. The project does not include developing habitable structures and/or other uses which could impact the need for additional fire protection services. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 22 Police protection? (No Impact) The City of Newport Beach Police Department is currently providing Law enforcement services to the project area. The project does not include developing habitable structures and/or other uses which could impact the need for additional police protection services. Schools? (No Impact) The project does not include developing habitable structures and/or other uses which could impact school. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts to schools in relation to the proposed project. Other public facilities? (No Impact) The project site is developed with an existing artificial pond located within a private golf course. Therefore, the project itself would not create significant additional demand for public facilities and/or services. XIV. Recreation 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? (No Impact) The proposed project is located within a private golf course. The project will not result in any potential increase of demand on the use of existing recreation facilities, Due to the type of project (filling the pond and storm drain improvements) it is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impacts on recreation. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? (No Impact) The site is located within an existing operational private golf course. The site is currently an artificial pond. The project would involve filling the pond and constructing storm drain improvements. The project applicant has indicated that the pond area may potentially be utilized as a putting green area compatible with the existing golf course. However, it is not anticipated that the project itself does not require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that would result in an adverse impact on the environment. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 23 • • XV. Transportation/Traffic a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (No Impact) The project is not anticipated to generate any vehicular traffic beyond that associated with construction activities. The site is designated for recreation and open space uses and is located within an existing private golf course. The project involves placing fill material in the existing artificial pond and constructing storm drain improvements for water to flow through the pond area to existing storm drains. The project will result in short-term construction related traffic. The project will involve exporting and importing material in relation to construction activities. Due to the limited size of the project site and type of construction activities, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant traffic impacts. However, a mitigation measure is recommended, requiring a traffic control plan for the exportation of the site debris and project construction activities. The traffic control plan will ensure implementation of proper construction related signage (within the golf course area and construction access areas to the golf course), construction traffic flagmen, and truck hauling operations to reduce potential short-term traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 10 Prior to the start of construction activities, a construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction warning/directional signage within the golf course property and if needed for access to the golf course. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 24 See response to Section XV (a) above. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. Also, the project does not proposeany design features relative to curves, intersections, or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. Access to the site is provided from Big Canyon Drive near San Joaquin Hills Road. Due to the type and size of the project, it is not anticipated that the project will result in inadequate emergency access to the golf course. f) Result in adequate parking capacity? (No Impact) The proposed project will not result in any additional long-term demand, for parking. Employee and guest parking are available within the existing golf course area. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (No Impact) The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides public transportation services to and around the golf course site. Due to the nature of the project, it is not expected to negatively impact any current facility, service or service expansion plans for the project area and/or site. Therefore, the project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (No Impact) The proposed project does not require wastewater treatment. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will exceed wastewater treatment requirements. • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 25 • • • b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (No Impact) The project will not result in the significant alteration or expansion of existing utility and service systems since the site is located within a golf course that is already being served by the utility providers. However, the project includes placement of fill materials in an existing pond and construction of associated storm drain improvements. Existing manholes will also be relocated (raised) to grade as part of the construction of the project. Therefore, to ensure that there are no adverse impacts associated with the project, a mitigation measure is presented which requires coordination with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure No. 11 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department and Utilities Department review is also required. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (No Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. e) 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? (No Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 26 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient perndtted capacity to acconnnodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (No Impact) See response to Section XVI (c) above. The golf course is currently being provided solid waste services by Waste Management of Orange County. The project itself will not have any impact on solid waste disposal needs once the project is complete. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. • • CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 27 • XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less Than Significant Impact) On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is located in a developed area of the City. The project will impact approximately 0.64 acres of jurisdictional wetland habitat. However, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, it is anticipated that all impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. B) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of' long-term environmental goals? (No Impact) The project will replace an existing artificial pond. However, the project is compatible with the existing golf course and surrounding land uses and the site will remain as recreation/open space area. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. C) Does the project have possible environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (No Impact) No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. The project is consistent with the type of land uses developed in the area. The project will not result in environmental effects which are cumulatively considerable based on evaluation of projected growth and planned projects for the project area known as of the date of this analysis. D) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact) That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. The project is consistent with the land uses in the project area and the environmental evaluation has concluded that no adverse significant environmental impacts will result from the project. CHECKLJSr EXPLANATIONS Page 28 • Appendix A Project Plan (Large Scale Plan on file at City of Newport Beach) (Reduced Copy of Project Plan included in Appendix B w/Biological Resources Report) • • Appendix B Biological Resources Report & Wetlands Delineation (Presented in the appendix of the Recirculated IS/MND Dated March 2, 2001) • • • Big Canyon Country Club CEQAJPublic Notice Distribution List • • 1?5,0,Canytn u /M7, N/P e b te i POWCE gis ('ht,nv. Env. Regulatory Branch lipr Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles. CA 90017 Ms. Wanda Smith, Planning Section Calif. Regional Water Quality Cntrl Brd 3737 Main St.. Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501-3348 Judi Tamasi US Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Ave West Carlsbad. CA 92008 ytstRtBOttcn UST Robert F. Joseph, Chief, Adv. Ping I3mch Dept. of Transportation, Dist. 12 3347 Michelson Dr., Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612-0661 William E. Tippets. habitat Consolation Sup'. California Dept. Fish & Game 4949 Viewridge Ave San Diego. CA 92123 Mark Tomoko, Engineering Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley. CA 92728-8127 AtAlI eamfi ;e-8 Ilia.I 4-j`5 e of CG\.� tiea- obet eF .G�ie/>'%' OP2 5enk copy of CEQA clocun�en-� %� 65 copies, Rey.,�M! t -r e cad o,,.) UA5 we to tr la�ecaa copy 0E' tioi,ce of Tit Big Canyon Community Assoc P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92646 Felsott, Lee & Fenberg tn: Stanley Feldsott ivic Center Plaza, Ste 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dr. and Mrs. Charles Klietnan 21 Lochmoor Lane Newport Beach, California 92660 Paeon Callahan McHolm & Winto Attn: Kathleen Carothers Paone P.O. Box 19613 Irvine, CA 92623-9613 EIS Attn: Peter Lewandowski 26051 Via Concha Mission Viejo, CA 92691-5614 Canyon Hills Community Assoc P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92646 Brett Williamson O'Melveny & Meyers, LLP 620 Newport Center Dr., 17"' Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660