Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-68 - Marinapark Resort and Community PlanRESOLUTION NO. 2004 - 68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REGARDING THE MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BALBOA BOULEVARD BETWEEN FIFTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH STREETS (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 200311021). WHEREAS, Marinapark LLC (formerly Talla Sutherland Hospitality), 4500 Campus Drive, Suite 650, Newport Beach, California, has applied to the City of Newport Beach for approvals necessary to develop a 110 -room luxury resort hotel, related ancillary facilities and community facilities on an 8.1 acre site on the north side of Balboa Boulevard between 15th and 18th Streets; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse Number 200311021; and WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on November 4, 2003, and ending on December 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse, and the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department; and WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on April 26, 2004 and ended on June 9, 2004; and WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document dated July 2, 2004; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2004, the Planning Commission held a study session to review the Draft EIR. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public meeting was given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004, the City Council held a study session to review the Draft EIR. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public meeting was given and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the meeting; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time the Final Environmental Impact Report, comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a listing of persons and organizations that provided written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report during the public circulation period, a compilation of Resolution No. 2004 -68 those comments, and responses to those comments, was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1640, recommending that the City Council certify the EIR as complying with the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 13, 2004, which hearing was continued to July 27, 2004, at which time the draft Final Environmental Impact Report recommended by the Planning Commission was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR, and in the full administrative record, prior to taking any action on the project. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council's Findings and decision are based are located at Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658. The custodian for these documents is the Planning Department Executive Secretary. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e). The following documents are also attached to this Resolution for ease of reference, and by reference made a part of this Resolution: EIR - 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department) EIR -2 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR dated July 2, 2004 (Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department) EIR-3 Planning Commission Staff Report for June 3, 2004 EIR-4 Minutes of Planning Commission Study Session of June 3, 2004 EIR-5 City Council Staff Report for June 8, 2004 EIR-6 Supplemental City Council Staff Report for June 8, 2004 EIR-7 Minutes of City Council Study Session of June 8, 2004 EIR-8 Planning Commission Staff Report for July 8, 2004 EIR -9 Memorandum of July 7, 2004, transmitting Phase II assessments to Planning Commission and City Council (Available for public review at the City's Planning Department) EIR - 10 Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing of July 8, 2004 EIR - 11 City Council Staff Report for July 13, 2004 EIR —12 Supplemental City Council Staff Report for July 13, 2004 EIR - 13 Transcript of City Council Public Hearing of July 13, 2004 EIR —14 City Council Staff Report for July 27, 2004 2 Resolution No. 2004 -68 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby make the findings attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A ", and finds and certifies as follows: 1. That the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 200311021) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines; and 2. That the EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council does hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "B ". ADOPTED this 27th day of July 2004, by the following vote, to wit: y� A ATTEST: / �/I�l V�fi�n Q_ / � I • ",y CITY CLERK AYES: Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Mayor Ridgeway NOES: Heffernan, Webb, Nichols ABSENT MAYOR 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2004 -68 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 27th day of July, 2004, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: Heffernan, Webb, Nichols Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 28th day of July, 2004. (Seal) 2f fhz, /;/ . 4'�&7 City Clerk Newport Beach, California EXHIBIT A CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact forthe Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Jason M. Brandman, Senior Project Manager July 21, 2004 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1: Introduction ......................................................................... ..............................1 Section 2: Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts .............................3 2.1 - Geology and Soils .............................................................. ............................... 3 2.2 - Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................... ..............................4 2.3 - Bological Resources ........................................................... .............................10 2.4 - Air Quality ........................................................................... .............................19 2.5 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................... .............................20 Section 3: Additional Measures Incorporated into the Project to Further Reduce Less Than Significant Impacts .............................................. .............................21 3.1 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................... .............................21 3.2 - Land Use ............................................................................ .............................21 Section 4: Feasibility of Project Alternatives ..................................... .............................23 4.1 - No Project/No Development Alternative .............................. .............................23 4.2 - Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative .......................... .............................23 4.3 - Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................. .............................24 4.4 - Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................. .............................24 Michael Brandman Associates OMocu nts and Settings \lharkless\Local SeningsUempomry Intemet Fi1es \0LKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has conducted an environmental review of the proposed Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. An Initial Study was completed in October 2003. In April 2004, the Draft EIR was released. After receiving public comment on the Draft EIR, the City prepared a document entitled "Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR." The "Responses" document includes the verbatim comments received on the Draft EIR, a list of those commenting, and the City's responses to the significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. In response to certain comments, the Draft EIR was modified, as set forth in the responses to comments. The Final EIR for the Marinapark project consists of the Draft EIR, the "Responses" document, and supplemental information correcting minor errors identified by staff or in public hearings. These Findings are based upon the information in the record of proceedings, including the Final EIR, staff reports, project applicant's materials, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the testimony presented at public hearings. CEQA provides in relevant part, at Public Resources Code Section 21081, that: [N)o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Michael Brandman Associates C:0ocomen¢ and Settings \Ibarkless \Local Semngs\Tennpoary Internet Files \OLKB \0063ER?0_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Introduction Because the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the project, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts these Findings. For each of the significant effects associated with the proposed project, as set forth in greater detail in these Findings below, the City Council makes the finding under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) above. CEQA requires that the EIR reflect the City's own independent judgment and review. Accordingly, the City Council expressly finds that the Final EIR for the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan reflects the City's independent judgment. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has independently reviewed the record of proceedings and based on the evidence in the record adopts these Findings. The City Council, in certifying the Final EIR and adopting these Findings, is not itself approving the Marinapark Project. The City Council will place before the voters of the City for their approval or disapproval the General Plan Amendment that is necessary for the Marinapark Project to move forward. In making their determination, the voters may consider all the information available to them, including the Final EIR. Should the electorate approve the General Plan Amendment and should other conditions to development, such as the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit, the approval of a lease and the execution of a boundary line agreement with the State Lands Commission, be satisfied, the City Council will be able to implement that approval, including the imposition of the necessary mitigation measures and conditions of approval, based on the documentation in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Michael Brandman Associates C:Mocw nm and Senings\Iharkless \Local Senings%Tennporary Internet Files \OLKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts SECTION 2: MITIGATED PROJECT -LEVEL AND CUMULATIVE ADVERSE IMPACTS The EIR identified significant project -level and cumulative adverse impacts of the proposed Project, and proposed mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen those impacts. Those impacts and mitigation measures are set forth in the following sections. The Newport Beach City Council finds, based on the record and on the facts as set forth below, that the incorporation of identified mitigation measures will mitigate or avoid all the identified significant project -level and cumulative adverse impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. 2.1 -GEOLOGY AND SOILS (EIR, Section 5.1.) 2.1.1 - Potentially Significant Impact Development of the proposed project would result in a high probability of liquefaction during a major seismic event. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. GS -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that prior to receiving fill, the bottom of the excavated area shall be ripped 6 inches, watered as required, and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density. A geotextile fabric material shall be placed over the bottom of the over excavation. The fabric shall be placed at 6 -inch intervals to 30 inches below finished grade. GS -2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project structures shall be designed with a slab that will be either a stiffened structural slab or a post- tensioned slab. Michael Brandman Associates 3 C.',Doc..and Settings \Iharkless\Local Serings\Tempomry Rnemet Fi1es \0LKB\0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.2 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (EIR Section 5.2.) 2.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project would have a potentially significant short-term project -level and cumulative impact on water quality related to construction activities, as a result of soil erosion, trash and debris leaving the site, and dredging which will increase turbidity and resuspend bottom sediment. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on water quality that could be caused by construction activities. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. The following mitigation measure was revised during the preparation of the Responses to Comment document. Construction timing was added to clarify when construction activities could not occur within the Bay. This revision will further reduce potential impacts to marine life by avoiding construction disturbance during the reproductive season. HWO -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall not preclude incorporation of additional BMPs. • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities dust to be blown to adjacent areas. • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Construction Timing: In -water construction activities shall not occur between March 31 and October 1. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. Michael erandman Associates 4 C:Owarnents and Settings \lharkless \Local Seningffemporary Internet Fi1es \0LKB \00B EK20 Findings.dm Marinapark Resort B Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project-Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering: Construction dewatering will require approved permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity: Activities shall not cause not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b) 10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria is met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from excavation activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2 -inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top of the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. • Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. • Dredged Material: Project operations will require that the scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. Michael Brandman Associates C:Oocu nts and Scttingsllharklm\Local SettingsiTcmpomry Intemet Files \OLKB \0064FR20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.2.2 - Potentially Significant Impact The implementation of the proposed project would result in increased stormwater flows and the potential for pollutants from hotel operations (i.e., pollutants from landscape and parking areas) to cause a potentially project -level and cumulative significant adverse impact on water quality. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, by reducing or eliminating pollutants that would affect offsite water quality. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. HWQ -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Resort Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities within the resort and on the beach shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Resort WQMP shall control urban constituents entering the existing storm drain system or entering surface water flows to the bay. The Resort WQMP shall identify BMPs and how they will be implemented. The WQMP shall not preclude incorporation of additional BMPS. • Access: Provide easily accessible restrooms and trash receptacles. • Fire Fighting: Provide fire fighting and spill containment equipment. • Litter: Keep litter, pet waste, leaves, and debris out of street gutters and storm drains. • Chemicals: Apply lawn and garden chemicals sparingly and according to directions. • Household Hazardous Waste: Dispose of used oil, antifreeze, paints, and other household chemicals properly. Avoid spills of hazardous or polluting material and prepare guidelines for remediation of such occurrences. • Erosion Control: Control soil erosion by planting ground cover and stabilizing erosion -prone areas. • Signage: Affix signs educating user of the property about BMPs. • Street Sweeping: Street sweeping of the grounds and trash collection. • Inspection: Schedule regular inspections. • Trash Enclosures: Design trash container storage areas so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement is diverted around the storage. • Long -Term Maintenance: As design progresses, the owner's plan for the long- term and continuous maintenance of all onfite BMPs requiring ongoing Michael Brandman Associates Ci\DmC ents andSeningsllharkless\Local SeningslTen>pwy Intemet Files \OLKBM006MER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts maintenance must be developed. This plan will include his acceptance of the responsibility for the onsite maintenance of all structural and treatment control BMPs. • WQMP Distribution: Distribution of the Water Quality Management Plan report to the hotel staff and assignment of specific responsibilities by the owner. • Irrigation: Design irrigation systems that: 1) include rain - triggered shut -off devices; 2) match irrigation requirements of specific plant species; 3) and include flow reducers or shut -off valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken lines or sprinkler heads. • Percolation: The project will decrease the amount of existing impervious areas and increase pervious landscaped areas. During the design of the project, special consideration will be given to maximize the use of the landscaped areas as infiltration areas. Percolation of runoff into the ground through permeable areas will be maximized with such means as biofilters, green strips, landscaped swales, planters, and other retention/ percolation devices. Roof drains will be oriented towards permeable surfaces, grading of the site will take into consideration diverting runoff to permeable areas. The site will be graded so that the runoff flows through grassy swales before being collected in an underground system. Consequently, the surface flow travel time will be lengthened and peak discharges reduced. At inlets to underground drains, pollutants will be removed through installation of inlet basket/filters inserts to remove trash and organic material. • Water Quality Systems: Two water quality systems are proposed for the project. The proposed units will be located towards the end of the proposed onsite storm drain system, as shown on Figure 4, and designed to treat runoff water from paved parking areas that cannot be directed to pervious landscape. Typical systems consist of diverting the storm drain low flows, the "first flush" or dry weather flows, to an off -line unit where treatment occurs. Treatment can be provided by filtration or settlement of pollutants, or a combination of both. Following the "first flush', for storm event with peaks exceeding the capacity of the diversion structure, clean runoff will bypass the water quality system and flow to the bay. Common systems are off -line CDS TechnologyO units, on -line VortechsTM units, on -line CSR Stormceptor® units or equivalent. The two proposed systems will remove pollutants flowing to the 18th Street and 15th Street storm drains, respectively. Pollutants removed by these units include trash, sediment, heavy metals, organic compounds and oil and grease. • Catch Basin Filter Inserts: The City of Newport Beach has been implementing the installation of catch basin filter inserts in West Balboa Boulevard. The Ultra - Urban® Filter with Smart Sponge ®, developed and manufactured by AbTech Industries, has been used for effective filtration, efficient application, and moderate maintenance. The Ultra- Urban® Filter captures oil, grease, trash, and sediment from stormwater runoff before it enters the storm drain system. Trash and sediment accumulate in the internal basket while oil and grease are captured in the filtration media. Filter inserts are or will be installed in 18th Street and 15th Street existing inlets. The City of Newport Beach will provide maintenance of the filters within the street right -of -way. • Curb Drains: Curb drains, as a means of draining sump areas and roof drains via subsurface piping systems directly to the street gutter, will not be used for this project. Areas immediately adjacent to Balboa Boulevard, such as the Girl Scout Michael Brandman Associates 7 C:Mocu nts and Seringslharkless \Local Settings \Teniporary Intemet Files \OLKB \0064FR20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts site, Park and entrance driveway to the project, will be designed to direct runoff to landscaped areas. Small portions may use curb drains directing runoff to the City inlets and filter inserts. The curb drains, if used, will have a French drain system of perforated pipe and gravel to increase percolation. Sump Pump: hi case the proposed Tennis/Parking Structure needs installation of a sump pump, direct discharge to the public right of way will not be permitted. Rather, discharge from the sump pump will be directed to the proposed water quality unit. Storage and Maintenance Areas: Design will insure that runoff does not come into contact with loading and unloading dock areas, and repair and maintenance areas. Storage of material that may contribute pollutants to the stormwater will be placed in an enclosure such as a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the stormwater conveyance system. These areas will also protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. Outdoor material storage is not anticipated for this project. Trash receptacles will be protected from drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement and covered with roof or awning. • Irrigation System: A moisture- detecting or weather -based irrigation system will be used to eliminate over watering and dry weather flow. The landscaped areas will be graded to maximize percolation and avoid direct drainage to the local storm drain system. • Storm Drain Signage: Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language such as: "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN ". HWO -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Marina Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities at the boat slips shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Marina WQMP shall control pollutants from the boat slips from entering the bay. The Marina WQMP shall identify BMPs and how they will be implemented. The WQMP shall not preclude incorporation of additional BMPs. • Boat Maintenance: Prohibit in -water boat maintenance and discharge of waste. • Harbor Permit: The Permittee of the Harbor Permit shall keep the area delineated on the harbor permit free from beached or floating rubbish, debris, or litter at all times. • Trash Enclosures: Provide trash receptacles located on the dock for refuse collection and provide for these receptacles to be emptied a minimum of once per week. • Waste Collection Bags: Provide plastic collection bags on the dock for the collection and disposal of pet waste. • Detergents: Use only biodegradable detergents and cleaning products when performing boat cleaning activities. • Fish Waste: Deposit fish waste only in designated trash receptacles or at designated fish cleaning stations. • Bilge Water: Avoid the pumping of bilge water in the harbor. Michael Brandman Associates 8 C[\Dmu nen$ and Settings \lharkless \Local Settings \Temporary Imernet Files \OLKB \0061ER'.0 Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Face Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts • Holding Tanks: On boats equipped with a holding tank equipped with a Y -valve and through -hull fitting, the valve should be closed and locked within the 3 -mile limit from shore. • Bait Buckets: Empty bait buckets only in designated trash receptacles or at designated fish cleaning stations. • Signage: Post signs on the dock stating that it is illegal to discharge plastics or garbage containing plastics, discharge oil, or discharge raw sewage into any waters. • Educational Pamphlet: Create and distribute educational pamphlet describing activities that are allowed and activities that are prohibited regarding minor maintenance and cleaning activities. HWQ-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a water quality monitoring program shall be developed and implemented to ensure that all BMPs approved in the SWPPP and WQMPs are being used to lessen water quality impacts on Newport Bay. This program shall also include a water quality monitoring program during "first flush" rainstorms following significant dry weather periods during construction and for a period of 5 years following construction, and monthly water turbidity sampling along the beachfront. If it is determined that Newport Bay water quality has been degraded, adaptive management techniques shall be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent adverse effects on the bay's water quality. HWQ -5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that are supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. 2.2.3 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project would increase stormwater flows and potentially cause a significant project - level and cumulative adverse effect on the existing storm drain system. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. HWQ -6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate through a drainage plan that onsite detention basins will be constructed so that peak stormwater flow concentrations to the existing 18th Street and 15th Street storm drains will not be increased from flow concentrations prior to development of the project. Michael Brandman Associates C:Mocam nt and Ser ingsllharklesslLocal Set ings�Te,Moary 1.we aef Fi1esl0LKB1006 ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.3 - BOLOGICAL RESOURCES (EIR Section 5.3.) 2.3.1 -Significant Impact The proposed cement walkway from the resort hotel to the boat slips will result in loss of approximately 490 square feet of sandy shoreline, which is foraging habitat for shorebirds. This loss is considered a significant project -level and cumulative impact. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. BR -5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that is supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. The following mitigation measure was revised during the preparation of the Responses to Comment Document. This measure was revised to reflect a request by the California Coastal Commission for a greater soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement ratio as well as to reflect the habitat replacement requirements assuming implementation of mitigation measures BR -5 and LU -1. BR -6 Prior to approval of the boat dock construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 41,344.24 square feet (0.95 acre) would need to be replaced. hi accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat dock construction permit shall be implemented. With the implementation of mitigation measures HWQ -5 and BR -5, the project's potential effect would be 9,846.06 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as Michael Brandman Associates 10 CdDocu n6 and settingslharkless\ Local senings\Tenmomry Internet Files \OLKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 39,384.24 square feet (0.90 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. With the implementation of mitigation measure LU -1, the project's potential effect would be 13.6 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 54.4 square feet (0.001 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. 2.3.2 - Significant Impact The placement of the boat slip bulkhead, emplacement of 9 cement pilings, and a cement walkway leading to the boat slips will impact benthic (bottom - dwelling) organisms because there will be a long -term loss of soft bottom habitat including a long -term loss of benthic invertebrates and food sources for fish, shorebirds and seabirds. This long -term loss is considered a significant project -level and cumulative impact. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. BR -6 Prior to approval of the boat dock construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 41,344.24 square feet (0.95 acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat dock construction permit shall be implemented. With the implementation of mitigation measures HWQ -5 and BR -5, the project's potential effect would be 9,846.06 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 39,384.24 square feet (0.90 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. With the implementation of mitigation measure LU -1, the project's potential effect would be 13.6 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Michael Brandman Associates 11 C:Mocam nts and Settings \lharkless%Loca l Settings\ Temporary Internet Files \OLKB \0064ER20 Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Face Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts Coastal Commission), 54.4 square feet (0.001 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. BR -5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that is supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. The following mitigation measure was added during the preparation of the Responses to Comments Document. Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the project -level and cumulative long -term loss of soft bottom habitat including a long -term loss of benthic invertebrates and food sources for fish, shorebirds and seabirds to less than significant, the following measure has been incorporated into the project to further reduce these impacts. LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no permanent structure extends beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre - stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a greater number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet. 2.3.3 - Significant Impact Localized long -term impacts to fish resources will occur as a result of the long -term loss of soft bottom fish foraging habitat. This long -term loss is considered a significant project -level and cumulative impact. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. BR -6 Prior to approval of the boat dock construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the Michael Brandman Associates 12 CBnoc nts and SettingslbarklesslLocal SettingslTemporary Intemet Fi1esl0LKB1006 ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort B Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Face Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 41,344.24 square feet (0.95 acre) would need to be replaced. hi accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat dock construction permit shall be implemented. With the implementation of mitigation measures HWQ -5 and BR -5, the project's potential effect would be 9,846.06 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 39,384.24 square feet (0.90 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. With the implementation of mitigation measure LU -1, the project's potential effect would be 13.6 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 54.4 square feet (0.001 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. The following mitigation measure was added during the preparation of the Responses to Comments Document. Although the above mitigation measure would reduce the project -level and cumulative long -term impacts to fish resources that would occur due to the long -term loss of soft bottom fish foraging habitat to less than significant, the following measure has been incorporated into the project to further reduce these impacts. LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no permanent structure extends beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre - stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a greater number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet. 2.3.4 - Significant Impact Grading and dredging activities, stormwater turbidity plumes and construction- related noise would result in changes to the federal and state listed endangered species California least tern and California brown pelican's foraging behavior. These construction activities would result in significant project- level and cumulative impacts to these species' foraging behavior. Michael Brandman Associates 13 CdDce=enN and Settings \lharkless \Local Settings \Tetnponary Intemet Files \OLKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. BRA Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -I as described above. BR-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a water quality monitoring program shall be developed and implemented to ensure that all BMPs approved in the SWPPP and WQMPs are being used to lessen water quality impacts on Newport Bay. The monitoring program shall include provisions to monitor the health of marine life in the boat slip basin and the channel waters in front of the sand beach. This program shall also include a water quality monitoring program during "first flush" rainstorms following significant dry weather periods during construction and for a period of 5 years following construction, and monthly water turbidity sampling along the beachfront. If it is determined that Newport Bay water quality or marine life has been degraded, adaptive management techniques shall be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent adverse effects on the bay's water quality and marine resources. 2.3.5 - Significant Impact Maintenance dredging or other maintenance in the boat slips would likely result in the periodic loss of eelgrass. This loss of eelgrass is considered a significant project -level and cumulative impact. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. Michael Brandman Associates 14 C:\nocam nL and Settingsllharkless\Lmal Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Face Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts BR -7 Prior to maintenance dredging or other maintenance in the boat slips, the project applicant shall develop a plan to restore eelgrass habitat according to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. 2.3.6 - Significant Impact The long -term loss of the soft bottom habitat in the project area will result in a reduction of halibut nursery habitat. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. BR -6 Prior to approval of the boat dock construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 41,344.24 square feet (0.95 acre) would need to be replaced. hi accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat dock construction permit shall be implemented. With the implementation of mitigation measures HWQ -5 and BR -5, the project's potential effect would be 9,846.06 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 39,384.24 square feet (0.90 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. With the implementation of mitigation measure LU -1, the project's potential effect would be 13.6 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 54.4 square feet (0.001 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced." BR -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Resort Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities within the resort and on the beach shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Resort WQMP shall control urban constituents entering the existing storm drain system or entering surface water flows to the bay. The recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -2 as described in Section 2.2.2. Michael Brandman Associates 15 Q\Docw rda and SeningsVharklesslLmal SeaingslTemporary Internet Fi1es l0LKB10064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts BR -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Marina Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities at the boat slips shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Marina WQMP shall control pollutants from the boat slips from entering the bay. The recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -3 as described in Section 2.2.2. The following mitigation measure was added during the preparation of the Responses to Comments Document. Although the above mitigation measure would reduce the project -level and cumulative impact to halibut nursery habitat due to the long -term loss of soft bottom habitat to less than significant, the following measure has been incorporated into the project to further reduce these Impacts. LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no permanent structure extends beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre - stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a greater number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet. 2.3.7 - Potentially Significant Impact Eelgrass beds are planned to be transplanted along the shoreline between 15th Street and 19th Street as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Newport Harbor Eelgrass Restoration Project in 2004. Potential significant project -level and cumulative impacts to the transplanted eelgrass can occur through stormwater and turbidity- related impacts associated with construction activities on the land. Furthermore, construction activities associated with the boat slips and cement walkway could potentially have significant project -level and cumulative, short-term impacts on eelgrass bed resources related to (1) vessel movement and damage from propellers and (2) increased levels of turbidity. Short-term increases in turbidity would lower levels of ambient light, creating less favorable growing conditions. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Michael Brandman Associates 16 C:\Documents and Settings \Iharkless \Local Settings \Tempomry Intemet Files \OLKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. BR -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -1 as described above. BR-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a water quality monitoring program shall be developed and implemented to ensure that all BMPs approved in the SWPPP and WQMPs are being used to lessen water quality impacts on Newport Bay. The monitoring program shall include provisions to monitor the health of marine life in the boat slip basin and the channel waters in front of the sand beach. This program shall also include a water quality monitoring program during "first flush" rainstorms following significant dry weather periods during construction and for a period of 5 years following construction, and monthly water turbidity sampling along the beachfront. If it is determined that Newport Bay water quality or marine life has been degraded, adaptive management techniques shall be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent adverse effects on the bay's water quality and marine resources. The following mitigation measure was added during the preparation of the Responses to Comments Document. Although the above mitigation measure would reduce project -level and cumulative impacts to transplanted eelgrass to less than significant, the following measure has been incorporated into the project to further reduce these impacts. LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no permanent structure extends beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre - stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a greater number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet. 2.3.8 - Significant Impact The long -term presence of the 317 -foot long bulkhead, the addition of 9 support pilings for the docks, and the 70 -foot long concrete walkway to the boat slips will result in the loss of sand beach and soft Michael Brandman Associates 17 CSnocu nts and Settings4harkless\Local Sethngs�Temporary Intemet Files\OLKB10064ER20 _Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts bottom habitat. This loss of sand beach and soft bottom habitat is considered a significant project - level and cumulative impact. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final FIR and incorporated into the project. BR -5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that is supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. BR -6 Prior to approval of the boat dock construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 41,344.24 square feet (0.95 acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat dock construction permit shall be implemented. With the implementation of mitigation measures HWQ -5 and BR -5, the project's potential effect would be 9,846.06 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 39,384.24 square feet (0.90 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. With the implementation of mitigation measure LU -1, the project's potential effect would be 13.6 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 54.4 square feet (0.001 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced." The following mitigation measure was added during the preparation of the Responses to Comments Document. Although the above mitigation measure would reduce project -level and cumulative impacts to loss of soft bottom habitat to less than significant, the following measure has been incorporated into the project to further reduce these impacts. LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no permanent structure extends beyond the Michael Brandman Associates is CADocuments and Settings llharMess \Local SettingsUemporary Intemet Files \OLKB \0063ER20 Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre - stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a greater number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet. 2.4 - AIR QUALITY (EIR section 5.6.) 2.4.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project has the potential to generate dust and exceed the SCAQMD established thresholds for ROG during the construction phase. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. During construction activities, the following dust control measures are required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Control District's Rule 403. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas; • Sweep or wash any site access points and public roadways within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway; • Cover or water twice daily any onsite stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material; • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph; or Michael Brandman Associates C.\Dm mem and SeningsQarkless;Local SeningslTernponry Internet Fi le5I0LKB\0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort B Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Protect -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. Following are the measures to reduce short-term construction emissions of reactive organic gases during the application of architectural coatings related to finish work. AQ -1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building plans shall state that pre- coated building materials shall be used. AQ -2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building plans shall state that high pressure low- volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50% efficiency shall be used. AQ -3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building plans shall state that lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter shall be used. AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building plans shall state that adopt a construction traffic management plan shall be used. 2.5 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (EIR section 1.6.) 2.5.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project will include the removal of structures on the project site. These structures may contain lead and asbestos materials. The presence of these materials could result in potentially significant impacts. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. • Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant shall retain a lead and /or asbestos removal specialist to develop and implement a plan to remove any onsite lead and/or asbestos. Michael lirandman Associates 20 CADacu ras and Settings \Iharkless\Local SettingslTernprary Intemet Files \0LKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan Additional Measures Incorporated into the Project CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact to Further Reduce Less Than Significant Impacts SECTION 3: ADDITIONAL MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT TO FURTHER REDUCE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The EIR analyzed the impacts identified as potentially significant during the preparation of the Initial Study/NOP for the proposed Project, and environmental issues raised by agencies and the general public in response to the Initial Study/NOP. Certain issues of concern to the public were determined not to raise significant adverse environmental impacts. For some of these less than significant impacts, the City has incorporated measures to further reduce a less than significant impact. Those issues and measures are discussed in this section of these Findings. 3.1 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (EIR SECTION 1.6.) 3.1.1 - Less Than Significant Impact The project is located within a quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. Certain materials used in the construction and operation of the Project may be hazardous. The following measure is incorporated into the project to further reduce the less than significant impact by allowing the City to more effectively monitor the materials used on the site. Additional Measure • During construction activities and operation of the proposed project, an inventory of material identified as inherently hazardous or hazardous that is stored or handled onsite as well as the quantity will be provided to the City. 3.2 - LAND USE (EIR section 5.4.) 3.2.1 - Less Than Significant Impact The EIR determined that the Project would have no significant adverse impacts on land use. In particular, with respect to the proposed construction of a dock outside of the U.S. Pierhead Line, the EIR determined that if the Project proceeded in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits, it would not conflict with applicable land use regulations. Despite the lack of a significant adverse land use impact, however, the EIR identified significant adverse environmental impacts that Michael Rrandman Associates 21 C:\Documents and Senings\Iharkless\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Fi1n \0LKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan Additional Measures Incorporated into the Project CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact to Further Reduce Less Than Significant Impacts would be caused by the construction of the initially proposed twelve boat slips. These impacts include the following: • Long -term loss of soft bottom habitat including a long -term loss of benthic invertebrates and food sources for fish, shorebirds and seabirds. • Localized long -term impacts to fish resources as a result of the long -term loss of soft bottom fish foraging habitat. • Periodic loss of eelgrass caused by maintenance dredging or other maintenance in the boat slips. • Reduction of halibut nursery habitat due to the long -term loss of the soft bottom habitat in the project area. • Potential significant, short-term impacts from construction of the boat slips to eelgrass beds planned to be transplanted along the shoreline between 15th Street and 19th Street as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Newport Harbor Eelgrass Restoration Project in 2004. These impacts would be related to (1) vessel movement and damage from propellers and (2) increased levels of turbidity. Short-term increases in turbidity would lower levels of ambient light, creating less favorable growing conditions. • Loss of sand beach and soft bottom habitat resulting from the long -term presence of the 317 -foot long bulkhead and the addition of 9 support pilings for the docks. Additional Measure To further mitigate the adverse environmental impacts identified above, the following measure is incorporated into the Project as an alternative to obtaining a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to allow the proposed boat dock to extend beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no permanent structure extends beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre - stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a greater number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet. Michael Brandman Associates C:\Docw nts and Senings\Iharkless \Local Senings \Temporary Internet Fi1es \OLKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternatives SECTION 4: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The discussion of alternatives is required to include the "No Project" alternative. CEQA requires further that the City identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the "No Project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified from among the other alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6.) As set forth in these Findings, the Project, with the Mitigation Measures incorporated, will have no remaining significant adverse environmental impact. Nonetheless, the City has, in addition to incorporating the recommended measures to mitigate the identified impacts, reviewed a range of potential alternatives to the proposed project. The Marinapark EIR discussed the No ProjectfNo Development Alternative, the Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative, and the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Each was designed to reduce some of the impacts identified as significant and adverse. The City Council rejects each of the Alternatives, on the grounds that they are infeasible, fail to meet the objectives of the Project, or fail to avoid adverse environmental impacts, as set forth in greater detail below. 4.1 - NO PROJECT /NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE This alternative would leave the existing mobile home park and recreational facilities in place, and would not allow any new land uses. No new environmental impacts would be created. The recreational facilities are consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements. This alternative does not achieve the project objectives of redeveloping the site with uses permitted by tidelands restrictions, reducing the deficit in the City's tidelands fund, providing additional general fund revenue, or providing for additional marine - related facilities. Although this alternative is environmentally superior to the project, the City finds it to be less desirable than the proposed Project, and rejects it because it fails to meet several project objectives. This alternative will also not provide the economic benefits to the City, improved public access, and increased marine recreational facilities offered by the proposed project. 4.2 - MARINAPARK MARINE RECREATION ALTERNATIVE This alternative was formulated by City staff to be consistent with the existing General Plan and with the intent of putting a City -owned property to use in satisfying needs and demands the City has heard Michael Brandman Associates 23 C:\Doc=enu and SeningsllharklesslLocal Seninp\Temporary Internet FilevOLKB10064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort B Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternatives from various segments of the community, including recreation facilities, marine facilities, slips for charter boats to support an existing commercial activity in the harbor. The alternative would remove the mobile home park and develop 1.64 acres of parkland, 1.92 acres for a Girl Scout House /Community Center, 1.2 acres of tennis/basketball courts, 2.77 acres of beach/slip parking area, .50 acre of metered parking area, and 20 boat slips and a public boat launch. This alternative would have lesser impacts than the project on geology and soils because there would be fewer buildings subject to potential liquefaction. Hydrology and water quality impacts would be greater due to more impervious surfaces, surface parking lot and boat engine oil and gasoline released into the bay. Impacts to water quality and biological resources would be greater because of larger boat slips and the boat launch, causing more dredging and greater turbidity. Because a greater number of trips would result from this alternative than from the project, air quality and noise impacts also would be greater. This alternative is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements. It would have lesser impacts on aesthetics because there would be fewer buildings, and it would demand fewer public services than the project. This alternative would meet many of the project objectives, but it is uncertain whether it would reduce the tidelands deficit or provide additional general fund revenue. The City Council rejects this alternative because of its significant adverse environmental impacts and its inability to meet all project objectives. 4.3 - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE This alternative was developed to satisfy many of the project objectives, but with a lesser intensity of visitor accommodations, with the intent of reducing environmental impacts that would result from the project. The alternative includes a smaller hotel, with 80 rooms, a 4,500 square foot freestanding restaurant and 12 boat slips, as well as the community facilities included in the project. This alternative would have lesser impacts than the project on geology and soils because there would be fewer buildings subject to potential liquefaction. Hydrology impacts would be similar to those of the project because impervious surfaces would be similar. The boat slips and their operation also would be similar to the hotel and cause similar impacts to biological resources. The large freestanding restaurant would generate more trips than the project, resulting in greater impacts on traffic, noise and air quality. This feature of the alternative also would result in more impacts on public services. Aesthetic impacts would be lesser because there would be fewer structures than the project includes. This alternative, like the project, would require amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements. This alternative would meet many project objectives. The City Council rejects this alternative because although it would reduce certain environmental impacts, it would still have worse environmental impacts than the project as mitigated. 4.4 - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires further that the City identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the "No Project' alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, as in this case, the City must identify Michael Brandman Associates 24 C:\Documenls and SeWngs \]Wkless \Local SeningsUengwrary I niemel Fi1es \0LKB \0064ER20_Findings.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternatives an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives considered in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6.). Comparing the remaining two alternatives, the Reduced Intensity Alternative generates less traffic than the Marine Recreation Alternative, and therefore has less severe air quality and noise impacts. The Reduced Intensity Alternative also has fewer boat slips, which results in less dredging and fewer impacts to water quality and biological resources. Therefore, the City Council identifies the Reduced Intensity Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. As set forth above, however, although each alternative was designed to avoid certain environmental impacts, the alternatives fail to reduce impacts to below the level of the proposed project, as mitigated. Michael Brandman Associates 25 CADOC=enG and Settings\lharkless \Local Settings \Tempomry Intemet Files\OLKBW064ER20_Findings.doc EXHIBIT B Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 949.644.3210 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Jason M. Brandman, Senior Project Manager July 21, 2004 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM When making "findings" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21081 of the), the public agency "shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." This monitoring plan complies with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code. The responsible party for implementation of all mitigation measures is the City of Newport Beach and/or its designee. Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Mitigation NO. Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for sign Off Monitoring GEOLOGY AND SOILS (SECTION 5.1) GS -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state Building that prior to receiving fill, the bottom of the excavated area shall be Department ripped 6 inches, watered as required, and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density. A geotextile fabric material shall be placed over the bottom of the over excavation. The fabric shall be placed at 6 -inch intervals to 30 inches below finished grade. GS -2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project structures Building shall be designed with a slab that will be either a stiffened Department structural slab or a post - tensioned slab. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (SECTION 5.2) HWQ -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a stormwater pollution Building prevention plan ( SWPPP) for construction activities that describes Department & best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of Code and Water potential pollutants into surface water shall be prepared by the Quality project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Enforcement plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The Division SWPPP shall not preclude incorporation of additional BMPs. • Dust Control. Water will be sprayed in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities dust to be blown to adjacent areas. • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Construction Timing: Restrict in -water construction activities between March 31 and October 1 . • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. Michael Brandman Associates C:Mocu ae and settings \lharkless \Local Settings \Teinpoary Internet Files�OLKB \0064ER20_MMP.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation No. Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for Monitoring Sign Off • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering: Construction dewatering will require approved permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity: Activities shall not cause not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b) 10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria is met. • Crease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from excavation activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2 -inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top of the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heaiy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. • Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. Michael Brandman Associates 2 C:\Documenlc and Settingsllharkless \Local Senings\Teraporary Internet Fi1es \0LKB \0064ER20_MMP.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation No. Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for Monitoring Sign � • Dredged Material: Project operations will require that the scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. HWQ -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Resort Water Quality Building Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities within the Department & resort and on the beach shall be prepared by the project applicant Code and Water for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Resort WQMP Quality shall control urban constituents entering the existing storm drain Enforcement system or entering surface water flows to the bay. The Resort Division WQMP shall identify BMPs and how they will be implemented. The WQMP shall not preclude incorporation of additional BMPs. • Access: Provide easily accessible restrooms and trash receptacles. • Fire Fighting: Provide fire fighting and spill containment equipment. • Litter: Keep litter, pet waste, leaves, and debris out of street gutters and storm drains. • Chemicals: Apply lawn and garden chemicals sparingly and according to directions. • Household Hazardous Waste: Dispose of used oil, antifreeze, paints, and other household chemicals properly. Avoid spills of hazardous or polluting material and prepare guidelines for remediation of such occurrences. • Erosion Control: Control soil erosion by planting ground cover and stabilizing erosion -prone areas. • Signage. Affix signs educating user of the property about BMPs. • Street Sweeping: Street sweeping of the grounds and trash collection. • Inspection: Schedule regular inspections. • Trash Enclosures: Design trash container storage areas so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement is diverted around the storage. • Long -Term Maintenance: As design progresses, the owner's plan for the long -term and continuous maintenance of all on -site BMP's requiring ongoing maintenance must be developed. This plan will include his acceptance of the responsibility for the on- site maintenance of all structural and treatment control BMPs. • WQMP Distribution: Distribution of the Water Quality Management Plan report to the hotel staff and assignment of specific responsibilities by the owner. • Irrigation: Design irrigation systems that: 1) include rain - triggered shut -off devices; 2) match irrigation requirements of specific plant species; 3) and include flow reducers or shut -off valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken lines or sprinkler heads. • Percolation: The project will decrease the amount of existing impervious areas and increase pervious landscaped areas. During the design of the project, special consideration will be Michael Brandman Associates C:Moc=ent and Settingsllharkless \Local SettingsUemporary Intemet Fi1es \OLKB \0064ER20_MMP.dm Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation No. Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for Monitoring Sign Off given to maximize the use of the landscaped areas as infiltration areas. Percolation of runoff into the ground through permeable areas will be maximized with such means as biofilters, green strips, landscaped swales, planters, and other retention/ percolation devices. Roof drains will be oriented towards permeable surfaces, grading of the site will take into consideration diverting runoff to permeable areas. The site will be graded so that the runoff flows through grassy swales before being collected in an underground system. Consequently, the surface flow travel time will be lengthened and peak discharges reduced. At inlets to underground drains, pollutants will be removed through installation of inlet basket/filters inserts to remove trash and organic material. • Water Quality Systems: Two water quality systems are proposed for the project. The proposed units will be located towards the end of the proposed on -site storm drain system, as shown on Figure 4, and designed to treat runoff water from paved parking areas that cannot be directed to pervious landscape. Typical systems consist of diverting the storm drain low flows, the "first flush" or dry weather flows, to an off -line unit where treatment occurs. Treatment can be provided by filtration or settlement of pollutants, or a combination of both. Following the "first flush', for storm event with peaks exceeding the capacity of the diversion structure, clean runoff will bypass the water quality system and flow to the bay. Common systems are off -line CDS Technology® units, on -line VortechsTM units, on -line CSR Stormceptor® units or equivalent. The two proposed systems will remove pollutants flowing to the 18th Street and 15th Street storm drains, respectively. Pollutants removed by these units include trash, sediment, heavy metals, organic compounds and oil and grease. • Catch Basin Filter Inserts: The City of Newport Beach has been implementing the installation of catch basin filter inserts in West Balboa Boulevard. The Ultra - Urban® Filter with Smart Sponge®, developed and manufactured by AbTech Industries, has been used for effective filtration, efficient application, and moderate maintenance. The Ultra - Urban® Filter captures oil, grease, trash, and sediment from stormwater runoff before it enters the storm drain system. Trash and sediment accumulate in the internal basket while oil and grease are captured in the filtration media. Filter inserts are or will be installed in 18th Street and 15th Street existing inlets. The City of Newport Beach will provide maintenance of the filters within the street right -of -way. • Curb Drains: Curb drains, as a means of draining sump areas and roof drains via subsurface piping systems directly to the street gutter, will not be used for this project. Areas immediately adjacent to Balboa Boulevard, such as the Girl Scout site, Park and entrance driveway to the project, will be designed to direct runoff to landscaped areas. Small portions may use curb drains directing runoff to the City inlets and filter inserts. The curb drains, if used, will have a French drain system of perforated pipe and gravel to increase percolation. Michael Brandman Associates C:\Documents and Settings \lharklessTocal Settings \Temporary Internet Fi1es \OLKB \0064ER20 MMP.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation No. Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for Monitoring Sign Off • Sump Pump: In case the proposed Tennis/Parking Structure needs installation of a sump pump, direct discharge to the public right of way will not be permitted. Rather, discharge from the sump pump will be directed to the proposed water quality unit. • Storage and Maintenance Areas: Design will insure that runoff does not come into contact with loading and unloading dock areas, and repair and maintenance areas. Storage of material that may contribute pollutants to the storm water will be placed in an enclosure such as a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system. These areas will also protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. Outdoor material storage is not anticipated for this project. Trash receptacles will be protected from drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement and covered with roof or awning. • Irrigation System: A moisture- detecting or weather -based irrigation system will be used to eliminate over watering and dry weather flow. The landscaped areas will be graded to maximize percolation and avoid direct drainage to the local storm drain system. • Storm Drain Signage: Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language such as: "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN'. HWQ -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Marina Water Quality Harbor Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities at the boat Resources slips shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the Division & Code City of Newport Beach. The Marina WQMP shall control and Water pollutants from the boat slips from entering the bay. The Marina Quality WQMP shall identify BMPs and how they will be implemented. Enforcement The WQMP shall not preclude incorporation of additional BMPs. Division • Boat Maintenance. Prohibit in -water boat maintenance and discharge of waste. • Harbor Permit: The Permittee of the Harbor Permit shall keep the area delineated on the harbor permit free from beached or floating rubbish, debris, or litter at all times. • Trash Enclosures: Provide trash receptacles located on the dock for refuse collection and provide for these receptacles to be emptied a minimum of once per week. • Waste Collection Bags: Provide plastic collection bags on the dock for the collection and disposal of pet waste. • Detergents: Use only biodegradable detergents and cleaning products when performing boat cleaning activities. • Fish Waste: Deposit fish waste only in designated trash receptacles or at designated fish cleaning stations. • Bilge Water. Avoid the pumping of bilge water in the harbor. • Holding Tanks: On boats equipped with a holding tank equipped with a Y -valve and through -hull fitting, the valve should be closed and locked within the 3 -mile limit from shore. Michael Brandman Associates C: \Document and Settings \lharkless \Local Scaings\Temporary lntemet Fi1es \0LKB \0064ER20_MMP.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation No Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for Sign Off • Bait Buckets: Empty bait buckets only in designated trash receptacles or at designated fish cleaning stations. • Signage: Post signs on the dock stating that it is illegal to discharge plastics or garbage containing plastics, discharge oil, or discharge raw sewage into any waters. • Educational Pamphlet: Create and distribute educational pamphlet describing activities that are allowed and activities that are prohibited regarding minor maintenance and cleaning activities. HWQ4 A water quality monitoring program shall be developed and Building & Code implemented to ensure that all BMPs approved in the SWPPP and and Water WQMPs are being used to lessen water quality impacts on Newport Quality Bay. This program shall also include a water quality monitoring Enforcement program during "first flush" rainstorms following significant dry Division weather periods during construction and for a period of 5 years following construction, and monthly water turbidity sampling along the beachfront. if it is determined that Newport Bay water quality has been degraded, adaptive management techniques shall be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent adverse effects on the bay's water quality. HWQ -5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall Building & design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that are supported by Planning piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the Department proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. HWQ -6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall Building & demonstrate through a drainage plan that onsite detention basins Public Works will be constructed so that peak storm water flow concentrations to Department the existing 18th Street and 15th Street storm drains will not be increased from flow concentrations prior to development of the project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 5.3) BR -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a stormwater pollution Building prevention plan ( SWPPP) for construction activities that describes Department & best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of Code and Water potential pollutants into surface water shall be prepared by the Quality project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Enforcement plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The Division recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -1 in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft E1R. BR -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Resort Water Quality Building Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities within the Department & resort and on the beach shall be prepared by the project applicant Code and Water for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Resort WQMP Quality shall control urban constituents entering the existing storm drain Enforcement system or entering surface water flows to the bay. The Division recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -2 in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft E1R. Michael Brandman Associates C:Oncn n,n[ and Seaingsdharkless \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LKB \0064ER10_MMP.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for Sign No. Monitoring Off BR -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Marina Water Quality Harbor Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities at the boat Resources slips shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the Division & Code City of Newport Beach. The Marina WQMP shall control and Water pollutants from the boat slips from entering the bay. The Quality recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure Enforcement HWQ -3 in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft E1R. Division BR -4 A water quality monitoring program shall be developed and Code & Water implemented to ensure that all BMPs approved in the SWPPP and Quality WQMPs are being used to lessen water quality impacts on Newport Enforcement Bay. The monitoring program shall include provisions to monitor Division the health of marine life in the boat slip basin and the channel waters in front of the sand beach. This program shall also include a water quality monitoring program during "first flush" rainstorms following significant dry weather periods during construction and for a period of 5 years following construction, and monthly water turbidity sampling along the beachfront. if it is determined that Newport Bay water quality or marine life has been degraded, adaptive management techniques shall be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent adverse effects on the bay's water quality and marine resources. BR -5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall Building & design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that is supported by Planning piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the Department proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. BR -6 Prior to approval of the boat dock construction permit issued by the Planning U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Department Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 41,344.24 square feet (0.95 acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat dock construction permit shall be implemented. With the implementation of mitigation measure BR -5, the project's potential effect would be 9,846.06 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 39,384.24 square feet (0.90 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. With the implementation of mitigation measure LU -1, the project's potential effect would be 13.6 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), Michael Brandman Associates C:\Documents and Seningsllharkless \Local Senings \Tertgwrary Intemet Files \OLKBM0064Ett?0 MMY.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation No Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for Sign Off 54.4 square feet (0.001 acre) of suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced." BR -7 Prior to maintenance dredging or other maintenance in the boat Harbor slips, the project applicant shall develop a plan to restore eelgrass Resources habitat according to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Division Policy. LAND USE AND PLANNING (SECTION 5.4) LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, Planning the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no Department permanent structure extends beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre - stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a greater number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre - stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet. AIR QUALITY (SECTION 5.6) During construction activities, the following dust control measures Planning and are required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Control Building District's Rule 403. Department & • Water all active construction Water all active construction areas Code &Water at least twice daily; Quality • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard; Enforcement Division • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas; • Sweep or wash any site access points and public roadways within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway; • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material; • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph; or • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. AQ -1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building plans shall Planning state that pre- coated building materials shall be used. Department Michael Brandman Associates C:\DocumenL and SetdngsVharklesslLocal SettingslTeniporary Internet Fi1es \0LKH,0064ER20_MMiP.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation No. Mitigation Measure Comments City Department Responsible for Sign Off Monitoring AQ -2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building plans shall Planning state that high pressure low - volume (HPLV) paint applicators with Department 50% efficiency shall be used. AQ -3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building plans shall Planning state that lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG Department per liter shall be used. AQ4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall Planning include a construction traffic management plan. Department & Traffic Division HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant Building shall retain a lead and/or asbestos removal specialist to develop and Department implement a plan to remove any onsite lead and/or asbestos. During construction activities and operation of the proposed Building project, an inventory of material identified as inherently hazardous Department or hazardous that is stored or handled onsite as well as the quantity will be provided to the City. Michael Brandman Associates C:Mocamen6 and Settings\IharklessTocal Settings \Temporary Intemet Fi1es \0LKB \0064EK20 MMP.dm EIR - 1 DRAFT Environmental Impact Report Marinapark Resort & Community Plan State Clearinghouse #200311021 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Jason M. Brandman, Senior Project Manager April 2004 ' Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan - Draft EIR Table of Contents 3.2 - Project Characteristics ........................................................ ............................3 -1 3. 1.1 - Site Characteristics .............................................. ............................3 -1 TABLE OF CONTENTS -1 33 - Project Objectives .............................................................. ............................3-8 3.4 - Intended Uses of the Draft EIR, Responsible Agencies, and Approvals .......... 3 -9 Section 1: Introduction ........................................................................ ............................1 -1 Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting ................ ............................4 1.1 - Authority ............................................................................. ............................1 -1 -1 1.2 - Determination of the Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies .......................1 -2 Section 5: Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, 1.3 - Purpose of the EIR ............................................................. ............................1 -2 after 1.4 - Scope of the EIR ................................................................ ............................1 -3 ' 1.5 - Scoping Process ................................................................ ............................1 -3 -1 1.6 - EIR Focus and Effects Found Not To Be Significant ........... ............................1 -3 ' 1.7 - Organization of the EIR ...................................................... ............................1 1.8 - Project Sponsors and Contact Persons .............................. ............................1 -6 -6 -4 1.9 - Review of the Draft EIR .......................................... ........................................ 1 -7 ' Section 2: Executive Summary ........................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 - Project Description ................................... ...................................................... 2 -1 2.2 - Areas of Controversy /Issues To Be Resolved ..................... ............................2 -1 2.3 - Summary of Alternatives ..................................................... ............................2 -1 2.4 - Mitigation Monitoring Program ............................................ ............................2 -2 2.5 - Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures .........................2 -2 Section 3: Project Description ............................................................ ............................3 -1 3.1 - Project Location .................................................................. ............................3 -1 3.2 - Project Characteristics ........................................................ ............................3 -1 3. 1.1 - Site Characteristics .............................................. ............................3 -1 3.1.2 - Project Characteristics ......................................... ............................3 -1 33 - Project Objectives .............................................................. ............................3-8 3.4 - Intended Uses of the Draft EIR, Responsible Agencies, and Approvals .......... 3 -9 Cityof Newport Beach .................................................... ............................3 -9 Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting ................ ............................4 -1 4.1 - Environmental Setting ........................................................ ............................4 -1 4.2 - Related Projects ............. ................................................................................ 4 -1 Section 5: Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures,and Level of Significance after Mitigation...................................................................... ..........................5.1 -1 5.1 - Geology and Soils ............................................................. ..........................5.1 -1 5. 1.1 - Existing Conditions ............................................. ..........................5.1 -1 5.1.2 - Project Impacts .................... ............................... ..........................5.1 -3 5.1.3 - Cumulative Impacts ............................................ ..........................5.1 -4 5.1.4 - Mitigation Measures ............................................ ..........................5.1 -4 5.1.5 - Level of Significance After Mitigation ................... ..........................5.1 -4 5.2 - Hydrology and Water Quality .............. ............................... ..........................5.2.1 5.2.1 - Existing Conditions ........... .......... ............ ...................................... 5.2 -1 5.2.2 - Thresholds of Significance .................................. ..........................5.2 -6 5.2.3 - Project Impacts .......... ................................................................... 5.2 -6 5.2.4 - Cumulative Impacts ........................................... .........................5.2 -10 5.2.5 - Mitigation Measures ........................................... .........................5.2 -10 5.2.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation .................. .........................5.2 -14 5.3 - Biological Resources ......................................................... ..........................5.3 -1 5.3.1 - Existing Conditions ............................................. ..........................5.3 -1 Michael Brandman Associates ii HACH= (PN -.IN)\ 0064 \00640020061R \00640020_TOC.doo Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan - Draft E/R Table of Contents 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance .................................. ..........................5.3 -6 5.3.3 Project Impacts ................................................... ..........................5.3 -7 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................... .........................5.3 -12 5.3.5 Mitigation Measures .......................................... .........................5.3 -12 5.3.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ................. .........................5.3 -13 5.4 - Land Use and Planning ..................................................... ..........................5.4 -1 5.4.1 - Existing Conditions ............................................. ..........................5.4 -1 5.4.2 - Thresholds of Significance .................................. ..........................5.4 -6 5.4.3 - Project Impacts ................................................... ..........................5.4 -7 5.4.4 - Cumulative Impacts ........................................... .........................5.4 -20 5.4.5 - Mitigation Measures ........................................... .........................5.4 -20 5.4.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation .................. .........................5.4 -20 5.5 - Transportation / Circulation .................................................. ..........................5.5 -1 5.5.1 - Existing Conditions ............................................. ..........................5.5 -1 5.5.2 - Thresholds of Significance .................................. ..........................5.5 -2 5.5.3 - Project Impacts ................................................... ..........................5.5 -2 5.5.4 - Cumulative Impacts ............................................ ..........................5.5 -6 5.5.5 - Mitigation Measures ............................................ ..........................5.5 -8 5.5.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation ................... ..........................5.5 -8 5.6 - Air Quality .......................................................................... ..........................5.6 -1 5.6.1 - Existing Conditions ............................................. ..........................5.6 -1 5.6.2 - Thresholds of Significance .................................. ..........................5.6 -6 5.6.3 - Project Impacts ................................................... ..........................5.6 -8 5.6.4 - Cumulative Impacts ........................................... .........................5.6 -12 5.6.5 - Mitigation Measures ........................................... .........................5.6 -13 5.6.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation .................. .........................5.6 -13 5.7 - Noise ................................................................................. ..........................5.7 -1 5.7.1 - Existing Conditions ............................................. ..........................5.7 -1 5.7.2 - Thresholds of Significance .................................. ..........................5.7 -9 5.7.3 - Project Impacts .................................................. .........................5.7 -10 5.7.4 - Cumulative Impacts ........................................... .........................5.7 -13 5.7.5 - Mitigation Measures ........................................... .........................5.7 -13 5.7.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation .................. .........................5.7 -13 5.8 - Aesthetics .......................................................................... ..........................5.8 -1 5.8.1 - Existing Conditions .............. ............................... ..........................5.8 -1 5.8.2 - Project Impacts ................................................... ..........................5.8 -2 5.8.3 - Cumulative Impact ............................................. .........................5.8 -11 5.8.4 - Mitigation Measures ........................................... .........................5.8 -11 5.8.5 - Level of Significance after Mitigation .................. .........................5.8 -11 5.9 - Public Services and Utilities ............................................... ..........................5.9 -1 5.9.1 - Police Service ...................... ............................... ..........................5.9 -1 5.9.2 - Fire Services ....................................................... ..........................5.9 -2 5.9.3 - Solid Waste ......................................................... ..........................5.9 -4 5.9.4 - Water Service .... . .......................................................................... 5.9 -6 5.9.5 - Wastewater Service ............................................ ..........................5.9 -8 5.9.6 - Natural Gas ......................... ............................... .........................5.9 -10 5.9.7 - Electricity ............................ ............................... .........................5.9 -12 Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations ............................................. ............................6 -1 6.1 - Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................... ............................6 -1 6.2 - Growth Inducing Impacts .................................................... ............................6 -1 6.3 - Irreversible and Irrtrieveable Commitment to Resources that Would be Involved in the Proposed Action if Implemented ............................ ............................6 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H:\ Client (PN.fN)\ 0064 \006400200E1R100640020_TOC.doc Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft E/R Table of Contents Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project ................................ ............................7 -1 7.1 - No Project/No Development ............................................... ............................7 -2 7.1.1 - Description ........................................................... ............................7 -2 7.1.2 - Impact Evaluation ................................................ ............................7 -3 7.1.3 - Conclusions ......................................................... ............................7 -3 7.2 - Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative .......................... ............................7 -3 7.2.1 - Description ........................................................... ............................7 -3 7.2.2 - Impacts ................................................................ ............................7 -3 7.2.3 - Conclusion ........................................................... ............................7 -5 7.3 - Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................. ............................7 -5 7.3.1 - Description ........................................................... ............................7 -5 7.3.2 - Impacts ................................................................ ............................7 -6 7.3.3 - Conclusion ........................................................... ............................7 -7 7.4 - Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................. ............................7 -7 Section 8: Organizations and Persons Consulted ............................. ............................8 -1 8.1 - Public Agencies .................................................................. ............................8 -1 8.2 - Private Organizations ......................................................... ............................8-1 Section 9: Report Preparation Personnel ........................................... ............................9 -1 9.1 - City of Newport Beach ........................................................ ............................9 -1 9.2 - Michael Brandman Associates ........................................... ............................9 -1 9.3 - Technical Subconsultants ................................................... ............................9 -1 Section10: References ....................................................................... ............................9 -1 LIST OF TABLES Table 2 -1: Executive Summary .............................................................. ............................2 -3 Table 3.2 -1: Proposed Land Uses .......................................................... ............................3 -5 Table 4 -1: Related Projects .................................................................... ............................4 -2 Table 5.2 -1: Project Local Impacts to Drainage ..................................... ..........................5.2 -7 Table 5.4 -1: Marinapark Resort Parking Requirements ......................... ..........................5.4 -9 Table 5.5 -1: Existing ICU Analysis Summary ........................................ ..........................5.5 -2 Table 5.5 -2: Trip Generation Summary (Shoulder Season) ................... ..........................5.5 -3 Table 5.5 -3: Summary of One Percent Analysis .................................... ..........................5.5 -4 Table 5.5 -4: ICU Analysis Summary ..................................................... ..........................5.5 -5 Table 5.5 -5: Summary of Cumulative Conditions One Percent Analysis ..........................5.5 -7 Table 5.5 -6: Cumulative ICU Analysis Summary ................................... ..........................5.5 -7 Table 5.6 -1: Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................... ..........................5.6 -2 Table 5.6 -2: Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary (1997 -2003) .........................5.6 -5 Table 5.6 -3: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan ............................. ..........................5.6 -6 Table 5.6 -4: SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds (lb/ day) ...... ..........................5.6 -7 Table 5.6 -5: Representative Equipment Fleet ...................................... .........................5.6 -10 Michael Brandman Associates Iv H9 Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \006400201DEIR \00640020_TOC.doc Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft E/R Table of Contents Table 5.6 -6: Estimated Daily Emissions ............................................... .........................5.6 -10 Table 5.6 -7: Project - Operations Air Pollution Emissions (pounds/ day) .......................... 5.6 -12 Table 5.7 -1: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration ................................ ..........................5.7 -3 Table 5.7 -2: Noise Ordinance Limits ..................................................... ..........................5.7 -6 Table 5.7 -3: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix ................................. ..........................5.7 -7 Table 5.7 -4: On -Site Noise Monitoring Results ( dBA) ............................ ..........................5.7 -8 Table 5.7 -5: CNEL (dBA) at 50 Feet from Roadway Centerline ............. ..........................5.7 -9 Table 5.9 -1: Existing Daily Solid Waste Generation ( estimate) .............. ..........................5.9 -4 Table 5.9 -2: Projected Daily Solid Waste Generation from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) .............................................................................................. ..........................5.9 -5 Table 5.9 -3: Existing Daily Water Service Demands ( estimate) ............. ..........................5.9 -6 Table 5.9 -4: Projected Daily Water Service Demands from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) .............................................................................................. ..........................5.9 -7 Table 5.9 -5: Existing Daily Wastewater Service Demands (estimate) ... ..........................5.9 -8 Table 5.9 -6: Projected Daily Wastewater Service Demands from Proposed Marinapark Resort(estimate) .................................................................................. ..........................5.9 -9 Table 5.9 -7: Existing Daily Natural Gas Demand ( estimate) ................. .........................5.9 -10 Table 5.9 -8: Projected Annual Natural Gas Demand from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.9 -11 Table 5.9 -9: Existing Daily Electrical Demand (estimate) ..................... .........................5.9 -13 Table 5.9 -10: Projected Annual Electrical Demand from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) ....................................................................................... ............................... 5.9-14 LIST OF EXHBITIS Exhibit 3 -1: Regional Location Map ........................................................ ............................3 -2 Exhibit 3 -2: Local Vicinity Map ............................................................... ............................3 -3 Exhibit3-3: Site Plan .............................................................................. ............................3 -4 Exhibit 3 -4: Layout and Cut Section of Boat Slips .................................. ............................3 -7 Exhibit 4 -1 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................ ............................4 -1 Exhibit 5.2 -1: Existing Hydrology ............................ ............................... ..........................5.2 -2 Exhibit 5.2 -2: Proposed Hydrology ......................... ............................... ..........................5.2 -9 Exhibit 5 8 -1: Photograph Location Index .............................................. ..........................5.8 -5 Michael Brandman Associates V HAClienl (PN.JN) \0064 \006400200EIA \00640020 TOC.doc Exhibit 5.8 -2: Existing and Developed Project Site Views - View 1 ........ ..........................5.8 -6 Exhibit 5.8 -3: Existing and Developed Project Site Views - View 2 ........ ..........................5.8 -7 Exhibit 5.8 -4: Existing and Developed Project Site Views - View 3 ........ ..........................5.8 -8 Exhibit 5.8 -5: Existing and Developed Project Site Views - View 4 ........ ..........................5.8 -9 Michael Brandman Associates V HAClienl (PN.JN) \0064 \006400200EIA \00640020 TOC.doc IMannapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft EIR Table of Contents IExhibit 7 -1: Marina Park Recreation Alternative ..................................... ............................7 -2 II 1 1J II II u U u II 'f Michael Brandman Associates Y1 HSClicnt(YN -1N) \0064 \00640020\DFIR \00640020 TOC.doc 1 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft E/R Table of Contents 1 LIST OF APPENDICES 1 Appendix A: IS /NOP and Responses Appendix B: Geotechnical Investigation 1 Appendix C: D: Drainage Technical Study Biological Resources Impact Assessment Appendix Marine Appendix E: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis Appendix F: Air Quality Impact Analysis Appendix G: Noise Impact Analysis lJ it It 1 1 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Cliw (PN -11) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 TOC.dm ' Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Introduction ' SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 - AUTHORITY • Table of Contents • Introduction • Executive Summary • Project Description • Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Cumulative Impacts • Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Alternatives to the Proposed Project • Growth- Inducing Impacts • Effects Found Not to be Significant • Areas of Known Controversy This draft EIR has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, a consultant, under contract to the City of Newport Beach. Prior to public review, it was reviewed and evaluated by the City of Newport Beach. This EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Newport Beach as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are provided in Sections 8 and 9 of this EIR. ' Michael Brandman Associates 1 -1 I i:\ Client( PN-. IN)\ O064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 01- Introduction.doc This draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation and development of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the preparation of this EIR. This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) and the City of Newport Beach Implementation Procedures for CEQA. • Table of Contents • Introduction • Executive Summary • Project Description • Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Cumulative Impacts • Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Alternatives to the Proposed Project • Growth- Inducing Impacts • Effects Found Not to be Significant • Areas of Known Controversy This draft EIR has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, a consultant, under contract to the City of Newport Beach. Prior to public review, it was reviewed and evaluated by the City of Newport Beach. This EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Newport Beach as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are provided in Sections 8 and 9 of this EIR. ' Michael Brandman Associates 1 -1 I i:\ Client( PN-. IN)\ O064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 01- Introduction.doc This draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision - makers and the general public regarding the project environmental impacts, project objectives and components of the proposed project. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, and operation of the project, as well as to identify appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts. CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements include: • Table of Contents • Introduction • Executive Summary • Project Description • Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Cumulative Impacts • Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Alternatives to the Proposed Project • Growth- Inducing Impacts • Effects Found Not to be Significant • Areas of Known Controversy This draft EIR has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, a consultant, under contract to the City of Newport Beach. Prior to public review, it was reviewed and evaluated by the City of Newport Beach. This EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Newport Beach as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are provided in Sections 8 and 9 of this EIR. ' Michael Brandman Associates 1 -1 I i:\ Client( PN-. IN)\ O064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 01- Introduction.doc Marinapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft EIR Introduction 1.2 - DETERMINATION OF THE LEAD AGENCY AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as "... the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." Criteria considered in identifying the lead agency include whether the agency: 1) has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole; 2) is an agency with the general governmental powers, and 3) will act first on the project in question (refer to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15051). The lead agency for this EIR is the City of Newport Beach. As the lead agency, the City of Newport Beach has responsibility for review, adoption, and implementation of the project. In addition to the discretionary actions required by City of Newport Beach, there are additional discretionary actions that will be required by other public agencies. These other public agencies are defined as Responsible Agencies in the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15381). Responsible Agencies for the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan are the California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and State Lands Commission. When the project applicant requests discretionary approval of components of the project, these agencies may consider the information in this EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Section 3.5 in this EIR provides a list of approvals required for the proposed project. 1.3 - PURPOSE OF THE EIR The Marinapark Resort & Community Plan EIR is considered a project -level EIR. The intent of this document is to analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project to the degree of specificity required by Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Hence, it is anticipated that upon certification of this EIR, no additional environmental review will be required for the implementation of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. This EIR also considers a series of actions that are needed to achieve the development of the project. Among the actions being requested are the approval of project components, a General Plan Amendment, and a Planned Community Development Plan and a lease agreement to vest development rights. Additional City approvals (i.e., grading permits, building permits) will also be needed. The lead agency, as well as other responsible agencies, can approve subsequent actions without additional environmental documentation unless as otherwise required by Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163 and 15164. The actions involved in the implementation of the proposed project are described in Section 3, Project Description, of this EIR. Other agencies that may have discretionary approval over the project, or components thereof, are also described in Section 3. Environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant unavoidable impacts. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially avoided or lessened (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions based on the Final EIR or other Michael Brandman Associates 7-Z HAClient ( PNJN) 10064100640020\DEIR100640020 _Scc 01- Inwodnction.doc Madnapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Introduction information in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations indicates the project was approved even though substantial impacts may remain and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and should be included in the record of project approval. Additionally, the Statement of Overriding Considerations does not substitute for the Findings as required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The development of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. 1.4 - SCOPE OF THE EIR This EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. The scope of the EIR includes the environmental issues identified in the Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued by the City, comments obtained during a public scoping meeting, as well as issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the IS/NOP, as described in Section 1.6. 1.5 - SCOPING PROCESS In compliance with State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has taken steps to maximize the public's opportunity to participate in the environmental process. The IS/NOP was distributed on October 14, 2003 via certified mail to agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and inform the public of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. A public scoping meeting was held on October 29, 2003 to obtain further input from the public on the scope of the environmental document. The IS/NOP and comment letters received during and after the IS/NOP period are in Appendix A. Agencies, organizations, and interested parties not previously contacted or who did not respond to the IS/NOP currently have the opportunity to comment during the 45 -day public review period on the draft EIR and subsequent pubic hearings on the project and EIR. 1.6 - EIR FOCUS AND EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Based on comments received on the IS/NOP and information obtained from the public scoping meeting, a determination was made that an EIR is required to address the potentially significant environmental effects of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. The scope of the EIR includes issues identified by the City of Newport Beach during the preparation of the IS/NOP for the proposed project, as well as environmental issues raised by agencies and the general public in response to the IS/NOP. Based on the comments received in the public review period of the IS/NOP, the environmental issues, which could result in potentially significant impacts that are addressed in this EIR, consist of the following: • Land Use and Planning • Transportation and Circulation • Air Quality Michael Brandman Associates HACHent ( PN- JN)10064100640020\DEIR100640020 _Sec 01- Introduction.doc • Geology and Soils • Hydrology and Water Quality • Aesthetics 1 -3 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Intmduclion • Noise • Biological Resources • Public Services and Utilities The environmental issues that are determined not to be significantly affected by the proposed project and therefore, do not require further analysis in this EIR pursuant to Section 15063(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines (as amended) are as follows: Agricultural Resources. The project site is located within an urbanized area of Newport Beach. The project site contains no land that is considered to be suitable farmland. No agricultural activities occur on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no significant agricultural resource impacts will occur from project development. Cultural Resources. The project site is highly urbanized. The entire site has been previously graded and the majority of the site is developed with structures. A cultural resources record search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center and the 1992 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) for the City of Newport Beach was reviewed as part of the preparation of the IS/NOP. The record search and the HRI indicated that there are no cultural resources located on or directly adjacent to the project site. Similar to all projects in California, in the unlikely event that significant and unrecorded cultural (archaeological, historical, paleontological) resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities by construction staff, such resources (excluding isolated artifacts) should be tested for historical significance utilizing criteria as outlined in the National Historic Preservation Act prior to continued impact. In addition, California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that if human remains are unearthed during construction, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. No significant cultural resources impacts are expected to occur with the development of the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Implementation of the proposed project may result in short- term and long -term use of hazardous materials. Short-term activities would occur during construction activities. These activities will include construction equipment that has diesel and gasoline powered engines. A very small (incalculable) risk is present from gasoline and diesel tank rupture. However, compliance with typical construction site safety regulations limit the risk of upset to less than significant. The project will also include the removal of structures on the project site. These structures may contain lead and asbestos materials. If lead and/or asbestos is present, the following measure will be implemented to reduce potential hazardous materials impacts to less than significant. • Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant shall retain a lead and /or asbestos removal specialist to develop and implement a plan to remove any onsite lead and /or asbestos. Michael Brandman Associates 1-4 ll. \Client(PN -Jt4)\0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec01- Introduclim.doc Recreation. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the residential population in the project area; thus, it will not create a demand for recreational services or facilities. The proposed project will demolish the existing onsite recreational uses at Las Arenas Park, including the Balboa ' Community Center, Girls Scouts House, four public tennis courts, and a children's play area. Michael Brandman Associates H:Uient (PN -IN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 01- In"duction.doc Madnapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Introduction ' The proposed project may also store small amount of pesticides, cleaning products, pool chemicals and other such products typically associated with this type of development; however, the potential for a risk of upset is considered less than significant. Furthermore, results of the Limited Phase II Soil Assessment prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. in 2004 indicate that concentrations of semi - volatile organic compounds (SVOC's), organ ochlorinated pesticides (OCP's) and polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCB's) were not present along the beach portion of the site. A small concentration of trace petroleum hydrocarbons (THP) was detected but was be determined to not significant. Concentration levels of metals detected along the beach were also within anticipated background ranges for metals are were determined to be not significant. Submarine sediment samples were also analyzed and indicated low concentrations of hydrocarbons that would not require regulatory involvement or remediation. A low concentration of organochlorine pesticide was also detected at levels below significant thresholds and would not require regulatory involvement or remediation. It has been determined through soil sample analysis that no further assessment or remediation is warranted in the project area. Mineral Resources. The project site is developed with urban uses and is not utilized for the ' extraction of mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the site is not located within a significant mineral resource zone. Therefore, no significant mineral resource impacts will result from project development. Housing. in Population and The proposed project will result generating approximately 50 new employment opportunities. The majority of the employment opportunities are expected to be filled by the local labor pool while only a couple of managerial positions may result in a need for relocation in the area (i.e., Orange or Los Angeles Counties). A couple of new employees needing to relocate in the area is not considered a substantial population growth. The proposed project will also result in the removal of 56 mobile homes of which 24 are occupied full -time while 32 are occupied part -time. The removal of the existing mobile home units will not result in a substantial effect on the City existing or ' future housing supply because the existing mobile home units are a non - conforming use. These units are not considered as part of the City's future housing stock in the City's Housing Element because the site of the mobile homes is designated for Recreation and Environmental Open Space. Furthermore, the Housing Element does not identify the project site as a potential candidate to provide housing. Similar to projects throughout California that remove mobile home units, a Relocation Impact Study in compliance with the State's Mobile Home Residency law will be prepared. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on population and housing. Recreation. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the residential population in the project area; thus, it will not create a demand for recreational services or facilities. The proposed project will demolish the existing onsite recreational uses at Las Arenas Park, including the Balboa ' Community Center, Girls Scouts House, four public tennis courts, and a children's play area. Michael Brandman Associates H:Uient (PN -IN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 01- In"duction.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Introduction However, the proposed project will replace all of the recreational facilities except the basketball half - court. The children's play area will be replaced with a tot lot and the four public tennis courts will be replaced with four new public tennis courts to be located atop the project's subterranean parking structure. The Balboa Community Center and Girl Scouts House will be replaced with a new structure that will accommodate both functions. In addition, the proposed project will install 12 new boat slips, four of which will be for public use. The City of Newport Beach intends to continue to offer its full schedule of children's sailing programs from the beachfront adjoining the project site, in addition to offering tennis programs at the public tennis courts. Therefore, no significant recreation impacts will occur from project development. 1.7 - ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR The EIR is organized into the following main sections: I I 1 CJ i I implement the project is also provided. • Section 5: Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, significance criteria, project and cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. • Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations. This section provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable, irreversible, and growth- inducing impacts. • Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This section compares the impacts of the proposed project with three alternatives including the No Project/No Development Alternative, Marinapark Marine Recreation Center, and the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Among these three alternatives, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. 1.8 - PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency in the preparation of the EIR. Marinapark LLC. is the applicant for the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) is the environmental Michael Brandman Associates 1-6 I I:Uieot ( PNJ1 )10064100640020\DEIR100640020 _Sec 01- Introduction.doc • Section 2: Executive Summary. This section includes a summary of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR. A brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved and overview of the mitigation monitoring program, in addition to a table which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. • Section 3: Project Description. This section includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including both its location, site and project characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives, Intended uses of the EIR, responsible agencies, and approvals that are needed to I I 1 CJ i I implement the project is also provided. • Section 5: Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, significance criteria, project and cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. • Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations. This section provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable, irreversible, and growth- inducing impacts. • Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This section compares the impacts of the proposed project with three alternatives including the No Project/No Development Alternative, Marinapark Marine Recreation Center, and the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Among these three alternatives, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. 1.8 - PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency in the preparation of the EIR. Marinapark LLC. is the applicant for the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) is the environmental Michael Brandman Associates 1-6 I I:Uieot ( PNJ1 )10064100640020\DEIR100640020 _Sec 01- Introduction.doc Matinapark Resort & Community Plan -Draft EIR Introduction consultant to the City for the project. Preparers of this EIR are identified in Section 8, Report Preparation Personnel. Key contact persons are: Lead Agency ............ ...........................City of Newport Beach Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Phone: 949.644.3210 Project Applicant ........................... ....Marinapark LLC 4500 Campus Drive, Suite 650 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949.757.1662 Environmental Consultant ..................Michael Brandman Associates Jason Brandman, Senior Project Manager 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92604 Phone: 714.508.4100 1.9 - REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR This Daft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). The Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR has also been distributed as required by CEQA. During the 45 -day public review period, the EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Written comments on the Draft EIR should be addressed to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Upon completion of the 45 -day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the City of Newport Beach City Council, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. These environmental comments and their responses will be included as part of the environmental record for consideration by decision - makers for the project. Michael Brandman Associates H:\C I ient (PN-JN)\0064\006400200EIR\00640020Sec 01- Inhoduction.doc ,1 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft E/R Executive Summary SECTION 2: ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Marinapark Resort and Community Plan project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Specifically, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, along Balboa Boulevard, south of a public beach and the Newport Bay, west of 15`h Street, and east of 18"' Street. The proposed project is the development of the 1 10 -room luxury resort hotel, consisting of 66,949 square feet of one and two -story villas and ancillary hotel structures, including a 2,154 square -foot business administrative building, a 19,830 square -foot two -story hotel lobby building, 6,191 square - 1 foot spa villa, and a 29,643 square -foot, 100- space, subterranean parking structure that will support four roof -top public tennis courts at grade. Up to 12 rooms within the resort hotel are proposed to be available for fractional ownership. The project also includes the removal of the existing onsite uses associated with Las Arenas Park (e.g., Balboa Community Center, Girl Scouts House, children's play area, four public tennis courts, and a metered 21 -space parking lot), the displacement of the 56 -space ' mobile home park and the construction of a 6,191 square -foot Community Center /Girl Scouts House, a 3,000- square -foot tot lot. A new 41- space, shared parking lot will also be constructed to replace the ' metered parking lot. In all, the proposed project will include 352,962 square feet of development on 8.10 acres. Primary access to the project will be via Balboa Boulevard and secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off 18'h Street. Additional fire and delivery access will occur from 15" Street. The proposed project will also include beach enhancements including 12 new boat slips (including four slips for public use) within the Newport Bay and a public beachfront walkway that will extend from the project's eastern property line to 18'h Street. Public access to the walkway will ' be provided via four access points, two along Balboa Boulevard, one along the project's eastern boundary, and one along 18" Street. A concrete walkway will extend from the resort hotel to the boat slips to provide access for hotel guests. A bulkhead will also be constructed and will separate the beach from the boat slips. ' 2.2 - AREAS OF CONTROVERSY /ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The area of controversy associated with the proposed project is the intensification of land uses on the project site. The location of the tideland boundary is an issue that is to be resolved. 2.3 - SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guidelines, Section 7.0 E1R includes In accordance with Section 15126(d) of the of this a comparative evaluation of the proposed project with alternatives to the project. Additionally, the Michael Brandman Associates 2-1 1 I: \Q ie., QIN -J M \0069 \00641X120 \DRIR \00610020 Scc 02 Fxecutrcc Summary.dnc - ' Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Executive Summary ' alternatives are discussed in terms of achieving the project objectives. This EIR includes an evaluation of the following alternatives to the proposed project: t• No Project/No Development Alternative • Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative • Reduced Intensity Alternative This section includes a discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Environmentally Superior Alternative is the No Project Alternative. However, this alternative fails to meet any of the project objectives. Based on the evaluation in Section 7, the Environmentally Superior Alternative is tthe proposed project. 2.4 - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CEQA requires agencies to set up monitoring programs for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. A mitigation monitoring program, incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this document, will be adopted at the time of certification of the EIR. 2.5 - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Section 5.0, Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, ' Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance after Mitigation, of this EIR describes in detail the environmental impacts that will result from the implementation of the proposed project. Table 2 -1, Executive Summary, summarizes the impacts of the proposed project and mitigation measures for those impacts. Impacts that are noted in the summary as "significant' after mitigation will require the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations, if the project is approved as proposed (CEQA Section 15093). I L1 In this table, impacts of the project are classified as: (1) NI, No Impact (no adverse effect); (2) NS, Not Significant (adverse effects that are not substantial, according to CEQA, but may include recommended mitigation); (3) PS, Potentially Significant (potential substantial adverse changes in the environment); or (4) S, Significant (substantial adverse changes in the environment). Mitigation measures are listed, as applicable, for each impact. Michael Brandman Associates IP. \Clkc ,(PN -)N) \( 11)64 \00640()20 \DRIIt \!1064002(1 Scc (1 ?- ISccuuvc Summarv.tloc I I I J I I E E 3 N m .7 m x W r N m a V CL E c m E 0 L W N C O_ m w O 'O C N O) O O m C7 ° w w a_ �o 00 15 b cl z z z b E 3 `a H L 0 cl cl a •� O � C O .E C � U U n a cy c bo m �p 9 W A J I I I J I I E E 3 N m .7 m x W r N m a V CL E c m E 0 L W N C O_ m w O 'O C N O) O O m C7 ° w w a_ �o 00 15 b cl z z z m a E o f C N rpm ° O E y iy „A � •D C at. == A a 3 Or � E •� � � bo Y c EL E t y w 5 o o U uu A 50 A s �^ ��E � �_ U C Q• � -0 7a Y A A o bCO l0 y A U• E A +' O a a O C b0 ° V L v A 0. t itl N L > C, L y M �. t 'C v •v n. v v 'C `�' ?'v L X C y bo r c^ U � id y p, 0. �Litl gE,a 0.Fo r c E ai E' 0 n V o a c Gb CA yp 0.l E.O c c •0 O> 0 V N w0 N 2 i •9 L>' m 7 a ` 3 O =.> . y0 0 o 3 r ° y 0. C N ro a2 v_a V O C y O O E w ro Ln r� o^ O o.G 3 — itl � U Y ltl N c a G aA A N C C 3E; cu) NrE ° CO OL iy • C y Q' a = � a o$ n o y y E L� C ro y t-' O L V L U 0.�'3.ory3,p� Nay CL C � n. N � _ L C •ro N a_ E Ln 15 b cl 0 0. •„U�„ 0. C b 3 `a 0 cl cl a •� O � C O .E C L U U Y a cy c bo 0 9 W A 0 9 u C_ d _ V N Q R° c Z_ m L �E g r� E r ' r r r r i r %i 0 C m C ' U N I1 1 c:' 4_ O z 'a+ a a N 3_w a,'3 mom? am.'a � � �^ � ai� „tin ate. U o 'O d '� W aai ctl oq �,•o °D v °� A ^> ❑ $ v o 43 =3 y� Esw.e; t.s -O g cwa m D 3, E ° °Fj, O U o a ° 3 a av by i. .0 ° L1. �0 a, 'C E T �' O " �a R. ca o G .0 ro i O a m 5o a ^� w 3 aai o on on s o a E 3 0 a Y oa 5n 00 E 0 m.. E'a = ❑.GF°UO�z� of.- � 30� 0 O -a O r o 'o 3 m •$ c �° ppy,, c m � G C w tw a0 ., O ECy 3 o o°n o'E� CY 15 �.s0-0 0 o s a a .� r a a s 0. o= �U F 0a 0 E�U a 03 @ 0 'c s 3U'awo` W ,00 Yo a av� a a E 6 = O a C� d c O O � 3 a C O W y ti y � ti C 0-0 a � I 1" F N ;m ® a z z z U O Y O D N O �d d g F 0 Cp 33 N v 0 RU _ UO�C E _ =.0 C W =•D �. C L M L O .Y C C C O M (n •p N O U= U N .D � �p � uL.+ �_ O U 'U3 N N L w O G 0 Ci M N w.D =O RE �tl 0 � E OD N U 0 U U O O 0 C ..m..,.;.: S' E O R OF �tl y tad y O O= O d cn a3 T E W L iyO .0 ZI 10 adU o'onyU cv `o os E R Y 0 O v w p v r Y= O ti ti U O O •D U 4� O y 'j O L U U L d U C tNC t0 a .td i N N .p N �D W 'ti. O N .D Z O O aN Z Z id 0.1. U O 3mRtipEY3a c ° o U ti ti L '�� id M_ ti U d N O OU y p N tl C y O d T O R.>-. O ..p' �, L Y pp w d O E �' m O> — m 7 C d '+ E y .a L .0 RL ti '� ti M a. O O P .� ' N 7 ti= N N y m 6 O -0 0. —_ C C O = 7 w C U .Q O L E m 'o4. t=d o 4 yC W h . C tzw 6 N O L ... w Fm O m N z = R O O 0 E E= O E E =� N U m co rz 0 0 w 4�.' 0 M G �. �. L O [•" w '7 y 'O aU• d aU• O' z L L O G L f"' L �tl i t jV :S m- w V) z w V) z w z w n z y r N 0.o N CC, y Y 'D e0 T A p W..'.. c> s o m❑ F C7 9 •p ca W 04 04 O Vj 9 9 C L C N L L �y ° p r E c7 cd N E N N ' o ❑ N n c 3 N v r n, c ❑ o — E o v .° .= ro y E E Z E w 0.1 ro o n z z L 3 N O T Y eLE Y = N L 'D Y y N N U c=tl N y0 bO aN,., y 3 o E E o N o y d^ p o y p�p O N 'D > 7> C N a C O eUtl i• 0 > aci y ., = 0 o N s v O p c ,DU N U 7 > L W Y" Y etl O eCy U •^ U 0..m N OA y U td yi.' y U y o etl U r.. Y y as N Q O 0J C � p y Q .o T U N y U y E E Y ='D c y o o 0 c 7 L 0. O . 0 y 7 ba D uj .0 —,c °n ono a 0 3 0 W y O ro v U ed tl ro eC •JL ' C N L N N �E N O c o >° c 3 0 c o o 'E c v '� ° v .c°- Cd oq •o c .5 ccn € p o c4 p c Y 0 a cn� >� aN cnY P. o .D av�. Y_ O o 7 .UC/C� ��L^, ctl C �i' :D C 7 VZj MMC /N /U� pU 9 � W pU 0. I 1 I `' I I I I I 1 I I I i I I L� _Im M J O Z O z O z O z O z O z �z O z �N ctl � v A � ctl � a 3 on a. g. � a. a L L L L L —29 N N N U N K N o p c� � cLtl cLtl cLd O N A > ur W ti ti ti ti vii M1Li C U B cN G G G G G 0. O O O O O Yil p� U z z z z .3 N c a•Di ° � a � w � c � �' L � a tJ ,� �� c •o .� O U c 3 0 - �, � o o� �' '> c� °A ;� N 3 > 3 0 � - c m � •o •D o actli � v' o U � U aci c Z o Y c G °. c on c _ n Y30��o0YCRO�a� E°3��wotlso t) a� w a. t=D c ° a�'i E Fs.. N `° 3 E w U °' 3 c Y °_' ° tb o •D E v° t W on o o 'D e o �'w Y� c o�� d '0 3 5 :n •o O �E E N W C W 0 e R 'a E 1 E U m a d c N c5 C W Q j U O z U O z U O z �. ^ am °� t N O U aU. o U ti O °_°w ctl N U C Y ttl U T3Cq S c' c ��' � o p °' O to to = � aCC Y 3 y =_ to . ° o .= V� U ' 3 ' N to s Y N O H .= to E FO c _ W U O O m m N V _ O.. U c' -0 U D G U s N 7 cO yb0'C O N L U a"R OU N t F U O O -d to Y 7 bb " U ttl T c 15 OI II. c c U ccO G N p. c L U c p' G. ' ^ to L c0 3 O y y U U N E Or N a'=+ .= ° tee Y __ °z_ M�3z ��� M. r to 17 E� ° o 0 5'03 �.E m.= U Ys.o N .= .D G O (� ttl c� O N to aLU+ a ctl O-i U Qm U II. N G. cQc .D T G C 'D 'D N L N CC 5n rA c c 3 td r�. n.o . &. ,n �a o m N ;; > .o .& r p N U 7 F F pb 1t-tl. � a U C, O O ai U N n z 3 M. 0.1 0 Cr E 'N n. Y Y c° U .5 .0 W O Y N ttl O ttl 07 � m U, U 3 s w & UQ c9) c o Cl- xu 0 a to a oamx EcLa = y �_ .� Q U L= � `" p O� L m p .0 II. N •C O N U � bin aNi c° u.0 u o so n 3 so °_° L m L o Y s � � � � oq to.— C � w° D `"" by O 7 Y Y y Y � w ❑ N m M o y y o U o L 2= N s N N O L ttl 'vii U N U W = ttl ctl U U 3 V] to W II. W = N U L U` H W N M U M. N H ro O W 42 Y. 3 °= so u C E r, v .o ¢V v% ez v� 10 u u gi I 11 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I iL r <m ; 8 0 z 0 z O = O e etl O O C W p ttl y L 0 'O � u � o° L C c N ° _.. = C O a. S N .-. .° F — Q. a N .o . N �p-,I aL.+ E ', N � C� Q oNEd 300 E m >UNE , - _ O ` G ° a v 7 = N ttl 0 N v7i U N L ;E�yds a�._aL_OFe p > iy �0 0 ,d L'' � � G. m N Opp t O WO- c op , o F La 3 o ° E y p d.a n o=ne° $ N :? P d.m .S m G E O > o N Y bD = N L W ° ° v b o 3 v C, > v L o > 3 ;3 E CL ° o « w w �' v 3° c o .c g o° o o 6'n. n Q s ° E C WQ E o w c '> 3 c w °= ° nom 5bo.> _.� v o E > o OC 'd C U a U U d *b y L N ro 4= 'a ° E 15 3 v O O 2-0 a _nc 0 gc 3 c4 N d:1 o m ez mZ wv f= I p I I I I I I l LJ I I 1 I aro r 'I '1 W lw 0 z E 0 z e 0 z _ w o z _ w O z w o z a m �N W N N C E��� 0. z z z z z ctl F. y N itl N C y o p m0 mo- d .• cw DD A.. u 3 N U A w y Cl a y _— y x y U �e Y co = v Y td d .� V y y y a A _ ti w 3 ago` u � m o.-�° o.�o - E > E 75 m y ai � v v a r��a t 0 q w F A 'v A y i.-i U o F� J Q ie W� Q 3�� w A 3 -• R! F U a. p., ,S 0 2• z E i E E to 1 ' u k W I I I I I I I z ' w O e n e U m 0 m 1 I C N G v G pj' w oho z w orb z w �n z w �n z w �p z 9 e �A z w 0 N E tb N c d j a°i Q .2 E y N N N N a E o Q L c O c O O O U N a s 3 a s ao a z z z z g U U7� C N Y "T' V/ N N O. T� V E P. i.. ° N� C C CC`.+ Y C N U N PL U •0 .'-- O 'O E N In d C7 ° c �' to �° u' a o o g ❑ E- 0 ❑❑ N° C y N U O 'c 00 .N. o N N °' 'o z c o 5 c w _ olaQ¢ o 5U.� of � , . o a a a U O 8-u a N a 0. 2:1 vii C 2 .0 .D c 3 .N t O N N N L O ° U N C° L U L ° O N d N m C FaVVraW FUP�z F QmN FmFNEL Q Fo Fvu i z i 1� N i� W i' i i� 0 e ie i� 10: i C` w �S ;•z 0 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z m L L L L L L L c L H L L CN E �N! E CN E N E N E CN E CN E O O O O O O O F F F F F F F z z z z z z z U y U N Y E E �.D ..� o •o o ri d � � s o = Y = y� g o y L m w ap p 7.0 La '� S N �. N p ^ La N > ,� � t W o o=_o o= s O o= E o=_o. y o N � 'L v o a 3 '❑ c y c y c y o y y u c o c ? un �.oun `� a L c� Ob E c i un U F F L 71 Z F o Z Y F .E a U C NL m� �u c Oc G L m� m€ u� f I I I I I I I I I I 1 O U m 1 W 4iGkp1'.; QI «_ O z O z O z f c c a O o ° O o ° z z z L 'J 3 °L tjj 3 o Y o° Z' o c .O Sri . O O 0 y N y FL- UU—, U y 0.'D 'O C y U p ��, �" h N etl r 7 u O M O �0 U N= m F U 0 v� U 0. y V 'D a•C L0. o N 0y GO O a' �L-+� }7 C N G7-i O L etl J' N w D N k aLU+ U E L O C N> O N C F C v� b9 L k° N O L 3° N D L g Y 3 °� H o o .-' a.° U po o ° L w N Cc, W �❑❑ L U$° Y L O FD L bq C d 0. W N � U .b h O etl V N N Y 4' C C C C d °D Lou ° aL.+ 3 ° Y t « .o Q ° L° :_ M '> ° .—' A y g AN o L Y L m E J , ' G T C •w U ` U C h W L N p D O aC + O_ C V 'a�+ N O L0. L' �d O N N td U N N N W L L Y 'S O 0. «+ 'D N Y N' O ??n C V etl C O U 'D Y N tC m o Z' ❑ 0= 8 3 L 1 V Y 7 .v'JT+ N` C LT i O U _ 'D h U p .D 0. O eCd Q U a c 9 C C4 9 e C 0 C zi N Oc Q? m _E d u 10 u `� c w w t: 1 .� J. E .. W i a w � w E w a oho � Fb �b c ' 2 C': C 6 . W � O 1 O O O O � E z E C'a m a U E > 1 N,s C4 9 e C 0 C zi N Oc Q? m _E d u 10 u `� c w w t: 1 .� J. 1 .. W gF C4 9 e C 0 C zi N Oc Q? m _E d u 10 u `� c w w t: 1 .� .. W gF a w � w E w a oho � Fb �b c ' 2 L 6 . L � 1 O O O O O E C4 9 e C 0 C zi N Oc Q? m _E d u 10 u `� c w n E t: .� .. W 4 a w � w E w a oho � Fb �b c ' 2 L d L � C O O O O O E z E z U E > 1 O 07 O W O O cCd —,d 'Y E E E z 4 z C 'e g C4 9 e C 0 C zi N Oc Q? m _E d u 10 u `� n E .. w w w w w Fb oho oho Fb �b 2 L L L L O O O O O z z z z z C4 9 e C 0 C zi N Oc Q? m _E d u 10 u `� n E .. F F L L 2 L L L L E E E O O O O O cCd —,d E E E E z z z z C4 9 e C 0 C zi N Oc Q? m _E d u 10 u `� n E .. 2 O cCd —,d 3Y > to OL E N O e`tl e`tl L U G O� 3 3 w� .O U N J' C � O w O y 'v� G Q w In ca M O U A a' � T T U cr cr U f ?3 bA o C c vUi s H N s c a O� N N eC o 3 0 L° o o c O O ?? C7 C eUtl C� U Y v7i N T N � .� 0 a m m 0 L s y N 'O U T a. etl C O U L D L L C y -e O A A [..a cq c—c N d asU. aU+ w U F" U 7 7 ttl U U ❑❑ G bA -0 `n itl U O� '= U e, O D U O m 7 C C O y U >> L etl LU, ed cl E E c Q C E� n°.5 Y °v ro.5 3� Uw`w 3.5�N C4 9 e C 0 C zi N Oc Q? m _E d u 10 u `� u v W L4 w 0 e a l 0 0 a' Q L;C:1 m[:1 :80 O z m ®.. W. C• L h E 0 ro no E I 0 z � .�_' N N N l•v 77 U E U t O w V] C G r••. T T+ r Mo>oroo° 7 L tJ U C o E� % O U_ L G w iy L •j cE W E U L L �- Y N U C •`J to to ^ U U U a a O N W i O G. N N G. G. M y N H 0 v R N Q m� ELL I I 1 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR Project Description SECTION 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 - PROJECT LOCATION Regionally, the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan is located in central western Orange County California (see Exhibit 3 -1). As shown on Exhibit 3 -2, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach. 3.2 - PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.1.1 -Site Characteristics ' Generally, the project site is bound by a public beach and the Newport Bay to the north. Immediately east of the public beach is the American Legion Yachting Club /marina that can accommodate up to ' 46 boats. Land east of the project site is used as an asphalt parking lot and boat storage, Veteran's Park, the American Legion Post 291, Southern California Edison power station, residential, and commercial uses. The area south of the site includes Balboa Boulevard and residential homes. The ' residences consist of single - family and multiple - family homes. The area west of the site includes 18ih Street, hotel, and residential uses. The residences consist of single - family and multiple - family homes. ' The project site encompasses approximately 8.1 acres and presently supports the Marinapark Mobile Home Park, Las Arenas Park, four public tennis courts, one -half basketball court, and a children's play area, Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, and a public beach. The Marinapark mobile home park is a 40 -year old facility with approximately 24 full -time residents and 32 part-time residents. 1 I 11 1 3.1.2 - Project Characteristics The proposed project includes the development of a luxury resort hotel with ancillary facilities that include a business administrative building, spa villa, surface and subterranean parking, and 12 new boat slips that are supported by a bulkhead. A concrete walkway will extend from the resort hotel to the boat slips. A bulkhead will also be constructed and will separate the beach from the boat slips. Another concrete walkway from 18th Street will also be constructed parallel to the public sand beach to provide access for the public. The project also includes reconstruction of the existing Community Center and Girl Scout House into one structure, a tot park, four public tennis courts, and a shared parking lot for the community facilities and resort visitors. Exhibit 3 -3 illustrates the location of the proposed uses and Table 3.2 -1 provides a summary of the proposed uses. Following is a detailed discussion of each project component. Michael Brandman Associates 3-1 RUient (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 03- Projecl Dmriptioadoe 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 Los Angeles County LA HABRA y 90 142 • VORBA LINDA .° FULLERTON 90 XN • 57 • Sa 91 PLACENTIA 91 r ANAHEIM I� - -- '\ 40 CYPRESS 39 55 • LOS ALTOS • ORANGEPn 1 • STANTON GARDEN GROVE 22 a • TUSTIN 261 •\• -� SEAL BEACH SANTA ANA \ CLEVEL�fND 1 HUNTINGTON 405 55 5 \ NAT i0%CA� 'I BE H 241 COSTA MESA IRVINE I FOREST ••�• 73 33 " NEWPORT BEACH CORONADELMAR LAGUNA • HILLS MISSION VIEJO a� LAGUNA \N NIGUEL BEACH 74 • ' SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO \ DANA POINT f7ounty /Q .tl SAN CLEMENTE 5 5 2.5 0 5 ❑ ❑�❑ Oz SCALE IN MILES Michael Brandman Associates 00640020 • 04/2004 1 3- 1_regional.ai Exhibit 3 -1 Regional Location Map MARI NAPARK RESORT & COMMUN ITV PLAN • DRAFT EIR N � w M � � r X ' g U z Cd 2 U � O �c 0 w Y K a z 0 0 e N H W W LL Z_ W J Q U y 0 0 N � U E C U O � O _ N � U NI HIHHONII F O M � a � XX .Y W [) d c H18ON E C v v c m 0 m r w 0 O I 1 1 Madnapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft E/R Project Descdption Table 3.2 -1: Land U§e .:i Itoams/S9uate FaetlS ceslAcres : _. Luxury Resort Hotel 110 Rooms /66,949 sf Hotel Lobby 19,830 sf Business Administration Building 2,154 sf Spa Villa 6,191 sf Community Center /Girl Scouts House 6,191 sf Tot Park 3,000 sf Public Tennis Courts 4 courts Parking Structure Surface Handicap Total 100 spaces 100 spaces 9 spaces 209 spaces Total Enclosed Floor Area 101,315 sf Project Site Area 8.10 Acres Floor Area Ratio 0.285 Luxury Resort Hotel The project includes the development of a 110 -room luxury resort hotel of which up to 12 rooms are proposed to be available for fractional ownership. There are five types of villas proposed that have varying sizes. There are 91 villas that each contain 498 square feet, 8 villas that each contain 832 square feet, 8 villas that each contain 844 square feet, 2 villas that each contain 2,103 square feet, and one villa that contains 2,272 square feet. The villas are proposed within one -level and two -level buildings. Of the 110 rooms, the resort hotel may include up to twelve units available for fractional ownership. In addition to the villas, the hotel will include areas for a lobby (3,000 square feet), registration (483 square feet), retail (600 square feet), cafe (550 square feet), restaurant (1,124 square feet), a bar (1,154 square feet), ballroom (3,603 square feet), and other supporting facilities (8,316 square feet). The hotel also includes a swimming pool. The maximum height proposed for the two - level villas is 27 feet while the proposed tower will be 34 feet in height. A business administration building and a spa villa are proposed as ancillary facilities to the main hotel. The business administration building will encompass 2,154 square feet with a maximum height of 18 feet. The spa villa is proposed to encompass 6,191 square feet in a two -story building with a maximum height of 27 feet. Boat Slips The project includes 12 boat slips proposed at the eastern shoreline next to the American Legion Marina. Eight of the slips will be for private use by the hotel and four slips will be available for the Michael Brandman Associates 3 -5 H:Uient (PN-JN)\0064\00640020\DEIR\00640020Sec 03- Project Description,doc 7J J u The project includes a 6, 191 square -foot, two -story building along Balboa Boulevard to accommodate the existing community center and girl scout house activities. An open gazebo is also proposed adjacent to the Community Center /Girl Scout House. These structures will be encompassed by a 6- foot high concrete block wall. The maximum height of the structures will be 27 feet. Tot Park A reconstructed tot park is also proposed adjacent to Balboa Boulevard. A 6 -foot high wrought -iron fence with plaster pilasters will extend along Balboa Boulevard, and 6 -foot high concrete wall with plaster finish will encompass the west, north, and east sides of the tot park. Public Tennis Courts Four public tennis courts are proposed on top of the proposed parking structure. The tennis courts are proposed to be approximately five feet higher in elevation than Balboa Boulevard. The tennis courts will have a 10 -foot high vinyl- coated chain - linked tennis enclosure with windscreen. The tennis courts will include light fixtures to accommodate nighttime activities until 10:00 p.m. The light fixtures will be hooded so that light would be directed to the courts. Parking The project includes surface and subterranean parking. There are 59 surface parking spaces that are proposed adjacent to the proposed villas as well as an additional 41 surface parking spaces in the ' Michael Brandman Associates 3-6 HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 03- Project Descripiion.doc Madnapark Resort 8 Community plan -Draft EIR Project Description public. The facilities supporting the boat slips include a concrete walkway to the boat slips, a gangway, groin walls and bulkhead (see Exhibit 3 -4). The concrete walkway will be 70 feet long by ' 7 feet wide and is proposed to extend from the resort villas to the boat slips. The gangway is a platform that connects the concrete walkway to the boat slips. The groin walls (i.e., a wall perpendicular to the sand beach) and bulkhead (a wall parallel to the sand beach) are retaining walls that extend a total of 317 feet long. There are two proposed groin walls, one on the east and one on the west sides of the boat slip basin. The bulkhead is proposed on the south side of the boat slips. ' The proposed slips are for boats that do not exceed 30 feet in length, and they could accommodate up to 16 boats. The boat slips will be stabilized by nine, 14 -inch diameter support pilings. The project ' includes dredging approximately 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards (cy) of bay sediment to create a basin for the boat slips. Clean sand will be placed on the landside of the bulkhead, to the top of the bulkhead elevation. This would support the walkways, gangway, boardwalk, etc. on the south side of the ' bulkhead. A groin wall will be installed at either end of the basin to contain the fill material. The proposed boat slip basin will cover an area 261 feet long by approximately 71 feet wide (0.23 ' acre). The maximum depth proposed for the basin is —10 mean lower low water (MLLW) from the pierhead line into the channel. The bulkhead is proposed at approximately 0.0 MLLW contour line. The tidal mudline slope is 1:3, and the subtidal slopes are 1:5 to 1:6. Community Center /Girl Scouts House 7J J u The project includes a 6, 191 square -foot, two -story building along Balboa Boulevard to accommodate the existing community center and girl scout house activities. An open gazebo is also proposed adjacent to the Community Center /Girl Scout House. These structures will be encompassed by a 6- foot high concrete block wall. The maximum height of the structures will be 27 feet. Tot Park A reconstructed tot park is also proposed adjacent to Balboa Boulevard. A 6 -foot high wrought -iron fence with plaster pilasters will extend along Balboa Boulevard, and 6 -foot high concrete wall with plaster finish will encompass the west, north, and east sides of the tot park. Public Tennis Courts Four public tennis courts are proposed on top of the proposed parking structure. The tennis courts are proposed to be approximately five feet higher in elevation than Balboa Boulevard. The tennis courts will have a 10 -foot high vinyl- coated chain - linked tennis enclosure with windscreen. The tennis courts will include light fixtures to accommodate nighttime activities until 10:00 p.m. The light fixtures will be hooded so that light would be directed to the courts. Parking The project includes surface and subterranean parking. There are 59 surface parking spaces that are proposed adjacent to the proposed villas as well as an additional 41 surface parking spaces in the ' Michael Brandman Associates 3-6 HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 03- Project Descripiion.doc =1 1 Q it E U m d t d r � O O O O U N U .O Cd O a HIHON 9 imim `_° imil U 0 ER S ai 0 d 3I s s 'NQyaT I O I ` I zz- ' Q \ dff m 1 rn o I ' I jI in �• I I 1 dff 1 1 C I j a 7 0� W 1 1 \ � y • j; 19 I � I I b • I I tqn I T NN NI N I 'p al ' I • I I I I I I.l AO I� ICN I =1 1 Q it E U m d t d r � O O O O U N U .O Cd O a HIHON 9 imim `_° imil U 0 ER S ai 0 d 3I s s 'NQyaT I O Marinapark Resort 8 Community plan - Drat EIR Project Description southwest corner of the site. There are an additional 8 handicap parking spaces adjacent to the villas and one handicap parking space in the southwest corner of the site. The 41 -space parking lot is ' proposed to be shared between the visitors of the hotel and the Community Center /Girl Scouts House structure. The proposed subterranean parking structure will have 100 parking spaces and will be ' located under the proposed public tennis courts. The entrance to the parking structure will be on the east side of the structure. ' Project Buildings Summary The proposed project includes 10 1,3 15 square feet of enclosed floor area on the 8.1 -acre project site. ' This results in an average floor area ratio of approximately 28.5 percent. Site Access Primary access to the project will be via Balboa Boulevard and secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off of 18'h Street. Additional fire and delivery access will occur from 15th Street. The proposed project will also include a public beachfront walkway that will extend from the ' project's eastern property line to 18" Street. Public access to the walkway will be provided via four access points, two along Balboa Boulevard, one along the project's eastern boundary, and one along ' 18t° Street. ' 3.3 - PROJECT OBJECTIVES Development of the proposed Marinapark Resort & Community Plan would be consistent with the ' City's intent to accommodate a land use and accompanying physical improvements on the project site that would meet the following objectives: • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; ' • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. • Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between tideland revenue and tideland expenditures. • Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents. • Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users. • Ensure that site redevelopment does not generate noise, glare or traffic that could adversely impact the residents in the vicinity or the American Legion adjacent to the site. 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates 3.8 RXIien (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 03- Project E) cnplion.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft Ell? Project Description • Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. 3.4 - INTENDED USES OF THE DRAFT EIR, RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES, AND APPROVALS This EIR has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the proposed project. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the project and has discretionary authority over the project and project approvals. It is the intent of the City to permit all public infrastructure improvements and all future development described within this document which are within the parameters established and analyzed in sufficient detail within the framework of this EIR to proceed without further environmental analysis. Following are the discretionary approvals by the City that are required for implementation of the proposed project. In addition to the following currently proposed discretionary actions for the project, other concurrent and future approvals and ministerial actions by the City may be required for the implementation of the project. Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified later in the section under "Other Discretionary and Ministerial Actions ". City of Newport Beach • General Plan Amendment • Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan • Planned Community Development Plan • Building Permits • Grading Permit • Use Permit • Coastal Residential Development Permit • Coastal Harbor Activities Permit and/or Harbor Permit • Traffic Study • Parcel Map • Final Precise Plan • Water Quality Management Plan • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Encroachment Permits • Long Term Ground Lease • Mobile Home Relocation Impact Report • Demolition Permits ' Michael Brandman Associates 3.9 fiXiient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 sec 03- Project DeKriptlon.doc Madnapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Project Description Responsible Agencies Responsible agencies for the project have discretionary authority over the following: California Coastal Commission ......................... Coastal Development Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board ............. Section 401 Certification General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit State Lands Commission ..... ............................... Lease of Tidelands Other Agencies Other required permits include the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .......................... Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit In addition to the above approvals, the implementation of fractional ownership may require a future legislative action. Michael Brandman Associates 3.10 Pr \Client (PN- JN)10064 \00640020\1)EIR \00640020. Sec 03- Project DescriptionAm 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. According to the CEQA Guidelines, elements considered necessary to provide an adequate discussion of cumulative significant impact of a project include either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. The City provided a list of related projects for the purposes of identifying potential cumulative impacts (see Table 4 -1). A total of 6 projects were identified within a geographic area determined by the City to produce potential cumulative effects when combined with the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 4-1 WClient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEoi \00640020 Sec 04- General Descriptiondoc Madnapark Resort 8 Community plan - Draft Ell? General Description of Environmental Setting SECTION 4: ' GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.1 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located in the portion of the City known as the Balboa Peninsula, immediately adjacent to Newport Bay north of Balboa Boulevard between 15th Street and 18th Street. Generally, ' the project site is bound by a public beach and Newport Bay to the north, Balboa Boulevard to the south, Veteran's Park and the American Legion Post 291 to the east, and 18th Street to the west. The site encompasses approximately 8.1 acres and presently supports the Marinapark mobile home park, a public beach, and community facilities. The Marinapark mobile home park is a 40 -year old facility with approximately 24 full -time residents and 32 part-time residents. The community facilities ' consist of a metered parking lot with 21 stalls, Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, four public tennis courts, a children's play area, and a basketball half -court. A public beach is located along the entire length of the mobile home park. The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with residential, recreational (parks and public beaches) and commercial land uses. Predominant land uses in the vicinity of the project site are residential, recreational and ' commercial land uses (see Exhibit 4.1). 4.2- RELATED PROJECTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the incremental effects of a project are cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts are defined as an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. 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. According to the CEQA Guidelines, elements considered necessary to provide an adequate discussion of cumulative significant impact of a project include either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. The City provided a list of related projects for the purposes of identifying potential cumulative impacts (see Table 4 -1). A total of 6 projects were identified within a geographic area determined by the City to produce potential cumulative effects when combined with the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 4-1 WClient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEoi \00640020 Sec 04- General Descriptiondoc �.,. ,:: '�'` �, �w�. I J 1 i I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cl 1 1 1 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR General Description of Environmental Setfing Table 4 -7: Related Projects Project �,[� Use ' - Amount" St. Mark Presbyterian Church Church 34.80 TSF Day Care 4.72 TSF Saint Andrews Church Church 33.00 TSF Newport Coast TAZ 14 Single Family Detached 950 DU Condominium/Townhouse 390 DU Multi - Family Attached 170 DU Newport Ridge TAZ 1 -3 Single - Family Detached 630 DU Multi- Family Attached 380 DU Commercial 102.96 TSF Lower Bayview Senior Housing Elderly Residential 150 DU South Coast Shipyard Multi - Family Attached 28 DU Commercial 19.6 TSF Office 10.4 TSF TSF = thousand square feet DU = dwelling units Michael Brandman Associates 4-2 UIXIient (PN -1N) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 04- General Description.doc Mallnapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance after Mitigation - Geology and Sails SECTION 5: EXISTING CONDITIONS, THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE, PROJECT IMPACTS, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 5.1 -GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following discussion is based upon a geotechnical investigation report prepared by Abstract Consulting Group on September 5, 2001, revised and updated on December 16, 2003 and on the City of Newport Beach Safety Element prepared in 1975. The investigation incorporated site observations, laboratory testing on collected samples of onsite earth materials, engineering analysis of field and laboratory data, installation of a groundwater monitoring well and five exploratory borings. This report is provided in Appendix B. 5.1.1 - Existing Conditions Geolog/c Sett /ng The City of Newport Beach is located along the southwesterly edge of the Los Angeles basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. Newport Beach is located in the southern California region which contains several active faults including the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, the Norwalk fault, the Raymond Fault Zone, the San Andreas Fault Zone, the San Fernando Fault Zone and the San Jacinto fault Zone. The project site is located within approximately two kilometers of the Newport- Inglewood Fault, the only active fault zone within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach (Safety Element, 1975). No additional active faults or fault zones are located on or within close proximity of the project site. The project site is designated as a category 3 seismic hazard area in the City of Newport Beach Public Safety Element seismic hazards areas exhibit posing moderate seismic risk to structures and citizens. Faulting /Seismicity A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time. An active fault is one that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years. No faults, fissure or shear zones were observed on the project site and no previously identified faults were found to traverse the site. The Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone lies approximately two kilometers from the project site but the site does not lie within its Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Earthquakes are classified according to their moment (measure of the amount of energy released), their magnitude (measure of maximum ground motion) and their intensity (a qualitative assessment of the effects at a given location). An earthquake has a single moment and usually one magnitude, but ' can produce several intensities, since effects generally decrease with distance. An earthquake with a moment magnitude 6.0 earthquake releases 32 times the energy of a magnitude 5.0, and a magnitude Michael Brandman Associates 5.1 -1 11: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05 -1 Geology and Soils.doc J LJ I 11 1 I I Ci 1J 7 L n I I I Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Marinapark Resort 6 Project knpacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Community Plan - Draft EIR and Level of Significance after Mitigation - Geology and Soils 7.0 earthquake releases about 1,000 (32 x 32) more energy than a magnitude 5.0 earthquake. There are several methods of calculating the magnitude of ground motion. Intensities are most commonly measured in accordance with the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, which defines 12 levels of damage. The strength of seismic ground shaking at a certain location depends primarily on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the source, the paths the seismic waves travel through the earth, the response characteristics of the rock or soils underlying the site, and topography, particularly if a site lies in a valley or atop a hill. The level of damage depends on the size, shape, age and engineering characteristics of the impacted buildings and structures. Recent probabilistic seismic hazard evaluations show a 10 percent probability of exceedance of 0.3 to 0.4 g within a 50 year period which roughly corresponds to the expected lifetime of the building. The seismic risk at the project site is similar to many sites in Southern California. Soils Soils were examined through a field investigation which consisted of drilling 5 boring to depths of 10 feet to 40 feet. The soils encountered in the borings are generally classified as sand. There is some silt in the top two feet. The grain size of the sand varies from fine to coarse grained. Settlement Settlement is defined as areas that are prone to different rates of surface settling and densification (differential compaction), and are underlain by sediments that differ laterally in composition or degree of existing compaction. Calculations of settlement at the project site were based on results of consolidation tests and the anticipated loading and settlement characteristics of the onsite soils. These calculations indicate that pad footings under maximum loading conditions will settle approximately 3/8 of an inch, and the continuous footings under maximum loading conditions will settle 3/8 of an inch. Differential settlement is expected to be one -half of the total settlement. It is anticipated that the majority of settlement will occur during grading and the first phases of construction activities. Expansive Soils Expansive soils are soils that can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). Based on tests of onsite soils, the percent expansion of these soils is zero. Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when shallow, fine to medium - grained sediments saturated with water are subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction usually occurs when the underlying water table is 50 feet or less below the surface. Under this condition, the soil loses its ability to support uneven loads such as structures and natural or artificial slopes and acts as a liquid. Excess water pressure is vented upward through fissures and solid cracks, and a water slurry bubbles onto the Michael Brandman Associates 5.1 -2 ll. \Client (PN -.M)\ 0064 \006400200EIR \00640020_Sec 05 -1 Geology and Soils.doc I I I L I I I 11 1 u Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Marinapark Resort 8 Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Community Plan - Draft EIR and Level of Significance after Mitigation - Geology and Soils ground surface. Liquefaction related effects include loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures or slumping. Per the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was encountered at approximately 8 feet under the project site, and the project site is located within a special study zone for liquefaction. Testing and analysis of project site soils indicated that the potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high. 5.1.2 - Project Impacts Thresholds of Significance In assessing whether implementation of the proposed project would represent a significant impact, the following thresholds of significance were applied. A significant impact would occur if the project would: • Expose people or structures, beyond an acceptable level, to major seismic hazards. • Permit development in areas of unsuitable and unmitigable geologic conditions. Impacts Faulting/Seismicity No active faults, fissures, or shear zones were observed on the project site. Due to the lack of recent onsite faulting activity, faulting impacts on the proposed project is considered less than significant. Based on the seismic hazard evaluation conducted for the project site, the seismic risk at the site is similar to many sites within Southern California. Standard compliance with seismic design requirements outlined in the California Building Code, including local amendments, would result in a less than significant seismic impact on the project site Settlement Implementation of the proposed project will experience settlement; however, the settlement of 3/8 of an inch is expected to primarily occur during grading and first phases of construction activities. Therefore, settlement impacts on the proposed structures are considered less than significant. Expansive Soils The onsite soils do not have expansion capabilities; therefore, the proposed structures will not be affected by expansive soils. Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high. Therefore, liquefaction impacts on the proposed project are considered potentially significant. Michael Brendman Associates H: \Cliem (PN -7N) \0064 \00640020\DETR \00640020 Sec 05-1 Geology and Soils.doe 5.1.3 Existing Conditions, Thresholds of Significance, Marinapark Resort & Project Impacts, Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Community plan - Draft EIR and Level of Significance after Mitigation - Geology and Soils 5.1.3 - Cumulative Impacts Soil and geologic influences are site - specific and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project site and build out of related projects in the area. Implementation of the proposed project as well as related projects may expose future residents, and resort guests to regional seismic hazards. However, seismic safety standards for new construction and ongoing provisions for emergency preparedness and response are anticipated to reduce such risk, on a project -by- project basis, to acceptable levels. Liquefaction impacts on the proposed structures are considered potentially significant; however, these impacts are site - specific and would not contribute to cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative geologic impacts are considered to be less than significant for the project site. 5.1.4 - Mitigation Measures To reduce potential liquefaction impacts on the proposed project to less than significant, the following measures are required. GS -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that prior to receiving fill, the bottom of the excavated area shall be ripped 6 inches, watered as required, and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density. A geotextile fabric material shall be placed over the bottom of the over excavation. The fabric shall be placed at 6 -inch intervals to 30 inches below finished grade. GS -2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project structures shall be designed with a slab that will be either a stiffened structural slab or a post - tensioned slab. 5.1.5 - Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the above mitigation measures would result in less than significant liquefaction impacts. Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-4 HAClient (PNJI)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05-1-Geology and Soils.doc I I I I Marinapark Resort & Community plan - Dram EIR Hydrology and Water Quality 5.2 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section summarizes the results of the Drainage Technical Study and Hydrology Report that was prepared by MetroPointe Engineers, Inc. in February 2004 (see Appendix C). The following discussion includes an assessment of the project's potential to affect drainage and water quality on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. 5.2.1 - Existing Conditions The project site is located on the Balboa peninsula between Balboa Boulevard and the Lower Newport Bay and contains approximately 8.1 acres. The peninsula is crossed by a system of streets with flat grades that do not exceed a few tenths of one percent. No substantial longitudinal slopes occur along Balboa Boulevard other than minor slopes created at storm drain inlets. The majority of stormwater in the vicinity of the project site flows in surface streets to drainage inlets and is then conveyed and discharged into Lower Newport Bay. The soils encountered on the project site are typical of the beach type terrain along the coastline and consist of mainly fine to coarse sandy material with some silty material in the top two feet. This soil type has high permeability and is classified in the Orange County Hydrology Manual as having low runoff potential. The amount of rainfall at the project area is typical of Orange County with annual . rainfall averages totaling approximately 12 inches. Drainage Hydrology Stormwater in the vicinity of the project site is collected from three stormwater collection areas and conveyed and discharged into Lower Newport Bay through three discharge outlets located at the ends of 15th Street, 18th Street, and 19th Street (see Table 5.2 -). For purposes of describing existing drainage conditions and evaluating proposed changes, a drainage study area boundary was established around the project site (see Exhibit 5.2 -1). This study area is bordered by Lower Newport Bay, 15th Street, Balboa Boulevard, and 18th Street. The majority of the stormwater generated within the drainage study area flows into the storm drain system and is discharged into Lower Newport Bay through the discharge outlets. Table 5.2- and Table 5.2- provide information on the existing drainage conditions. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020WEIR \00640020_Sec 05- 2-Hydrology Water Quality.doc 5.2 -1 ! 1 1 1 ! r ! r �1 ! r w ww- ROD Wm0 2ifa oil I � I I I I II I I .133M1S H1S6 -_____ . 119MIS H.M .;,. . W F A W Q ~ O N � O � O w � a -d X w� .'y W L Y 1 z 0 N p N 9 L r I � C .y W V �I i � N ��I 1�}C j Q O HIUON N All go All V 8 Ado Marinapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft OR Hydrology and Water Qualify Table 5.2 -1: Existing Stormwater Collection Areas 15Streef:; 1$'�StFeet 59a`SxrPet Total Collection'sArea Collection Area f:2lectton Area' Area (acres) 19.0 5.0 17.0 41.0 I 0 -year flows 6.3 4.5 4.3 21.4 (cfs) 10 -year run -off 1.8 1.6 2.2 2.1 rate (cfs /acre) Source: Marinapark Resort, Drainage Technical Study, MetroPointe Engineers, Inc., February 2004. Table 5.2 -2: Drainage Study Area Summary Drawage RudyArea :..: ::. Amotir►f ,: Area (acres) 10.4 10 -year flows (cfs) 21.4 l0 -year Run -off Rate (cfs /acre) 2.1 100 -year flows (cfs) 33.7 100 -year run -off Rate (cfs /acre) 3.2 cfs = cubic feet per second. Source: Marinapark Resort, Drainage Technical Study, MetroPointe Engineers, Inc., February 2004. The drainage study area (10.4 acres) represents approximately 25% of the combined area of the three Stormwater Collection Areas. The project site (8.1 acres) is included in this boundary. Of this, approximately 2 acres, representing approximately 19% of the drainage study area boundary, flows directly into Lower Newport Bay without entering the storm drain system. Flooding The existing topography has been reviewed to assess 100 -year storm potential impact to existing ' buildings. The City of Newport Beach requires that one traffic lane remains passable during a 10- year event. Streets will provide conveyance capacity for the 100 -year storm. However, currently during a 100 -year storm event, the existing storm drain system can be surcharged and will most likely become inefficient. A large portion of the storm runoff will drain to Balboa Boulevard and pond until reaching a relief elevation allowing outlet to Lower Newport Bay. r Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -3 n: \Client (PN -11)\ 0064 \00640020\pE1R \00640020_Sec 05 -2_1 lydrology Water Quality.doc Martnapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Water Quality Regulatory Setting NPDES Permit. In March 2001, the existing regional NPDES Permit (CAS618030) was administratively extended in accordance with 40 CFR Part 122.6 and Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 9 section 2235.4 of the California Code of Regulations. This permit is applicable to all of Orange County and land within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Flood Control District, which includes ' the City of Newport Beach as a co- permittee and the project site (see Section 14.36 of the City Municipal Code). ' City Council Policies. In response to the extension of the NPDES requirements, the City adopted two City Council Policies intended to minimize dry- weather run -off and run -off from small rain events. City Council Policy L -18- Protection of Water Quality: Drainage - Public Rights -of -Way contains the following applicable to the policy proposed project: Policy L-18 Whenever possible, runoff should be retained on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, oil, engine coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons, brake dust and, tire residue in accordance with the specified provisions of this policy. Reduction, retention or diversion of runoff can benefit property owners through water conservation and reuse of water that would otherwise drain to the City's street drainage system and our harbors, bays, and ocean. City Council Policy L -22- Protection of Water Quality: Water Quality Management Plans for New Development and- Redevelopment contains the following policy applicable to the proposed project: Policy L -22 New development or redevelopment presents the City and the public with the opportunity to reduce the impacts of runoff that would otherwise drain to the City's street drainage system and our harbors, bays and ocean. At the time of submittal of an application for a new development or redevelopment project, an applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City. The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practical dry- weather runoff and runoff from small storms (less than 3/4" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) during construction and post construction from the property. Program, Model Orange County Stormwater Program. According to Orange County Stormwater Water Quality Management Plan of September 26, 2003, the proposed project is classified in the Priority Project Category because it falls in the following categories: ' • It is a commercial development of more than 100,000 square feet including the parking area; • It includes more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface adjacent to an Environmentally ' Sensitive Area; and • Includes parking areas of more than 5,000 square feet exposed to storm water runoff. Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-4 HAClient (PN -JM \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-2-Hydrology Water Quality.doc Martnapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Non- Discharge Area. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport Bay is classified as a Non - Discharge Area (NDA). This classification prohibits marine vessels from discharging any type of effluent, either treated or untreated, into Newport Bay from an on -board Marine Sanitation Device (MSD). ILandside Water Quali Existing water quality draining from the project site and study area boundary carries pollutants typically associated with irrigation over - spray, over - watering, roof drains, wash -down of hardscape areas, pesticides and fertilizers used in landscaping, and pollutants from automobiles. In addition, ' there is typically debris associated with beach use and maintenance. Bayside Water Quality Newport Bay is included on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2002 303(d) Listed Water Bodies and Associated Pollutants of Concern. The Lower Newport Bay is specifically listed as impaired as a result of significant concentrations of metals and pesticides in the sediment. Sediments adjacent to the project site at the tide line (Intertidal Sand Beach Sediments) in the vicinity of the proposed boat slips generally consist of fine to medium and silts. Beyond the tide line and extending into Lower Newport Bay (Subtidal Bayfloor Sediments), sediments consist of sand, mud, or combinations of sand/shell hash. Concentrations of pollutants in the sediment vary depending on the composition of the sediment, depth of sediment, and location within Lower Newport Bay. Based on sampling of sediments taken in 2004 adjacent to the project site in the vicinity of the proposed boat slips taken in 2004, no detectable concentrations of semi - volatile organic compounds, organo- chloride pesticides, or polychlorinated biphyenls were detected. Heavy metals were not detected at elevated ranges. Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected, but at levels not deemed to represent an environmental condition. In 1994, the State Water Resources Control Board, in conjunction with other federal and State agencies, studied sediment chemistry and toxicity. Based on the results of the sampling and their respective locations, sediments contained elevated concentrations of mercury, copper, DDT, polychlorinated biphyenls, tri -butyl tin, lead, DDE, and total Chlordane. In addition to this study, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project investigated sediments conditions in the Rhine Channel northwest of the project site. This study found similar concentrations in the sediments. ' is A condition that affects water quality and contamination in the sediments the amount of time required for water at a given location within Newport Bay to be exchanged with new water from the ocean (flushing activity) by tidal action. This exchange rate is known as residency time. The residency time of ocean water in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 7 days. By Michael Bmndman Associates 5.2 -5 H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05-2-Hydrology Water Quahty.doc Martnapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality comparison, residency time of ocean water near the entrance to Lower Newport Ray is approximately one day. 5.2.2 - Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact if the following conditions were to occur: • Surface Water Hydrology/Drainage: Significant impacts on surface water resources would occur if the increase in runoff is in excess of downstream capacity. Significant impacts may also result if uncontrolled runoff results in erosion and subsequent sedimentation of downstream water bodies. • Flooding: Significant impacts result if the project would increase the probability of floods or impose flood hazards on the project area or on other properties or expose people and property to risk at unacceptable levels. • Surface Water Quality: Project related impacts would be considered significant if they substantially degrade surface water quality. 5.2.3 - Project Impacts Short -term Construction- related Impacts Landside construction activities include the demolition of existing structures, construction of new structures, excavation of soil for the construction of the subterranean parking structure, installation of a concrete walkway, and installation of landscaping. These activities would result in erosion of soil and trash and debris leaving the project site. Short-term construction Rest Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to eliminate sediment and construction debris runoff into area receiving waters during the construction period. Prior to construction and before a grading or demolition permit is issued, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and approved by the City in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No. R8- 2002 -0010, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS618030 in conformance with City Council Policy L -I8. The SWPPP must include BMPs to eliminate and/or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. Implementation of the BMPs contained in the SWPPP would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. In addition to the impacts related to landside construction activity, short-term impacts will also result from bayside construction activities as a result of seafloor dredging in preparation for construction of the boat slips. This includes dredging and filling, construction of a bulkhead, and installation of pier support structures for the docks. This construction activity will resuspend bottom sediment that would reintroduce contaminants into the water column that were previously bound to the finer grains of sediments. Based on the Limited Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessments prepared for the Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -6 H.Uient (PN-M\ 0064 \006400200EIR \00640020_Sec 05 -2 Hydrology Water Qwfity.doc Table 5.2 -1: Project Local Impacts to Drainage ?. StonnDrain%DrainageAsIias Uhlt !:Existing.,.. Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft E/R Hydrology and Water Quality change; -: project by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. in February 2004 and April 2004, the beach and submarine 151° Street Storm Drain Drainage Area sediments contain very low concentrations of contaminants that do not require regulatory 19.0 involvement or remediation. In addition, construction activity would increase turbidity, which affects 1.2 the photosynthetic activity of algae and estuarine vegetation, and increases the oxygen content of the Increase water. This would be potentially significant without the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Acres 3.6 4.8 Long -term Operational Impacts 33% Surface Water DrainagelHydrology ' The proposed project represents a change in the existing land use that results in a change to the 6.3 drainage patterns of the portion of the project study area occupied by the project site. As previously 1.2 stated in Section 5.2 -1, the project site is smaller in area (8.1 acres) than the drainage study area (10.4 Increase acres) (see Exhibit 5.2 -1). The portion of the drainage study area not included in the proposed project cfs /Ac will retain the same drainage patterns. Table 5.2 -1 presents the existing and proposed conditions. Table 5.2 -1: Project Local Impacts to Drainage ?. StonnDrain%DrainageAsIias Uhlt !:Existing.,.. Proposed..- change; -: .Result 151° Street Storm Drain Drainage Area Acres 19.0 20.2 1.2 6% Increase Site area draining to 15'" Street Storm Drain Acres 3.6 4.8 1.2 33% Increase Site 10 -year Flows to 15'" Street Storm Drain cfs 6.3 7.5 1.2 19% Increase Site 100 -year Flows to 15'" Street Storm Drain cfs /Ac 10.3 11.9 1.6 16% Increase 181° Street Storm Drain Drainage Area Acres 5.0 5.4 0.4 8% Increase Site area draining to 18`" Street Storm Drain Acres 2.8 3.2 0.4 14% Increase Site 10 -vcar Flows to 18'h Street Storm Drain cfs 4.5 5.7 1.2 15% Increase Site 100 -year Flows to 18'" Street Storm Drain cfs /Ac 7.2 8.8 1.6 22% Increase 191" Street Storm Drain Drainage Area Acres 17.0 16.7 -0.3 -2% Decrease Site area draining to 19'" Street Storm Drain Acres 2.0 1.7 -0.3 -15% Decrease Site 10 -year Flows to 19'" Street Storm Drain cfs 4.3 3.5 -0.8 -19% Decrease Site 100 -year Flows to 19" Street Storm Drain cfs /Ac 6.6 5.6 -I.0 -150/6 Decrease Source: Marinapark Resort, Drainage Technical Study, MetroPointe Engineers, Inc., February 2004. As shown on Table 5.2 -1, the proposed project would result in increased peak flow concentrations of the l0 -year flows to the 15 h Street and 18d' Street storm drain discharge outlets. This increase is considered significant. Conversely, there is a decrease in the peak flow concentrations of the 10 -year flows to the 19th Street storm drain discharge outlet. This decrease is considered a beneficial impact. The proposed drainage conditions are shown on Exhibit 52-2. The changes in the cfs values that would result from the proposed project are due to several factors. First, the elimination of the direct surface discharge to Lower Newport Bay and re- directing that flow ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -7 H:1CIten1(PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DE1R \00640020 sec 05- 2- Hydrology Water Qoality.doc Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -8 H: \Client (PN -ILA \0069 \006400200E02\00640020 Sec 05- 2— Hydrology Warer Qualily.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan -Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality ' to the proposed on -site storm drains increases the amount of stormwater entering the storm drain system. Second, the proposed on -site storm drains decrease the travel time of flows, which results in 1 an increase in the runoff rate. Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased flows and increased runoff rates ! that would be potentially significant. Flooding ' During a 100 -year storm event, the existing storm drain system would be surcharged and the capacity exceeded. In the event, a large portion of the storm runoff will drain to the 19a' Street Storm Drain ! via Balboa Boulevard and pond until reaching a relief elevation allowing outlet to the Lower Newport Bay. The proposed project includes a drainage plan that would outlet surface water into 18d' Street, and 15t' Street, and Balboa Boulevard. Based on the hydrology evaluation conducted by MetroPointe ! Engineers, Inc., the peak flow concentrations during 100 -year flows to 18'" and 151° Street would increase by 1.6 cfs for both streets respectively while flows to Balboa Boulevard would be reduced by 1.0 cfs. The increases in peak flow concentrations during 100 -year flows are considered a significant impact. The decrease in peak flow concentration during 100 -year flows is considered a beneficial ! impact. Water Quality ' As previously stated in Section 5.2.1, the Orange County Stormwater Program, Model Water Quality Management Plan classifies the proposed project as a Priority Project Category and would be expected to generate various types of pollutants. Anticipated pollutants are trash and debris from landscaped areas and parking lots, heavy metals, organic compounds, and oil and grease from parking lots. Potential pollutants include heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, nutrients, organic 1 compounds, sediments and pesticides from landscaped areas. In addition to these landside impacts related to the resort operations, potential pollutants could be generated from boat slip operations and increased use of the public beach. These would include trash and debris, organic compounds, and oil ' and grease. ! The installation of a cement walkway leading from the resort to the boat slips will divide the shoreline interrupt adjacent to the project site into two sections. This division of the shoreline would the tidal flows and water circulation that could create stagnant water conditions on the east of the walkway ! where trash and debris may become trapped. Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -8 H: \Client (PN -ILA \0069 \006400200E02\00640020 Sec 05- 2— Hydrology Warer Qualily.doc 0§ 0 ! / } ( � ) � ) a } it it it _ ! } H-L�ION\\ ! ■fie: ; ��!§ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality In conformance with City Council Policy L -22, separate Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) will be prepared for the landside resort operations and the bayside boat slip operations. Implementation of the BMPs contained within each WQMP would result in less than significant impacts related to water quality. 5.2.4 - Cumulative Impacts The proposed project will increase storm water flows during peak concentrations to existing storm drain systems because the changes in land use result in a change in drainage patterns. Therefore, the proposed project will cumulatively add to the volume of surface water to the existing storm drain system during peak concentrations. The project will substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on existing storm drain systems. The proposed project will also increase urban pollutants that would substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on surface water quality. 5.2.5 - Mitigation Measures Water Quality The following mitigation measures will reduce or eliminate pollutants that would affect off -site water quality: HWQ -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities dust to be blown to adjacent areas. • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering: Construction dewatering will require approved permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. Michael Bmndman Associates H: \Client (PN -➢M\ 0064 \OO640020\DEIR \00640020_Sm 05- 2-Hydrology Water Quelity.dm 5.2 -10 ' Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Hydrology and Water Quality ' • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for ' scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there ' are no leaking fluids. if there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity: Activities shall not cause not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that ' exceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b) 10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the ' above criteria is met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. ' • Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from excavation activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling t soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2 -inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top pf the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. • Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the ' dewatering process. • Dredged Material: Project operations will require that the scow doors used to release ' dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. HWQ -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Resort Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities within the resort and on the beach shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Resort WQMP ' shall control urban constituents entering the existing storm drain system or entering surface water flows to the bay. The Resort WQMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Access: Provide easily accessible restrooms and trash receptacles. ' • Fire Fighting: Provide fire fighting and spill containment equipment. • Litter: Keep litter, pet waste, leaves, and debris out of street gutters and storm drains. ' • Chemicals: Apply lawn and garden chemicals sparingly and according to directions. • Household Hazardous Waste: Dispose of used oil, antifreeze, paints, and other household chemicals properly. Avoid spills of hazardous or polluting material and ' prepare guidelines for remediation of such occurrences. Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -11 ' 11XIiem(PN -JN) \0060 \006400200E02 \00640020 Sec 05.2-Hydrology Water Quality.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Hydrology and Water Quality ' • Erosion Control: Control soil erosion by planting ground cover and stabilizing erosion -prone areas. ' • Sienaae: Affix signs educating user of the property about BMPs. • Street Sweeping: Street sweeping of the grounds and trash collection. ' • Inspection: Schedule regular inspections. • Trash Enclosures: Design trash container storage areas so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement is diverted around the storage. • Long -Term Maintenance: As design progresses, the owner's plan for the long -term and continuous maintenance of all on -site BMP's requiring ongoing maintenance must be developed. This plan will include his acceptance of the responsibility for the 1 on -site maintenance of all structural and treatment control BMPs. • WQMP Distribution: Distribution of the Water Quality Management Plan report to the hotel staff and assignment of specific responsibilities by the owner. ' • Irrigation: Design irrigation systems that: 1) include rain - triggered shut -off devices; 2) match irrigation requirements of specific plant species; 3) and include flow ' reducers or shut -off valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken lines or sprinkler heads. • Percolation: The project will decrease the amount of existing impervious areas and increase pervious landscaped areas. During the design of the project, special ' consideration will be given to maximize the use of the landscaped areas as infiltration areas. Percolation of runoff into the ground through permeable areas will be ' maximized with such means as biofilters, green strips, landscaped swales, planters, and other retention/ percolation devices. Roof drains will be oriented towards permeable surfaces, grading of the site will take into consideration diverting runoff to permeable areas. The site will be graded so that the runoff flows through grassy ' swales before being collected in an underground system. Consequently, the surface flow travel time will be lengthened and peak discharges reduced. At inlets to underground drains, pollutants will be removed through installation of inlet basket/filters inserts to remove trash and organic material. • Water Quality Systems: Two water quality systems are proposed for the project. The proposed units will be located towards the end of the proposed on -site storm drain ' system, as shown on Figure 4, and designed to treat runoff water from paved parking areas that cannot be directed to pervious landscape. Typical systems consist of diverting the storm drain low flows, the "first flush" or dry weather flows, to an off- ' line unit where treatment occurs. Treatment can be provided by filtration or settlement of pollutants, or a combination of both. Following the "first flush ", for storm event with peaks exceeding the capacity of the diversion structure, clean runoff will bypass the water quality system and flow to the bay. Common systems are off - ' line CDS Technology ®units, on -line VortechsTm units, on -line CSR Stormceptor® units or equivalent. The two proposed systems will remove pollutants flowing to the ' 18'' Street and 15'h Street storm drains, respectively. Pollutants removed by these include heavy units trash, sediment, metals, organic compounds and oil and grease. • Catch Basin Filter Inserts: The City of Newport Beach has been implementing the installation of catch basin filter inserts in W. Balboa Boulevard. The Ultra - Urban ' Filter with Smart Sponge ®, developed and manufactured by AbTech Industries, has been used for effective filtration, efficient application, and moderate maintenance. ' The Ultra- Urban® Filter captures oil, grease, trash, and sediment from stormwater Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -12 ' H: \Client (PN -IM \0064 \00640020\DETR \00640020 See 05- 21-lydrology Water Qaalily.doc i� Marinapark Resat 6 Community Plan - Draft OR Hydrology and Water Quality ' runoff before it enters the storm drain system. Trash and sediment accumulate in the internal basket while oil and grease are captured in the filtration media. Filter inserts are or will be installed in 18th Street and 15`° Street existing inlets. The City of Newport Beach will provide maintenance of the filters within the street right -of -way. • Curb Drains: Curb drains, as a means of draining sump areas and roof drains via subsurface piping systems directly to the street gutter, will not be used for this ' project. Areas immediately adjacent to Balboa Boulevard, such as the Girl Scout site, Park and entrance driveway to the project, will be designed to direct runoff to landscaped areas. Small portions may use curb drains directing runoff to the City ' inlets and filter inserts. The curb drains, if used, will have a French drain system of perforated pipe and gravel to increase percolation. Sump Pump: In case the proposed Tennis/Parking Structure needs installation of a ' sump pump, direct discharge to the public right of way will not be permitted. Rather, discharge from the sump pump will be directed to the proposed water quality unit. Storage and Maintenance Areas: Design will insure that runoff does not come into ' contact with loading and unloading dock areas, and repair and maintenance areas. Storage of material that may contribute pollutants to the storm water will be placed in an enclosure such as a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with ' runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system. These areas will also protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. Outdoor material storage is not anticipated for this project. Trash receptacles will be ' protected from drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement and covered with roof or awning. • Irrigation System: A moisture- detecting or weather -based irrigation system will be used to eliminate over watering and dry weather flow. The landscaped areas will be graded to maximize percolation and avoid direct drainage to the local storm drain ' system. • Storm Drain Sisnase: Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language such as: "NO DUMPING — DRAINS TO OCEAN ". HWQ-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Marina Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities at the boat slips shall be prepared by the project ' applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Marina WQMP shall control pollutants from the boat slips from entering the bay. The Marina WQMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Boat Maintenance: Prohibit in -water boat maintenance and discharge of waste. • Harbor Permit: The Permittee of the Harbor Permit shall keep the area delineated on ' the harbor permit free from beached or floating rubbish, debris, or litter at all times. • Trash Enclosures: Provide trash receptacles located on the dock for refuse collection ' and provide for these receptacles to be emptied a minimum of once per week. • Waste Collection Bass: Provide plastic collection bags on the dock for the collection and disposal of pet waste. • Detergent : Use only biodegradable detergents and cleaning products when performing boat cleaning activities. ' • Fish Waste: Deposit fish waste only in designated trash receptacles or at designated Fish cleaning stations. Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -13 ' H: \Client ( PN- K\0064 \00640020\DEIR\00640020 Scc 05 -2 Hydrology Water Qmlity.doc I I 1 1 11 lJ Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality • Bilge Water: Avoid the pumping of bilge water in the harbor. • Holding Tanks: On boats equipped with a holding tank equipped with a Y -valve and through -hull fitting, the valve should be closed and locked within the 3 -mile limit from shore. • Bait Buckets: Empty bait buckets only in designated trash receptacles or at designated fish cleaning stations. • Signage: Post signs on the dock stating that it is illegal to discharge plastics or garbage containing plastics, discharge oil, or discharge raw sewage into any waters. • Educational Pamphlet: Create and distribute educational pamphlet describing activities that are allowed and activities that are prohibited regarding minor maintenance and cleaning activities. HWQ -4 A water quality monitoring program shall be developed and implemented to ensure that all BMPs approved in the SWPPP and WQMPs are being used to lessen water quality impacts on Newport Bay. This program shall also include a water quality monitoring program during "first flush" rainstorms following significant dry weather periods during construction and for a period of 5 years following construction, and monthly water turbidity sampling along the beachfront. If it is determined that Newport Bay water quality has been degraded, adaptive management techniques shall be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent adverse effects on the bay's water quality. HWQ -5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that are supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. Surface Rater Drainag&Wydrology The following mitigation measure will reduce peak flow storm water concentrations to the existing storm drain system and ultimately the discharge outlets to Lower Newport Bay: HWQ -6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate through a drainage plan that onsite detention basins will be constructed so that peak storm water flow concentrations to the existing 18'6 Street and 15'" Street storm drains will not be increased from flow concentration prior to development of the project. 5.2.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation The implementation of the above measures would reduce project impacts and project's contribution to potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality to less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DE[R \00640020_Sec 05- 2 _Hydrology Water Q.aIity.doc I [l 1 I u irl Madnapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources 5.3 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Information in this section is based on the Marine Biological Resources Impact Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Coastal Resources Management in April 2004 (see Appendix D). 5.3.1 - Existing Conditions Sediments Inter -tidal Sand Beach Sediments and Levels of Contaminants Sediment grain size and sediment chemistry testing was conducted from beach sediments in the area proposed for 12 boat slips for a Limited Phase II Soils Assessment. These sediments were collected at the low tide line. No detectable concentrations of semi - volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organo - chloride pesticides (OCPs), or polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs) were detected. Metals were not detected at elevated ranges. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected at 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in soil from Boring 2. TPH concentration of 10 mg/kg is not significant and does not represent an environmental condition at these boring locations. Sub -tidal bay floor sediments and levels of contaminants Beyond the tide line, Newport Harbor sediments consist of sand, mud, or combinations of sand/shell hash sediments depending on tidal exchange rates, current velocities, channel depths, the configuration of the bay, and proximity to sources of sediment inputs. Observations made during a site reconnaissance survey at the proposed boat slips site indicated that sediments at depths shallower than -2 ft MLLW were predominantly sands, a combination of silts and sands at depths up to -6 ft MLLW, and primarily silts at depths up to I I ft MLLW. Comparatively, the bayfloor in the vicinity of 18th Street at the entrance to the Rhine Channel consists of between 90 percent and 95 percent fine- grained sediments at depths of -5 to -10 ft MLLW. Based on the findings of the environmental site assessment work at the proposed boat slips site, very low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the upper one -half foot of the bay mud. The hydrocarbons are not present at levels which require regulatory involvement or remediation. A single sample contained a very low concentration of an organo - chlorine pesticide (13 ug/kg 4,4- DDE). This concentration is well below action levels for soils on land. Habitats and Marine Biological Communities in the Project Area t Marine habitat types in the Marinapark project area include a city- maintained sandy beach, intertidal sand/mudflats, subtidal bay bottom (benthos), a cement groin that separates the sand beach from the American Legion marina, and open water bay habitat. The project area intertidal zone extends from ' Extreme Low Water ( -2.0 ft. MLLW) to Extreme High Water ( +7 ft. MLLW). Subtidally, water depths in the project area range from -2.0 ft to approximately -I I ft MLLW. Depths at the offshore ' edges of the boat docks located to the east of the project area are approximately -8 ft to -10 ft MLLW. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -1 11XIient (PN -IN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05 -3 Biological Re owce .doc I F1 Cl 1 I1 I 1 1 D Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Biological Resources Saud Beach While most of the shoreline of Newport Harbor is dredged for boat slips and lined with bulkheads, open sand beaches are scattered throughout the harbor. Most of the sandy beaches are located around Balboa Island, and secondarily, on the north side of Lido Isle and Balboa Peninsula. On the Balboa Peninsula, public swimming beaches in Newport Harbor are located between 15th and 19th Street, and 9th and I Oth streets. These beaches provide the public with recreational opportunities and also serve as an important marine wildlife habitat. The high intertidal portion of the city- maintained public beach support few if any marine organisms in the sediments because of the infrequent tidal exposure and periodic cleaning and grooming. This higher elevation however, provides resting habitat for seabirds (gulls and pelicans). The middle and low intertidal zones provide more consistent tidal inundation and therefore support burrowing species of invertebrates (primarily clams, crustaceans, and polychaete worms). These organisms attract shorebirds to the beach that utilize the invertebrates as their food source. Subtidal Soft Bottom Beuthos Beyond the shoreline, the sediments support algae and bottom - dwelling organisms (benthic invertebrates), some of which crawl over the surface of Newport Bay sediments, while others lead a sessile existence and protrude above the sediments from within a tube. While the majority of benthic invertebrates of bays and estuaries obtain their nutrition by consuming organic detritus, some graze on diatoms and algae or actively prey on other invertebrates. In turn, bottom feeding fishes and resident soft bottom - dwelling fishes (gobies, juvenile flatfish, and sand bass) rely upon these benthic organisms as food sources. The shallow Subtidal zone along the sand beach shoreline of the project area is vegetated with a cover of green algae (Enteromorpha sp). At deeper depths, red algae is more common. During site surveys conducted in October 2003 and in March 2004, no eelgrass (Zostera marina) was found along the shoreline at depths between 0.0 and -1 I ft MLLW. Eelgrass is a sensitive marine resource because of its value as a nursery habitat and protective cover that it provides for invertebrates and fish. Eelgrass also attracts juvenile baitfish, which are foraged on by the endangered California least tern (Sterna antillarum hrowni). While it is prolific throughout most of Newport Harbor from the Pavilion east to the Harbor Entrance Channel its western -most occurrence along the Balboa Peninsula is at the Newport Harbor Yacht Club. Over 300 species of benthic invertebrates that live in the sediments (benthic infauna) have been identified from Newport Bay mudflats and Subtidal channel sediments. The dominant types are annelid worms (polychaetes and oligochaetes), arthropods (gammarid and caprellid amphipods, isopods, ostracods, and cumaceans), and mollusks (gastropods and pelecypods). Most are not endemic to Newport Bay or necessarily reflect polluted bottom conditions. Rather, they are widely distributed and highly adaptable. They survive well under stress conditions which occur naturally in many California coastal bays and estuaries. Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -2 H: \Client (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05-3—Biological Reso=esAm I I 1 t� 1J 1 1] L 1 11 J Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources The numbers of benthic infaunal species decrease between the harbor entrance and the regions where water circulation is restricted in Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay. These community changes occur because of increasing environmental stresses due to extremes in salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen, as well as decreasing grain sizes within the sediments they inhabit. Other influences, related to the concentrations of contaminants in the sediments will also affect the types and abundances of organisms inhabiting Newport Bay sediments. Common benthic invertebrates identified in the fore - mentioned studies include polychaete worms (Capitella capitata, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, Streblospio benedicti, Haploscoloplos elongatus, Tharyx sp. Neanthes arenaceodentata, Polydora socialis, P. ligni, P. nuchalis, Prionospio heterobranchia newportensis), oligochaete worms, amphipods (Grandidierella japonica, Corophium acherusicum, C. insidiosum, Ampithoe spp.), caprellid amphipods (Mayerella banksia), snails (Tryonia imitator and Assiminea californica), and clams (Theora lubrica, Chione fructioga, Macoma spp., Tagelus subteres and T. californianus). Many larger types of benthic invertebrates live on the sediment surface (epifauna). Several species of epifauna were observed at the proposed site of the boat slips in October 2003. These included the hydroid Corymorpha palma, tube anemone Pachycerianthus fimbriatus, tube - dwelling polychaete annelid worms, tube - dwelling amphipods (Grandidierella japonica), and the predatory sea slug (Chelidonera [Navanax] inermis). Historically, the benthic infaunal community in the general vicinity of the proposed boat slips is characterized by low numbers of species and high abundances of a few species of invertebrates that reproduce well and out compete other species under stressed environmental conditions. The number of benthic species identified at stations between I Oth Street and the Rhine Channel during the SWRCB et al. 1994 survey varied between 14 (10th Street) to 32 (Lido Peninsula). Comparatively, cleaner sediments near the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel support as many as 207 species. The Rhine Channel and Lido Peninsula sites were classified as a "Transitional" by the SWRCB which indicates that the sediments have elevated chemical contamination and some toxicity to marine organisms is present. However, the benthic community is not "Degraded" compared to other areas of Newport Bay and other water bodies within the region. In Newport Harbor, "Degraded" benthic conditions were noted in the channel near I Oth Street beach, on the north side of Lido Island, the south side of Harbor Island, and the north side of Balboa Island. Hard Substrate Associated Organisms Man -made substrates (bulkheads, seawalls, docks, pilings, jetties) in Newport Harbor are not biologically sensitive. However, hardscape provides surface area for sessile marine animals and plants that would not be present in the Harbor in the absence of development. Common types of organisms found on bulkheads and docks in Newport Bay are listed in Appendix D. The hardscape of these structures support mussels, barnacles, and sponges, and other types of invertebrates, and plants that constitute the "biofouling community". The undersides of boat floats and docks are commonly Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -3 H: \Client(PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05- 3_Biological Resowces.doc ' Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources ' colonized by green algae, barnacles, mussels, limpets, polychaete worms, moss animals (ectoprocts), and sea squirts (tunicates). Bay fishes are attracted to the biofouling habitat because it a constant ' source of food. The cement groin separating the American Legion marina from the sand beach at 16° Street is colonized by few species on the beach side of the groin, primarily because most of its length ' is buried by sand. Where exposed, it supports a limited population of barnacles (Balanus glandula) in the high tide zone and mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) in the mid to low tide zone. ' Bay Fishes Over 75 species of fish are known from Newport Bay. Along the Peninsula between 9h Street and 13ih Street, 19 species of fish during 18 months of sampling between 1974 and 1975. This sampling was ' conducted midchannel by otter trawl net methods. The numerically dominant species were white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), shiner surf perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), white surf perch (Phanerodon ' f ircatus), slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatissima), deepbody anchovy (Anchoa compressa), black surf perch (Embiotocajacksoni), and queen fish (Seriphus politus). Bat ray (Myflobatis californica), white croaker, and queen fish contributed the most biomass. Other species, such as halibut (Paralichthys ' californicus), diamond turbot (Hypsopsetta guttulata), and various bottom - dwelling blennies and gobies are also found in Newport Harbor environments. 1 Marinas, docks, bulkheads, and groins provide habitat that attract a variety of fishes and these ' Other species of fish that are known from Newport Harbor include the arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), environments may exhibit a greater diversity of fishes than channel and mudflat habitats alone ' because both soft bottom channel fishes and rock - associated fishes inhabit these environments. Hard substrate offers cover, protection, or new sources of food for fishes such as pile perch (Damalichthys ' vacca ), pipefish (Sygnathus spp.), kelpfish (Heterostichus spp.), opaleye (Girella ni icans , halfmoon davidsoni kelp bass (Medialuna californiensis), sargo (Anisotremus , and (Paralabrax clathratus). there is limited human activity. Common species expected to be seen in this stretch of shoreline include During two reconnaissance surveys conducted by Coastal Resources Management in depths between 0 and -12 ft MLLW, four species were observed by SCUBA diving biologists at the site of the proposed ' boat slips. These included topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatus), bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus) and round stingray (Urolophuv halleri). ' Other species of fish that are known from Newport Harbor include the arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), California halibut (Parahchthys californicus), black surfperch (Embiotocajacksoni), white surfperch ' (Phanerodon furcatus) shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), and walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum). Several of these species maybe present at the site, but were not observed during the ' underwater surveys. Marine Birds Water- oriented birds may use the beach at the project site as resting or foraging habitat, primarily when there is limited human activity. Common species expected to be seen in this stretch of shoreline include mallards (Anas pla47hynchos), gulls (Gurus spp.), and California brown pelicans (Pelecanuv occidentahs). Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-4 FiXlient (PN -JM \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-3-Biological Resomces doc I 1 1 �J Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or Sensitive Marine Species and Sensitive Habitats Plants Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine angiosperm that forms meadows in mud - and -sand substrates of bays and wetlands channels. Although it is not a listed species, it is considered sensitive by resource agencies because it is an important biological habitat for invertebrates and fishes. In Newport Bay, eelgrass grows in the lower intertidal and the shallow subtidal substrates at depths between 0.0 and -28 ft. MLLW, although more commonly, at depths shallower than -8 ft. MLLW. Recent surveys using GPS surveying methods of eelgrass in Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay indicate prolific growth of this seagrass along Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Collins Isle, Beacon Bay, Harbor Island, Linda Isle, DeAnza Bayside Peninsula, Castaways, Bayshores Community, and Mariner's Mile extending between Bayshores and the Orange Coast College Rowing Facilities. Along the Balboa Peninsula, it is common between the Harbor Entrance Channel and the Pavilion. West of the Pavilion, it grows sporadically to the Newport Harbor Yacht Club. No eelgrass was located west of the Newport Harbor Yacht Club. There are no natural eelgrass beds along the shoreline between 15th Street and 19th Street. However, eelgrass transplants will be conducted along the 15th Street to 19th Street shoreline in late Spring 2004 as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Newport Harbor Eelgrass Restoration Project, in coordination with the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. These transplants will be conducted west of the proposed 12 boat slips at depths between -2 and -8 ft MLLW. Invertebrates There are no sensitive species of marine invertebrates located in the project area. Fishes Although the California halibut does not have a formal special species status, it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. California halibut spawn at sea and the larval stages are planktonic. After several months, the larval fish settle to the bottom, and migrate into ' shallow coastal waters, including Newport Bay. Halibut are distributed throughout the waters of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay, primarily as juveniles, although larger individuals are caught near the ocean entrance and in offshore waters. Young -Of -The -Year (YOTY) prefer shallow waters between about —0.45 meter (1.5 ft) and —1.0 meter (3.5 ft) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), whereas juveniles prefer deeper channel bottoms to a maximum depth of approximately 4.5 meters ' (15 ft) MLLW. After spending nearly nine months in Newport Bay, juveniles will move out into the open coastal environment. This species has a low to moderate potential to occur in the shallow waters of the project area because of the nature of the sand shoreline and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. Michael Bmndman Associates 5.3 -5 H:1Cliart ( PN- JM \00641006400200EIR100640020 Sec 053 Biological Resowces.doe I 1 G I J 11 [I 11 1 Mannapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources Birds The State and Federally - listed California least tem (Sterna antillarum brown) is a spring- and - summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting season. The least tem does not breed or nest near the project site but will forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during their March through September breeding season. The nearest least tem nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 mi northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Bridge. The California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is found in Newport Bay year-around but does not breed locally. The brown pelican utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish, and the shoreline as resting habitat. Marine Mammals The California sea lion (Zalophus californicus) is occasionally seen in Newport Harbor. Individuals are found primarily between the Pavilion and the harbor entrance channel, but may occasionally wander back in the harbor to the 15`" Street to 18th Street project area. Sensitive Habitats Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay shorelines and waters are defined as wetland habitats under both the California Coastal Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Consequently this water body is considered sensitive habitat and is afforded protection to conserve and protect the resource. Invasive Species Caulerpa taxifolia has a characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy fem -like fronds (branches), and a below - ground root system. This noxious algae was found within shallow, enclosed lagoons located at the northeast section of Huntington Harbour and in Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County in 2001. Although efforts are believed to have eradicated this species over the last two years, this tropical marine algae can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades, out - competes, and eliminates native algae, seagrasses, kelp forests and reef systems by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper ocean waters, and up to nine feet in length. Caulerpa has not been found within Newport Bay despite intensive underwater searches. Newport Bay has been designated as a Caulerpa free system by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This species was not observed at the project site either in October 2003 or March 2004. 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance The threshold for significance of impacts to marine biological resources is determined by scientific judgment, and considers the relative importance of the habitat and/or species affected by project implementation. For the purposes of this analysis, the project's effects on biological resources are considered to be significant if it would: Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -6 WCliem (PN -JN \0064100640020\DEM\00640020_ _Sec 05- 3_Sidogical Rm=cs.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources • Substantially affect a rare, threatened, endangered, or candidate plant or animal species, or the habitat of any such species; • Substantially diminish or degrade the habitat of any marine plant or animal; • Result in notable net loss of a biotic community that is subject to local, state, and/or federal regulations or that is otherwise of very limited occurrence in the region. • Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish and wildlife species; or • Conflict with adopted environmental policies, general plans, or regulatory policies of the community and State of California. 5.3.3 Project Impacts Shoreline Habitats and Resources Construction Impacts Marinapark Resort & Community Plan contains aspects that could potentially affect Newport Harbor marine resources. Particular aspects of this project that have a potential to degrade water quality and the quality of local marine resources include construction activities of the resort, boat slips, bulkhead, and concrete walkway and the operations of the resort and boat slips. No direct loss of sand beach habitat will occur from the demolishing of existing structures or from the grading of the hotel pad. There will be no loss of sand - dwelling benthic organisms resulting from grading activities from the hotel resort. The public beach will not be used as a staging area for equipment or personnel. However, noise and dust generated from the project may result in a temporary reduction in the quality of the sand beach as a resting habitat for seabirds along the backshore environment. This would result in a temporary, less than significant impact to seabirds. No seabird nesting or breeding activity occurs on this local stretch of shoreline. Operational Impacts The proposed cement walkway from the resort hotel to the boat slips will result in the loss of approximately 490 square feet of sandy shoreline which is foraging habitat for shorebirds. This long- term loss is considered significant. Benthic Invertebrates Construction Impacts Dredging, installation of the nine support piles for the slips, and construction of the bulkhead and cement walkway will remove all infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates that cannot escape from the Michael Bmndman Associates 5.3 -7 WCIiem (PN -JN)\ 0064 \006640020U)EiR \00640020_Sec 05-3-Biological Resomes.doc ' suspended sediment load related to higher turbidity may reduce the ability of both visual foraging Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources ' active excavation area. Approximately 30 to 40 species of benthic infauna and epifaunal ' invertebrates would be removed from the 0.23 -acre site at depths between 0.0 and -12 ft MLLW. The ' species in this region of Newport Bay are typical of other bay and estuarine environments in southern California and are dominated by species adapted to constant environmental stresses. The loss of benthic infauna and epifauna due to dredging will be a short-term less than significant impact. Organisms would begin to recolonize the sediments soon after dredging is completed. Within I to 3 years, the benthic community in the dredged areas that do not have permanent structures is expected to recover to pre- dredging levels of species diversity and abundance, assuming successful recruitment and recolonization, and water quality and adequate flushing is maintained. Furthermore, dredging and boat slips and cement walkway construction activities will cause a short- term increase in turbidity from the discharging of the suspended fine sediments with the liquefied portion of the dredge material. However, this should be minimized using the hydraulic dredge. ' Localized increases in turbidity can also occur as a result of vessel prop wash from tug boats. The extent and orientation of the dredge plume will depend on the prevailing tidal cycle. With ebbing tides, the plume will dissipate into the main channel, and out towards the harbor entrance channel. Incoming flood tides will cause the turbidity plume to disperse farther up towards the Rhine Channel. The anticipated increase in turbidity is likely to be a short-term localized significant effect on adjacent benthic invertebrates. Operational Impacts Significant, localized long -term impacts to benthic (bottom - dwelling) organisms will occur as a result of the long -term loss of soft bottom habitat including a long -term loss of benthic invertebrates. Fish Construction Impacts The project area fish community is composed of 19 species. The most common species are white ' croaker, shiner surf perch, white surfperch, slough anchovy, and black perch. There will be no direct mortality of open water (schooling) fishes during dredging. Some mortality of bottom - dwelling species such as gobies may occur. However, these losses will be short-term as other individuals migrate into the area and colonize the newly exposed sediments. A greater -than ambient suspended sediment load related to higher turbidity may reduce the ability of both visual foraging fishes (i.e., surfperch and halibut) and planktivores (i.e., topsmelt, anchovy, juvenile surfperch, and juvenile sciaenid) to feed. In addition, water column dissolved oxygen concentrations would decrease ' due to the resuspension of organically- enriched sediments. These impacts would physiologically stress the fish, and result in their temporarily movement out of the area to feed. Turbidity will return to ambient levels upon cessation of dredging through tidal flushing and circulation and fishes would return to the area. Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -8 H:1Client (PN- JN)t0064 \00640020WEIR \00640020 Sec 05 -3 Biological Resou ces.doc 7 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources iOperational Impacts No direct mortality of fishes will occur as a result of the presence of the boat slips. However, significant, localized long -term impacts to fish resources will occur as a result of the long -term loss of soft bottom fish foraging habitat. The addition of the bulkhead, the pilings, and docks however, will ' increase fish diversity in the area, due to the attraction of fish to the hard substrate. Birds 1 Operational Impacts Construction Impacts The most common species of non - endangered species of water birds to be present within the location of the boat slips and access walkway construction areas are gulls, cormorants, mallards, and various ' species of shorebirds. These species would avoid the construction zone due to noise, interruption of resting areas, and foraging sites, resulting in a short-term, less than significant impact on the local ' water bird population. These species would return to the area following the completion of boat slips and access walkway construction. No significant impacts would occur on these bird species. 1 Operational Impacts ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -9 H9Client (PN.JI) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 05 -3 Biological Reso=ts.doc No direct mortality of shorebirds and seabirds will occur. The long -term presence of the boat slips, bulkhead and concrete walkway will however, reduce shorebird and seabird resting and foraging habitat, however, this is not considered a significant impact. ' Marine Mammals Construction Impacts All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972). The only marine mammal likely to occur near the project area would be the California sea lion (Zalophus californicus). However, they are found closer to the harbor entrance channel. The likelihood of sea lions occurring in the project area on a regular basis is extremely low. Therefore, any construction associated with the hotel, related land facilities, dredging of the bayfloor sediments, or construction of the cement walkway would not significantly affect sea lions due to turbidity, noise, and storm water degradation because this mammal is infrequently present in the vicinity of the project site. ' Operational Impacts There will be no long -term impacts on marine mammals resulting from the operation of the 12 boat slips due to their uncommon occurrence in this part of Newport Bay. Endangered or Sensitive Species Construction Impacts No impacts to the California halibut will occur as a consequence of demolition, grading, and construction of the new resort. The federal and state listed endangered species California least tern (Sterna ontillaruni hrowni) and California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis occidentalis) may be present at the project site. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -9 H9Client (PN.JI) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 05 -3 Biological Reso=ts.doc I Because the California brown pelican and California least tem use their visual - acuity as a foraging mechanism, they could potentially be displaced to other areas of the Harbor if a turbidity plume prevented them from keying in on schools of baitfish. In all likelihood, these individuals would move to nearby foraging areas should their visual senses for foraging be affected by a turbidity plume, or noise activity from the construction is too loud. This would result in a short- term, significant impact resulting in changes in their foraging behavior. Operational Impacts The long -term operation of the boat slips will not result in the mortality of any endangered species. There will be a small reduction of open water foraging habitat, however, this is considered to be a less- than - significant impact because of the availability of large open water areas throughout Newport Harbor. Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources ' These species will respond to disturbances by avoiding the immediate grading and dredge areas. Because the boat slips are located close to the shoreline, the open water foraging areas of these ' species would not likely be directly affected by dredging or cement walkway construction activities. These species would be subjected to potential short-term impacts from grading and dredging activities, storm water turbidity plumes or construction- related noise. The project's affect on these species' foraging habitat is considered a locally significant impact. However, no direct mortality of endangered species will result from grading and dredging activities. Because the California brown pelican and California least tem use their visual - acuity as a foraging mechanism, they could potentially be displaced to other areas of the Harbor if a turbidity plume prevented them from keying in on schools of baitfish. In all likelihood, these individuals would move to nearby foraging areas should their visual senses for foraging be affected by a turbidity plume, or noise activity from the construction is too loud. This would result in a short- term, significant impact resulting in changes in their foraging behavior. Operational Impacts The long -term operation of the boat slips will not result in the mortality of any endangered species. There will be a small reduction of open water foraging habitat, however, this is considered to be a less- than - significant impact because of the availability of large open water areas throughout Newport Harbor. No eelgrass beds currently occur along the shoreline between 15th Street and 19th Street. However, a 10,000- square foot eelgrass transplant project will be conducted along the 15th Street to 19th Street shoreline in late Spring/early Summer 2004 as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.3.10 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DF.IR \00640020 Sec 05 -3 Biological Resouces.doc Eelgrass. The presence of the boat slips are not expected to adversely affect the proposed ACOE eelgrass restoration area that will be located a minimum of 150 feet west of the boat slips. Maintenance dredging may be periodically required (at an assumed 10 year interval) to remove trapped sediments during the long -term operation of the boat slips. Maintenance dredging or other maintenance for the project may result in the loss of eelgrass through dredging vessel movement and damage from propellers, and increased levels of turbidity. Halibut Nursery Loss. The long -term loss of the soft bottom habitat in the project area will result in a reduction of halibut nursery habitat. This loss is considered a locally significant impact. Sensitive Habitats Construction Impacts ' Newport Harbor shorelines and waters are defined as wetlands under both State and Federal guidelines. Consequently, any adverse impacts to Newport Harbor would be classed as a significant biological impact on a sensitive resource. Specific sensitive habitats that may be affected within Newport Harbor are discussed below. No eelgrass beds currently occur along the shoreline between 15th Street and 19th Street. However, a 10,000- square foot eelgrass transplant project will be conducted along the 15th Street to 19th Street shoreline in late Spring/early Summer 2004 as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.3.10 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DF.IR \00640020 Sec 05 -3 Biological Resouces.doc I E I JI I I C 1 Operational Impacts Soft Bottom Habitat. The long -term presence of the 317 ft long bulkhead, the addition of 9 support pilings for the docks, and the 70 ft long concrete walkway to the boat slips will result in a significant, adverse loss of sand beach and soft bottom habitat. In addition, there will be a permanent loss of shallow water benthic organisms such as clams, worms, and crustaceans. These organisms are food sources for benthic foraging fish and shorebirds. The bulkhead and the support pilings will impact 9,846.5 square feet (sq ft) flow intertidal and soft bottom benthic habitat at depths between 0.0 and approximately -8 ft MLLW, while the walkway will result in the loss of 490 sq ft of intertidal sand beach habitat and associated organisms at elevations between 0.0 and +7 ft MLLW. The cement walkway will also result in a significant fragmentation of sand beach habitat that will lessen the quality of the habitat for shorebirds. The total amount of affected soft bottom habitat is approximately 10,336.06 square feet. Hardscape Habitat. Hard substrate of pilings, retaining walls (bulkheads) and docks will be created which will provide attachment surfaces for intertidal and subtidal hardscape associated plants and animals such as algae, barnacles, mussels, limpets, and limpets. Many of these organisms are food for fishes. The increased surface area and additional variety of marine habitat afforded by the presence of hard substrates will increase species diversity of both invertebrates and algae in the project area, which will also attract a greater diversity of fish to the project area because of an increase in diversity of habitat types. Invasive Species Construction Impacts Invasive marine algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) is not present at the project site, and the construction of the hotel and associated facilities on land as well as the construction of the boat slips and cement walkway will not result in the spread of this noxious species. Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -11 H: \Client (PN-N 0064 \00640020\DEB2 \00640020 Sec 05-3-Biological Resou es.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources ' Newport Harbor Eelgrass Restoration Project, in coordination with the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. These transplants will be conducted at depths between -2 and -8 ft MLLW, with a ' buffer distance (150 feet) from the western end of the proposed 12 -boat slips. Potential significant impact to the transplanted eelgrass can occur through storm water and turbidity- related impacts associated with construction activities on the land. Furthermore, construction activities associated impacts with the boat slips and cement walkway could potentially have significant, short-term on eelgrass bed resources related to (1) vessel movement and damage from propellers and (2) increased levels of turbidity. Dredging and construction vessel propellers could accidentally cut through the eelgrass vegetation. Short-term increases in turbidity would lower levels of ambient light, creating less favorable growing conditions. These activities would result in a locally significant impact to eelgrass bed habitat and resources. I E I JI I I C 1 Operational Impacts Soft Bottom Habitat. The long -term presence of the 317 ft long bulkhead, the addition of 9 support pilings for the docks, and the 70 ft long concrete walkway to the boat slips will result in a significant, adverse loss of sand beach and soft bottom habitat. In addition, there will be a permanent loss of shallow water benthic organisms such as clams, worms, and crustaceans. These organisms are food sources for benthic foraging fish and shorebirds. The bulkhead and the support pilings will impact 9,846.5 square feet (sq ft) flow intertidal and soft bottom benthic habitat at depths between 0.0 and approximately -8 ft MLLW, while the walkway will result in the loss of 490 sq ft of intertidal sand beach habitat and associated organisms at elevations between 0.0 and +7 ft MLLW. The cement walkway will also result in a significant fragmentation of sand beach habitat that will lessen the quality of the habitat for shorebirds. The total amount of affected soft bottom habitat is approximately 10,336.06 square feet. Hardscape Habitat. Hard substrate of pilings, retaining walls (bulkheads) and docks will be created which will provide attachment surfaces for intertidal and subtidal hardscape associated plants and animals such as algae, barnacles, mussels, limpets, and limpets. Many of these organisms are food for fishes. The increased surface area and additional variety of marine habitat afforded by the presence of hard substrates will increase species diversity of both invertebrates and algae in the project area, which will also attract a greater diversity of fish to the project area because of an increase in diversity of habitat types. Invasive Species Construction Impacts Invasive marine algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) is not present at the project site, and the construction of the hotel and associated facilities on land as well as the construction of the boat slips and cement walkway will not result in the spread of this noxious species. Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -11 H: \Client (PN-N 0064 \00640020\DEB2 \00640020 Sec 05-3-Biological Resou es.doc J Marinepark Resort & Community Plan • Draft EIR Biological Resources Operational Impacts Caulerpa is not currently present at the proposed boat slips. The proposed activities would not cause ' this species to be present in the project area In the event that it colonizes the boat slip area, an eradication program is required to be implemented immediately under the supervision of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The eradication program is a current requirement of all boat slip owners in Newport Bay. 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts The proposed project will incrementally increase the potential for water quality degradation and impacts on localized marine resources in Newport Harbor. The project will also incrementally reduce the amount of open sand beach and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitat in Newport Harbor, reducing the value of Newport Harbor as a biological habitat for shorebirds. It also reduces shallow water habitat area for eelgrass colonization. These effects are potentially significant. 5.3.5 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures will reduce or eliminate pollutants that would affect off -site water quality and marine resources. BR -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -1 in Section 5.2.5. BR -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Resort Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities within the resort and on the beach shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Resort WQMP shall control urban constituents entering the existing storm drain system or entering surface water flows to the bay. The recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -2 in Section 5.2.5 BR -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Marina Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for long -term activities at the boat slips shall be prepared by the project applicant for approval by the City of Newport Beach. The Marina WQMP shall control ' pollutants from the boat slips from entering the bay. The recommended list of BMPs is provided in mitigation measure HWQ -3 in Section 5.2.5. ' BR -4 A water quality monitoring program shall be developed and implemented to ensure that all BMPs approved in the SWPPP and WQMPs are being used to lessen water quality impacts on Newport Bay. The monitoring program shall include provisions to monitor the health of marine life in the boat slip basin and the channel waters in front of the sand beach. This program shall also include a water quality monitoring program during "first flush" rainstorms following significant dry weather periods during construction and for a period of 5 years following construction, and monthly water turbidity sampling along the Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -12 ' WClienl (PN -1N)\ 0064 \00640020\DHIR \00640020_Sec 05 -3 Biological Reso=es.doc I I li �1 Ll ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -13 WClient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR\00640020 Seo 05-3-Biological Resow es.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources ' beachfront. If it is determined that Newport Bay water quality or marine life has been degraded, adaptive management techniques shall be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent adverse effects on the bay's water quality and marine i resources. BR -5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that is supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. BR -6 Prior to approval of the boat slip construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 3 to 1, 31,008.2 square feet (0.71 acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Public ' Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the ' requirements identified in the boat slip construction permit shall be implemented. BR -7. Prior to maintenance dredging or other maintenance in the boat slips, the project applicant shall develop a plan to restore eelgrass habitat according to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. 5.3.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, only one significant unavoidable adverse impact would remain. This impact would occur during the short-term and would be on the benthic resources that would be removed from the bayfloor during project and maintenance dredging activities. All other impacts to marine life would be less than significant after mitigation. I I li �1 Ll ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -13 WClient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR\00640020 Seo 05-3-Biological Resow es.doc Martnapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning 5.4 - LAND USE AND PLANNING Information in this section is based on the following reference documents: • Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Harbor and Bay Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Conservation of Natural Resources Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Noise Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Housing Element • Local Coastal Program (L.CP) Land Use Plan • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code • County of Orange, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Central and Coastal Subregion • City of Newport Beach, City Council Policy H -1, Harbor Permit Policy The purpose of this section is to identify the existing land use conditions on and surrounding the project site, analyze the project's compatibility with existing on -site and surrounding land uses, and to evaluate the project's consistency with relevant land use plans and policies. 5.4.1 - Existing Conditions Generally, the project site is bordered by a public beach and Newport Bay on the north, Balboa Boulevard to the south, Veteran's Park and the American Legion Post 291 to the east, and residences and a hotel to the west. On -site Land Uses The project site is currently owned by the City of Newport Beach. The site encompasses approximately 8.1 acres and presently supports the Marinapark Mobile Home Park, Las Arenas Park, four public tennis courts, one -half basketball court, a children's play area, Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, and a public beach located north of the mobile home park along the site's northern boundary. The Marinapark Mobile Home Park is a 40 -year old facility with approximately 24 units occupied full -time and 32 units occupied part-time. Las Arenas Park hosts small group classes sponsored by the City and contains 21 metered parking stalls. The Balboa Community Center offers various dance and exercise classes for children, teenagers and adults. The Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House hosts Michael Brandman Associates 5.4.1 WC6ent (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-4 land Use Planning.doe Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning 1 troop meetings, weekend events, adult meetings, and training. The Girl Scout house consists of a 3,985 square foot building, and an enclosed patio area with adj acent fire ring. ' Surrounding Land Uses The northern boundary of the project site is a public beach and Newport Bay. Immediately east of the public beach is the American Legion Yachting Club that can accommodate up to 46 boats. iBased on a review of the project location, components of the proposed project, technical studies Land east of the project site is utilized as an asphalt parking lot and boat storage, Veteran's Park, the American Legion Post 291, Southern California Edison power station, and residential and commercial uses. ' The area south of the project site includes Balboa Boulevard and residences across Balboa Boulevard. ' The residences consist of single - family and multiple - family units. The area west of the project site is occupied by 18th Street, hotel, and residences. The residences consist of one and two -story single - family and multiple - family units. Planning tSeveral local and regional plans, programs, and ordinances apply to or relate to the project site. They are the City's General Plan and Municipal Code, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). City of Newport Beach General Plan State law requires cities and counties, as political subdivisions of the State, to adopt general plans that provide a comprehensive set of policies and guidelines that is the basis for land use decisions. In conformance with State planning law, general plans are required to contain the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Housing. In addition to adopting the required elements, the City has adopted the following optional elements to its General Plan: Growth Management Element and a Harbor and Bay Element. In addition, the City has appended recreational needs to the Recreation and Open Space Element. iBased on a review of the project location, components of the proposed project, technical studies prepared for the project, and the applicable policies of the General Plan Elements, the following elements have been determined to be applicable to the proposed project: Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, Harbor and Bay, Conservation, Noise, Housing, and Growth Management Element. ' Following is a discussion of the applicable policies of each. Land Use Element. The Land Use Element, adopted in 1988 as amended, is intended as a long -range guide to the development of lands within the City's planning area, including both public and private properties. Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-2 H: \Client (PNJN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-4 land Use Planning.doc • Landscaped areas. 1 The Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element divides the City into discrete Divisions and Areas each ' with its own set of land use policies. The project site is located within the Balboa Peninsula Statistical Area (Area D), which is comprised of residential, commercial, and public uses. This area is sub - divided into four statistical areas: Area D1 (West Bay Area Statistical Area), and Areas D2, ' D3, and D4 (Central Balboa Area). Michael Rrandman Associates 5.4-3 H:Tlient (PN -JN) \0064\00640020 \DEIR \00640020 Sec 054 land Use Planning.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning The City has developed as a grouping of small communities or "villages ", primarily due to the natural geographic form of Newport Bay. The various villages provide a wide variety of types and styles of development. This wide range of development types provides both visual interest and community diversity. The Land Use Element proposes that the City build on the existing "groupings of villages" form and character, and, where possible, strengthen both the physical identity and functional efficiency of this form through several identified means. The identified means relevant to the proposed project are assuring harmonious groupings of land uses in each village area, managing the intensity of commercial development, and guiding the character of commercial districts. The project site is currently included within the Public, Semi- Public, and Institutional major land use category appropriate for use or development of publicly owned facilities, institutions and open space, or for privately owned facilities of a public use, institutional or open space nature. Within this major land use category, there are two sub - category land use designations: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF), and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. The project site is designated Recreational and Environmental Open Space. land Recreational and Environmental Open Space — This land use designation has been applied to proposed for use and development as open space of both a public and private nature. Some areas which carry this designation are characterized by unique settings or land forms, such as beaches, bluffs, canyons and Newport Bay uplands. These areas provide for active or passive open space use, depending on the land form. Other areas designated for open space can be used for a wide range of public and/or private open space uses, including: • Parks (active and passive); • Wildlife refuges; • Golf courses; • Yacht clubs; • Marina support facilities; • Aquatic facilities; • Tennis courts; • Private recreation facilities; • Drainage courses; • Interpretive centers; • Greenbelts; and • Landscaped areas. 1 The Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element divides the City into discrete Divisions and Areas each ' with its own set of land use policies. The project site is located within the Balboa Peninsula Statistical Area (Area D), which is comprised of residential, commercial, and public uses. This area is sub - divided into four statistical areas: Area D1 (West Bay Area Statistical Area), and Areas D2, ' D3, and D4 (Central Balboa Area). Michael Rrandman Associates 5.4-3 H:Tlient (PN -JN) \0064\00640020 \DEIR \00640020 Sec 054 land Use Planning.doc ' Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning ' The project site is located within the West Bay Area Statistical Area (Area D1), which is divided into 5 areas, identified as; Marinapark, 18th Street, 15`h Street, West Bay Residential, and GEIF. The ' project site is located within Marinapark which is characterized in the Land Use Element as follows: Marinapark: This site is located on the bay front between 18'h Street and 15`h Street. It is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space land use designation. The site could be ultimately used for aquatic facilities, expanded beach and community facilities such as the existing American Legion. The existing mobile home park use will be allowed to continue until the end of the existing lease. At that time the City will make the decision as to whether the lease should be further extended, or the property converted to public use. This characterization of the Marinapark area indicates that the existing mobile home park is not consistent with the existing land use designation for the site. Recreation and Open Space Element. The Recreation and Open Space Element, adopted in 1998, is intended to maintain a recreation and open space system which meets the recreational needs of the citizens of the City and which enhances the unique recreation and environmental resources of the City. State law defines open space as any parcel of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use, and which is designated on the open space plan as any of the following: for the preservation of natural resources; for the managed production of resources; for outdoor recreation; or for public health and safety. In addition to the minimum required content for an Open Space Element, the City has included, as an option, recreational needs and facilities The City is divided into service areas for the purposes of park planning and for equitable distribution of parkland dedications and fees levied on new residential development. The project site is located in Service Area No. 2 - Balboa Peninsula. There are several recreational uses that occur on the project site. The site is used by citizens of the Qty for recreational dance and exercise classes, meetings, training sessions and general public use. The project site contains: Las Arenas Park, classified as a Neighborhood Park; a public beach, and the Balboa Community Center. Harbor and Bay Element. The Harbor and Bay Element, adopted in 2001, is primarily intended to ' establish policies and programs in order to preserve the diversity of natural and man -made resources that occur in and adjacent to Upper and Lower Newport Bays and Newport Harbor. In addition, this element also supplements provisions of the Land Use Element and Recreational and Open Space Element of the General Plan and provides general policy guidance for the portion of the City located within the Coastal Zone. 1 Conservation of Natural Resources Element. The Conservation of Natural Resources Element, adopted in 1974, is intended to discuss the existing natural resources in the City, the programs for the conservation of these resources, and the actions that will be taken by the City to conserve these Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-4 WChem (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05-4 land Use Planning.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning resources. This element addresses bay and water quality, air quality, beach erosion control, mineral resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, and energy conservation. Noise Element. The Noise Element, adopted in 1994, is intended to include noise control in the planning process. The underlying purpose of this is to reduce the number of people exposed to excessive noise and to minimize the future effect of noise in the City. Housing Element. The Housing Element, adopted in 2003, is intended to provide a comprehensive statement of the City's housing policies and serve as a gnide to the implementation of those policies. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan The project site is located within the Coastal Zone as established by the California Coastal Act of 1976. In conformance with this act, the City prepared a Local Coastal Program (LCP). An LCP consists of a Land Use Plan and an Implementation Plan. The LCP Land Use Plan was originally adopted by the City in 1981 and approved by the Coastal Commission in 1982. In 1990, a revised plan was adopted by the City and approved by the Coastal Commission. However, the Implementation Plan was never completed. As a result, the City does not have a certified LCP. Until LCP is certified, permit authority on individual development proposals and changes to the existing LCP Land Use Plan are under the authority of the Coastal Commission for properties within the Coastal Zone boundary. The City is currently revising the LCP Land Use Plan. After the revised plan is adopted by the City, it will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval. After this approval, an Implementation Plan will be prepared and adopted by the City and then submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval. After this approval process, the Coastal Commission will certify the LCP Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan and sole land use permit authority will then be under control of the City for those portions of the City within the Coastal Zone boundary. The Coastal Commission statutorily retains permitting authority over submerged lands, tidelands, and public trust lands. Moreover, the Coastal Commission automatically has appellate authority over development approved by local government within specified geographic areas within Coastal Zone boundaries. The land use designation for the project site under the LCP land use designation is the same as that under the Land Use Element. The LCP Land Use Plan divides the Coastal Zone into ten sub -areas. The project site is located within the area identified as the Balboa Peninsula Area. The Balboa Peninsula Area is further divided into the Mid - Peninsula Area and the Central Balboa Area, each containing descriptive land use narratives of specific areas. The project site is specifically discussed and identified as Marinapark. The land use designation for the project site and the descriptive land use narrative is the same for the LCP Land Use Plan as for the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Michael Brandman Associates 5.4 -5 HACH=(PN -JN)\ 0064 \00610020\DEIR\006J0020_Sec 05A land Use Planning.dm Marinapark Resort & Community Plan -Draft EIR Land Use and Planning City of Newport Beach Municipal Code The project site is designated as Planned Community District (PC). The City Municipal Code sets forth the purposes of the PC District as: • Provide for the classification and development and parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large -scale community planning; • To allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent and provisions of this Code; and • To include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan, through the adoption of a development plan and text materials, which set forth land use relationships and development standards. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code — Harbor Permit The proposed project is subject to the provisions of Title 17 of the Municipal Code pertaining to anchorage and mooring regulations. Specifically, in conformance with Municipal Code Section 17.24.010, the proposed project will require a Harbor Permit in accordance with the provisions of City Council Policy H -1, Harbor and Permit Policy. In addition, per Section 17.24.080 of the Municipal Code, the proposed project will require approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for proposed work that will occur within the adopted U.S. Bulkhead Line and the U.S. Pierhead Line. Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan The County of Orange, approved on April 16, 1996, a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Central and Coastal Subregion portions of Orange County. Land in the NCCP/HCP policy plan area is classified as: Reserve System Land, Special Linkage Areas, Existing Use Areas, and Non - Reserve Open Space Areas. The project site is located within the boundary of the Coastal Subregion of the NCCP/HCP. The site is classified as a Non - Reserve Open Space parcel and not classified as part of the Reserve System or as a Special Linkage Area, Existing Use Area, or Non - Reserve Open Space Area. 5.4.2 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant impact on land use if it results in the following: • Creates substantial land use incompatibilities; • Physically divides an established community; Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-6 I IXIw.l ( PN- 1N)\0064\00640020\DEIR�00640020 —Sec OS-4 land Use PI ... mg.d. ' Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning • Conflicts 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; or • Conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. IOn the east side of the project site, suites and guestrooms will be 17 to 27 feet in height. These 5.4.3 - Project Impacts ' On -site Land Uses Land Use Compatibility. As shown on Exhibit 4 -1 in Section 4.1 of this document, the project site is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, recreational, and institutional land uses. Michael Rrandman Associates 5.47 H: \Client ( PN- JN)\ 0064\00640020UDFIR\00640020_Sec 054_land Use Planning.doc Recreational uses to the north of the project site include the public sidewalk, public beach and Lower Newport Bay. The proposed project includes a public walkway in generally the same location as the existing concrete walkway. The proposed public walkway would maintain public access to the beach and Lower Newport Bay from the east and west sides of the project site. Additional public access points from Balboa Boulevard would be provided through the project site. The 12 proposed boat slips would be compatible with the existing adjacent American Legion Yacht Club slips. The proposed slips would be smaller (12 slips) than the American Legion's 46 -slip facility. The proposed development includes replacement facilities for existing public recreation and community activities uses. The replacement public parking lot, tot lot, Community Center /Girl Scout House, and four public tennis courts will be of comparable scale and placement near the Balboa Boulevard frontage as the facilities they replace. Accordingly, significant portions of the Balboa Boulevard frontage will be characterized by facilities and uses comparable to those currently on the project site and compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed resort hotel includes a lobby structure that would be up to 34 feet in height and suites and guestrooms that will range from one -story (17 feet) to two -story (27 feet). The suites and guestrooms closest to the beach will be one story and will have a setback of 10 to 15 feet from the ' proposed concrete walkway that will be parallel to the shoreline. The proposed heights and setbacks of the structures along the beach will be compatible with the public beach. IOn the east side of the project site, suites and guestrooms will be 17 to 27 feet in height. These structures will be located adjacent to the existing parking lot/boat storage area of the American ' Legion Yacht Club. Because the area east of the site is a parking/storage area, the proposed onsite structures would be compatible with this adjacent use. Michael Rrandman Associates 5.47 H: \Client ( PN- JN)\ 0064\00640020UDFIR\00640020_Sec 054_land Use Planning.doc I ' Impacts Related to the Physical Division of an Established Community As previously discussed, the site is occupied by a mobile home park and other uses. The surrounding properties are developed with urban uses. Development on this site does not have the potential to physically divide the City or surrounding community. Access to and through the project site is maintained. Traffic- related impacts, as discussed in Section 5.5 of this document, are not significant. The project does not have the potential to impede vehicular traffic flow to the extent that it would divide the community. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts relating to dividing an established community. Impacts Related to Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Section 5.4.1 identifies the applicable policies within the General Plan Elements and the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the implementation of the proposed project. Following is a discussion of the project's consistency /inconsistency to each applicable policy for each General Plan Element. Land Use Element. The following section identifies Land Use Element development policies that are generally applicable to the proposed project and provides an analysis of the project's ' Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planing On the west side (18th Street) of the project site, suites, guestroom, and business administrative buildings will be 17 to 27 feet in height. The 27 -foot high structure closest to 18th Street will extend ' approximately 60 feet along the 18th Street frontage while the remainder of the structures along the tthe 18th Street frontage will be a maximum of 17 feet in height. The structures proposed along 18th Street will have a setback of 14 to 17 feet. These project structures will be across 18th Street from the existing hotel and residential structures. These existing structures are two stories, and therefore, the proposed heights of the structures will be comparable. Based on comparable heights and the proposed setback from 18th Street, the proposed hotel structures would be compatible with existing uses across 18th Street. ' Impacts Related to the Physical Division of an Established Community As previously discussed, the site is occupied by a mobile home park and other uses. The surrounding properties are developed with urban uses. Development on this site does not have the potential to physically divide the City or surrounding community. Access to and through the project site is maintained. Traffic- related impacts, as discussed in Section 5.5 of this document, are not significant. The project does not have the potential to impede vehicular traffic flow to the extent that it would divide the community. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts relating to dividing an established community. Impacts Related to Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Section 5.4.1 identifies the applicable policies within the General Plan Elements and the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the implementation of the proposed project. Following is a discussion of the project's consistency /inconsistency to each applicable policy for each General Plan Element. Land Use Element. The following section identifies Land Use Element development policies that are generally applicable to the proposed project and provides an analysis of the project's ' consistency /inconsistency with each policy: Policy C — Visitor Facilities. Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain tthe high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor. Analysis. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 540 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) during the non - summer season and 360 ADT during the summer as indicated in Section 5.5 of this document. Based on this analysis, the vehicular trips generated by proposed project uses would not result in significant traffic impacts which is consistent with Policy C directive to minimize traffic. Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-8 HXiieol (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-4_Land Use Planning.doc ' Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft E/R Land Use and Planning The proposed project includes a total of 209 surface and subterranean parking spaces. Proposed uses on the project site generated a code - required need for 92 parking ' spaces as shown in Table 5.4 -1, which will result in an excess of 117 parking spaces on the project site. 11 I 1 I I I I I I I Table 5.41: Marinapark Resort Parking Requirements b. Use. Rooms /$q'uare feet {sij' JCouns. ' Code�Reguired Rate ° "Code - Required Luxury Resort Hotel 110 rooms 1 space /2 rooms 55 Community Center /Girl Scout House 6,191 sf 1 space/300 sf 21 Public Tennis Courts 4 courts 4 spaces/court 16 Total 92 Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2004. The excess spaces will provide parking for the replacement Community Center, Girl Scout House, tot lot, and tennis courts uses over and above that provided for their existing facilities. The 117 excess parking spaces make the project consistent with Policy C directive to minimize parking shortages. The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. Accordingly, the project is considered to be consistent with Policy C directive to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors. The Mediterranean - themed architecture of the one and two -story resort hotel ' buildings, the construction of a new meandering pedestrian sidewalk along the beach, the preservation of the existing palm trees along the beach, and the installation of new landscaping on project grounds adjoining the public beach will be similar in ' character to the highest level of improvements existing along the harbor. The physical improvements of the proposed project, therefore, are considered to be M consistent with the Policy C directive to maintain the unique residential areas that border the harbor. I Michael Branciman Associates 5.4 -9 WClienl (PN- JN)\0064 \00640020\DEIR \00690020 Sec 054-Land Use Planning.doc I Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning ' Twelve boat slips are included as part of the resort hotel project. The slips will accommodate additional marine recreational activities commensurate with the great ' demand for new boat slips in Newport Bay. New boat slips are consistent with Policy C directive to ensure access to the water. In summary, the proposed resort hotel and related uses are consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy C. ' Policy D — Public Views and Land Form Protection. 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 alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. I I 1 Because the proposed boat slips are combined with a destination resort, it is a suitable site. This provision results in the project's consistency with Policy E directive to develop suitable sites for marine related facilities. Policy G — Land Use Conversions. Restrict certain types of land use conversions or forms of ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing, are incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or safety problems. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.410 H: \Clienl (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-4 land Use Planning.doc Analysis. Existing views from Balboa Boulevard across the project site to Newport Bay are currently limited to the extreme, easterly end of the site. The configuration of buildings included in the proposed project incorporates two open air corridors that extend from the project entrance on Balboa Boulevard, flank the hotel lobby structure on the east and west sides, and continue on to the beach and water. These additional ' access corridors will also serve as additional view corridors to the Bay from the public right -of -way at Balboa Boulevard. Views from the 18`b Street right -of -way to the Bay will not be diminished as proposed structures will be no closer to this right - of -way than those now on the site. The project's provision of these view corridors is consistent with Policy D directive to insure preservation of public views. Policy E — Marine Related Facilities. Provisions shall be made for the encouragement or ' development of suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine related facilities so as to continue the City's historical and maritime atmosphere, and the charm and character such businesses have traditionally provided the City. 12 four Analysis. The proposed project includes the provision of boat slips of which will be for public use. The boat slips are proposed in the vicinity of existing boat ' slips located east of the project site (American Legion Yacht Club). This project amenity will increase the availability of marine - related facilities on Newport Bay. I I 1 Because the proposed boat slips are combined with a destination resort, it is a suitable site. This provision results in the project's consistency with Policy E directive to develop suitable sites for marine related facilities. Policy G — Land Use Conversions. Restrict certain types of land use conversions or forms of ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing, are incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or safety problems. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.410 H: \Clienl (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-4 land Use Planning.doc I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning Analysis. Fractional ownership interests in up to twelve (12) of the resort hotel units may require the project applicant to comply with the Land Use Element provisions that require a development agreement with terms that ensure that this type of ownership interest will not adversely impact the City's fiscal ability to provide a high level of municipal services. Because the project applicant will lease the project site from the City of Newport Beach, terms of the lease agreement and/or the assurances provided by future legislative action will be used to satisfy the intent of this provision and ensure that the fiscal ability to provide a high level of municipal services is not adversely impacted by fractional ownership. The project, therefore, will be consistent with Policy G. Policy L — Commercial Districts. The City shall encourage its community commercial districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its several community commercial districts through the adoption and application of its planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. Analysis. The proposed project includes preparation of a Planned Community Development Plan that will regulate land uses and land use intensities, building sizes and heights, building setbacks, architectural character, on -site circulation, and landscaping requirements. These project components will conform to Municipal Code provisions related to the content, adoption, and administration of Planned Community Development Plans. Consistent with the intent of Planned Community Development Plans, the project site has been designed and will be developed as a single, unified project. Development standards incorporated and implemented through the Development Plan will conform to all planning, zoning, building, and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. Accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with the stated intent of Policy L. Recreation and Open Space Element. The applicable objectives and policies within the Recreation and Open Space Element are determined based on the components of the project. Following is a discussion of the applicable policies from each objective. Objective 2 — Parks and Facilities. Provide an integrated park system which is equitably distributed, is complementary to existing and proposed development and the natural environment, and which meets the identified needs of the community. Policy 2.1 — Facility and Locational Needs. This policy identifies the importance of continuing to operate existing parks and support facilities. The project site currently has existing parks and recreational facilities. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client ( PN- JN) \0064\00640020\DEIR\00640020 $ec 05 4_Iznd Use Planning.doc 5.4 -11 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan -Draft EIR Land Use and Planning Analysis. The proposed project includes replacement of the existing four tennis courts with four new courts. The existing tot lot will be relocated and replaced onsite as will the Community Center and the Girl Scout House. A one -half basketball court will not be replaced as the Parks Department indicates the facility is infrequently used. On balance, replacement of deteriorated existing recreational facilities with new facilities is determined to be consistent with the intent of Objective 2 and Policy 2.1. Objective 4 — Marine Recreation. Provide and encourage a level of marine recreation related facilities and maintenance that enhances the enjoyment of the City's natural resources by the community and its visitors. Policy 4.2 — New Marine Facilities. This policy identifies the need to provide additional marine recreational, educational, and support facilities and opportunities such as guest slips. Policy 4.3 — Slips, Moorings and Anchorages. This policy encourages the provision of guest slips, moorings, and anchorages in Newport Harbor. Policy 4.4 — Small Boat Launching. This policy encourages maximizing opportunities for the launching and short-term beaching of small boats. Analysis. Twelve boat slips including four for public use are included in the proposed project. The remaining eight will be used as guest slips for visitors to the resort hotel. Inclusion of the boat slips in the project promotes attainment of Objective 4 and is substantially consistent with Policies thereunder. Objective 5 — Coastal Access. Provide and maintain public access to the City's coastal resources in accordance with the City's Local Coastal Program. Ensure that provision of access is consistent with the protection of natural resources, public safety and private property rights. Policy 5.1— Access Preservation and Acquisition. This policy identifies the need to maintain existing public access to the beach and bay. Analysis. The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. Accordingly, the project is considered to be consistent with Objective 5 and Policy 5.1. Michael Rrandman Associates 5.4 -12 H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR\00640020_Sec 05- 4_Land Use Planning.doc I 1 1 1 1 1 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning Objective 6 — Scenic Vista and Resources. Maintain and enhance the scenic character of the City. Policy 6.2 — Coastal Views. This policy identifies the need to protect and enhance existing view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay, in accordance with the Local Coastal Program. Analysis. Existing views from Balboa Boulevard across the project site to Newport Bay are currently limited to the extreme, easterly end of the site. The configuration of buildings included in the proposed project incorporates two open air corridors that extend from the project entrance on Balboa Boulevard, flank the hotel lobby structure on the east and west sides, and continue on to the beach and water. These additional access corridors will also serve as additional view corridors to the Bay from the public right -of -way at Balboa Boulevard. Views from the 18th Street right -of -way to the Bay will not be diminished as proposed structures will be no closer to this right - of -way than those now on the site. The project's provision of these view corridors are consistent with Objective 6 and Policy 6.2. Harbor and Bay Element. This Element contains four broad goals that relate to diversity of uses (Goal HB -1), public access (Goal HB -2), water quality and the environment (Goal HB -3), and visual character (Goal HB -4). Following is a discussion of the applicable policies from these goals that relate to the proposed project: Policy HB- 1.1.1— Water - dependent Uses. Designate water - dependent uses /activities as the highest priority, water - related uses/activities as the second priority, and water - enhanced uses /activities as the third priority. Analysis. Twelve boat slips including four for public use are included in the proposed project. The remaining eight will be used as guest slips for visitors to the resort hotel. Inclusion of the boat slips in the project promotes attainment of Policy HB- 1.1.1. Policy H13-1.1.2 — Land Use Changes. When reviewing proposals for land uses changes, the City shall consider the impact on water- dependent and water - related land uses and activities and the importance of providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential to the operation of the Harbor. This shall include not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing land uses, activities, facilities, and services on adjacent properties. However, in no case, shall the protection of such land uses, activities, facilities, and services deny an owner viable economic use of the property. Analysis. The project includes a luxury resort hotel with 12 boat slips. The inclusion of the boat slips provide a facility that is currently in high demand on Newport Bay. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client ( PN- 1N)10064100640020\DEIR\00640020 Sec 05 -0_ISnd Use Planning&doc 5.4.13 I I 1 1 F1 I 1 I LJ Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning The project's provision of four boat slips for public use will provide a beneficial impact on marine recreational facilities. The provision of new public boat slips is consistent with Policy HB- 1.1.2. Policy HB -1.2.4 — Land Use Regulations. Ensure that land use regulations applicable to waterfront property continue to allow a wide variety of water dependent, water related and water enhanced uses. Analysis. The project includes 12 boat slips and retains the public beach. These water - dependent uses would promote the attainment of Policy HB- 1.2.4. Policy HB -1.3.5 — Guest Docks. Maintain existing guest docks and encourage addition of guest dock capacity at City facilities, yacht clubs and at privately owned - marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations. Analysis. The proposed project includes 12 boat slips with four of these slips for public use and the remaining for guests and visitors of the resort hotel. Inclusion of these boat slips is consistent with Policy HB- 1.3.5. Policy H13 -1.4.2 — Redevelopment. Encourage redevelopment of outmoded or antiquated Harbor commercial uses as part of an overall program to revitalize the older commercial and marine oriented areas, especially in those areas with adequate infrastructure and parcels suitable for redevelopment as an integrated project. Analysis. The proposed project includes the redevelopment of the project site, and the reconstruction of existing community and recreational facilities. The proposed facilities are located in an area that includes adequate infrastructure as described in Section 5.9 of this E1R. Therefore, the proposed project is determined to be consistent with Policy HB- 1.4.2. Policy HB- 2.1.1— Public Access. Encourage the expansion and improvement of existing public waterfront access and water -uses access which provide important links to waterfront uses such as beaches, small vessel launching facilities, public docks, and other similar public water area uses. Analysis. The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These ' Michael Urandman Associates - 5.9-19 H: \Client (PN.IN )10064 \00640020\DEIR \DD64W20 Sec 054-Land Use Planning.doc I L 1 IJ 1 1 1 1 1 J Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. Accordingly, the project is considered to be consistent with Policy HB- 2.1.1. Policy HB -2.1.7 — Visiting Vessels. Encourage new and improved facilities and services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out stations and other features, through City, County, and private means. Analysis. Twelve boat slips including four for public use are included in the proposed project. The remaining eight will be used as guest slips for visitors to the resort hotel. Inclusion of the boat slips in the project promotes attainment of Policy HB- 2.1.7. Conservation of Natural Resources Element. The following non - numbered policy is applicable to the proposed project: Bay and Ocean Water Quality. The City Council is unalterably opposed to the discharge of any raw sewage, sewage effluent, litter, debris or other wastes into Newport Bay that in any way possible could cause pollution and contamination of the waters of Newport Bay. Analysis. Implementation of the proposed project will result in potential surface water quality impacts associated with construction and operational activities. Construction and operational mitigation measures have been identified in Section 5.2.5. These measures are expected to reduce potential surface water quality impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City's water quality policy identified in the Conservation of Natural Resources Element. Noise Element. There is one noise policy identified in the Noise Element that is applicable to the proposed project. This policy is as follows. Policy 4.2.2 — Acoustical Design. The City shall continue to enforce the State of California Uniform Building Code provisions by requiring acoustical design in new construction. These provisions require that interior community noise levels with windows closed shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. This applies to all new hotels, motels, apartment houses and dwellings. New construction of buildings typically provides an attenuation of 20 dB with windows closed. Therefore, the goal of the exterior noise levels is 65 dB or less. Analysis. Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the Noise Element. Because the proposed project is associated with compatibility Zone B and the proposed building is of conventional construction without any special Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN- JN) \0064\006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 054—Land Use Planning.doe 5.4 -15 I 1 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning noise insulation requirements, it is consistent with the Noise Element. New construction or development is deemed compatible with Zone B when detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Housing Element. Following are applicable policies from the Housing Element: ' Policy 1.1.5 — Housing Demolition. Continue to require replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone (when housing is or has been occupied by low — and moderate ' income households within the preceding 12 months). The City shall prohibit demolition unless a Coastal Residential Development Permit has been issued. The specific provisions iL 1 1 11 C 1 I LJ 1 implementing replacement unit requirements are contained in Municipal Code Section 20. Analysis. The proposed project includes the removal of 56 mobile home units on the project site. As identified in this policy, the project will be required to obtain a Coastal Residential Development Permit prior to demolition in accordance with Section 20.86.030 of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, the project will be consistent with Policy 1.1.5. Policy 1.5.3 — Mobile Home Park Conversion. Per Government Code Section 65863.7, a Mobile Home Park Conversion Permit shall be required as a prerequisite for conversion of an existing mobile home park. In addition, the owner of the mobile home park shall provide a detailed relocation impact report. The report shall be filed concurrently with filing for any discretionary permit on such property. Analysis. The proposed project includes the removal of 56 mobile home units and will require a Mobile Home Park Conversion Permit prior to removal of the mobile homes. Obtaining this permit and implementing the requirements of this permit would result in consistency with Policy 1.5.3. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan. Following are applicable policies to the proposed project and a discussion of the project's consistency /inconsistency. Although not numbered in the LCP, for clarity, each policy has been uniquely numbered: Public Access and Circulation Public Access PA -3 — All existing vista points on public property shall be protected and maintained. PA -4 — Public access in coastal areas shall be maximized consistent with the protection of natural resources, public safety, and private property rights. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064\00640020\DEIR \00640020_$ee 054_1and Use Pbnningd0c 5.4 -16 'I 7 Li 1 -1 I 1 1 1 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning PA -5 — Lateral access shall be provided in new development by means of dedication of easements for public access along the beach and shoreline except where adequate access already exists or where the provision of access is inconsistent with public safety or the protection of fragile coastal resources. Analysis. The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. Accordingly, the project is considered to be consistent with the above public access policies, Policies PA -3, PA -4, and PA -5. Public Property Leaseholds PPLA — In the leasing or re- leasing of publicly -owned land, full consideration shall be given to the public's right of access to the ocean, beach and bay and to the provision of coastal- . dependent uses adjacent to the water. PPL -5 — Public access shall be required when the City issues new leases of public land, or renews existing leases. Analysis. The project applicant is seeking a lease to operate the proposed resort hotel. The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. As a result, the project is considered to be consistent with the above public property leaseholds policies, Policies PPL -1 and PPL -5. Circulation C -7 — All development shall provide adequate off - street parking to meet the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. C -11 —The City shall require new development in the Coastal Zone to make parking provided by the project available to the public when hours of operation of the proposed uses allow such joint usage, and when the project is in proximity to coastal resources. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064\00640020 \DEIR \00640020_sec 05-4 land Use PlanningAw 5.4 -17 7 1.J 1 1 7 Ll Marinapark Revert & Community Plan - Draft OR Land Use and Planning C -15 — Commercial, recreation or destination visitor - serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize traffic congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors. Analysis. The proposed project includes a total of 209 surface and subterranean parking spaces. Proposed uses on the project site generated a code - required need for 92 parking spaces as shown in Table 5.4 -1. The excess spaces will provide parking for the replacement Community Center, Girl Scout House, tot lot, and tennis courts uses over and above that provided for their existing facilities. The 117 excess parking spaces make the project consistent with Policies C -7 and C -11. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase of 540 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) during the non - summer season and 360 ADT during the summer as indicated in Section 5.5 of this document. Based on this analysis, the vehicular trips generated by proposed project uses would not result in significant traffic congestion impacts which is consistent with Policy C -15 directive to minimize traffic. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Unique Coastal Resources Dredging, Diking, and Filling DDF -2 — New development on the waterfront shall take into consideration existing usable water areas for docking facilities. Analysis. The proposed project includes 12 boat slips in an area of Newport Bay that has usable water for docking facilities. As a result, the project is considered consistent with policy DDF -2. Archaeological, Palentological, and Historical Resources APH -1 — Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. Analysis. A cultural records search and a review of the City's Historic Inventory has been completed and no resources have been identified on the project site. Therefore, the project is considered to have been evaluated for archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources and is considered consistent with Policy APH -1. Coastal Views CV -1 — Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. Marinapark is designated as a Coastal View Area. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.4 -18 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 054—Land Use Planning.doc 1 C L� U h J LJ r'1 LI 1 Visitor - Serving Facilities VSF -3 — Consistent with all other policies to protect and enhance the quality residential character of the community, the City shall encourage and protect both public and private water - oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. VSF -4(c) — Provision and maintenance of public restrooms is a top priority. A permanent restroom facility shall be constructed at Las Arenas Park. Analysis. The Mediterranean - themed architecture of the one and two-story resort hotel buildings, the construction of a new meandering pedestrian sidewalk along the beach, the preservation of the existing palm trees along the beach, and the installation of new landscaping on project grounds adjoining the public beach will be similar in character to the highest level of improvements existing along the harbor. The physical improvements of the proposed project, therefore, are considered to be consistent with the Policy VSF -3 directive to maintain, protect and enhance the quality residential character of the community. The proposed project includes a public restroom as part of the proposed Community Center. This provision would be consistent with the intent of Policy VSF -4(c). City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The project proposes to change the existing General Plan designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space to the General Plan designation of Recreational and Marine Commercial. A PC development plan will be adopted to be consistent with the Planned Community zoning. Should the City approve the General Plan Amendment, approval of a Planned Community Development Plan would be consistent with the requirements of the existing PC District for the project site. Michael Brandman Associates 5.419 H:\ Client( PN- JN) \0004\00640020\DEIR \00&41020 Sec 05-0 land Use Phnning.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning ' Analysis. Existing views from Balboa Boulevard across the project site to Newport Bay are currently limited to the extreme, easterly end of the site. The configuration ' of buildings included in the proposed project incorporates two open air corridors that extend from the project entrance on Balboa Boulevard, flank the hotel lobby structure on the east and west sides, and continue on to the beach and water. These additional ' access corridors will also serve as additional coastal view corridors to the Bay from the public right -of -way at Balboa Boulevard. Views from the 18 I Street right -of -way ' to the Bay will not be diminished as proposed structures will be no closer to this right -of -way than those now on the site. The project's provision of these coastal view corridors is consistent with Policy CV -1. New Development 1 C L� U h J LJ r'1 LI 1 Visitor - Serving Facilities VSF -3 — Consistent with all other policies to protect and enhance the quality residential character of the community, the City shall encourage and protect both public and private water - oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. VSF -4(c) — Provision and maintenance of public restrooms is a top priority. A permanent restroom facility shall be constructed at Las Arenas Park. Analysis. The Mediterranean - themed architecture of the one and two-story resort hotel buildings, the construction of a new meandering pedestrian sidewalk along the beach, the preservation of the existing palm trees along the beach, and the installation of new landscaping on project grounds adjoining the public beach will be similar in character to the highest level of improvements existing along the harbor. The physical improvements of the proposed project, therefore, are considered to be consistent with the Policy VSF -3 directive to maintain, protect and enhance the quality residential character of the community. The proposed project includes a public restroom as part of the proposed Community Center. This provision would be consistent with the intent of Policy VSF -4(c). City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The project proposes to change the existing General Plan designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space to the General Plan designation of Recreational and Marine Commercial. A PC development plan will be adopted to be consistent with the Planned Community zoning. Should the City approve the General Plan Amendment, approval of a Planned Community Development Plan would be consistent with the requirements of the existing PC District for the project site. Michael Brandman Associates 5.419 H:\ Client( PN- JN) \0004\00640020\DEIR \00&41020 Sec 05-0 land Use Phnning.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning ' City of Newport Beach Municipal Code — Harbor Permit. Obtaining a Harbor Permit from the City Building Department in conformance with Municipal Code Section 17.24.010 would result in ' conformance with this portion of the Municipal Code. Impacts associated with the boat slips are primarily related to water quality and are discussed in Section 5.2 of this document. These impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to obtaining a Harbor Permit. Impacts Related to Natural Community Conservation Plans/Habitat Conservation Plans The project site is within the boundaries of this planning area; however, no biological resources ' related to the NCCP/HCP are located on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or result in any impacts related to the Orange County Coastal Subarea ' Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). 5.4.4 - Cumulative Impacts ' As described in Section 5.4.3, the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the policies of the City's General Plan Elements and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative land use compatibility effects or policy inconsistencies that may occur with related projects. ' 5.4.5 - Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.4.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation ILess than significant impacts would result from project implementation. C Michael Brandman Associates 5.4 -20 H:\ Client( PN- JN)U1064b0640020\DE1R100640020 Scc 05-4-Land Use Planning.doc Approximately half of the proposed dock is located outside the U.S. Pierhead Line. This is not in conformance with specific provisions of the Harbor Permit Policy (City Council Policy H -1). This policy states that piers and floats are permitted only up to the U.S. Pierhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Stations 114 to 119. The project site is located between these two stations. Pierhead and Bulkhead Lines (Harbor Lines) are established by the federal government (33 USC 403) for the ' protection of navigation within Waters of the United States. Obtaining permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conformance with City Municipal Code Section 17.24.080 would result in conformance with this portion of the Municipal Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction of a dock outside of the U.S. Pierhead Line. Impacts Related to Natural Community Conservation Plans/Habitat Conservation Plans The project site is within the boundaries of this planning area; however, no biological resources ' related to the NCCP/HCP are located on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or result in any impacts related to the Orange County Coastal Subarea ' Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). 5.4.4 - Cumulative Impacts ' As described in Section 5.4.3, the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the policies of the City's General Plan Elements and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to potential cumulative land use compatibility effects or policy inconsistencies that may occur with related projects. ' 5.4.5 - Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.4.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation ILess than significant impacts would result from project implementation. C Michael Brandman Associates 5.4 -20 H:\ Client( PN- JN)U1064b0640020\DE1R100640020 Scc 05-4-Land Use Planning.doc r-, LJ 11 1 I� u Ll 1 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Transportation/Circulation 5.5 - TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION The following discussion is based on the traffic analysis prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. in March 2004 (see Appendix E). The traffic analysis is prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) methodology. The traffic analysis also includes an evaluation of cumulative conditions in compliance with CEQA requirements. 5.5.1 - Existing Conditions The project site is bound by 18'" Street to the west, 15d' Street to the east and Balboa Boulevard to the south. The City of Newport Beach identified seven intersections as the study area for the proposed project. These intersections include: • Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road • Balboa Boulevard /Superior Avenue and Coast Highway • Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway • Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway • Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway • Newport Boulevard and Via Lido • Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street Existing peak hour intersection volumes for the above intersections were provided by City staff. The peak hour count data that were provided were collected in March, April, and May 2003 which are considered part of the shoulder season. The shoulder season is defined as fall and spring when schools are in session and people ate going to work. The middle of winter is considered non -peak because traffic is at an average minimum. The winter period is not analyzed in this evaluation. The summer is considered the peak traffic season. The shoulder season is used by the City for traffic planning rather than the summer season because planning for the summer season (i.e., peak season) would result in excessive roadway capacity during non -peak and shoulder seasons. Existing intersection levels of service are based on intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU values are a means of presenting the volume to capacity (V /C) ratios, with a V/C ratio of .900 representing the upper threshold for an acceptable level of service (LOS "D ") in the City of Newport Beach. Existing ICU values for the study intersections assuming existing lane configurations are summarized in Table 5.5 -1 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix E). As this table shows, the study intersections are currently operating at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hour. These ICU values represent the shoulder season conditions. Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -1 H'. \Client (PN -JN) 10064100640020 \DEIR \00640020_Sec 05-5-Transportation Circulation.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Transportation/Circulation Table 5.5 -7: Existing ICU Analysis Summary '. Exlshttg . Inten3ectusn AM PM I. Newport & Hospital .603 .853 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway .734 .673 3. Riverside & Coast Highway .708 .716 4. Tustin & Coast Highway .701 .597 5. Newport & Via Lido .456 .347 6. Newport & 32' Street .632 .524 7. Newport & Coast Highway .818 .619 Level of service ranges: .000- .600 A .601- .700 B .701- .800 C .801 - .900 D .901 - 1.000 E Above 1.001 F Traffic counts on Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of 20th Street collected by the City were used to compare shoulder season volumes with peak summer volumes on Balboa Peninsula (see Appendix E). Counts collected in March 1999 indicate a weekday daily volume of 21,000 average daily traffic (ADT) (LOS "A ") on Balboa Boulevard. Weekday counts collected in August 2003 average 28,000 ADT (LOS "C "), approximately 35 percent higher than the shoulder season volume. During the AM peak hour, summer volumes are approximately 17 percent lower than the shoulder season volume, and during the PM peak hour, summer volumes are approximately 23 percent higher than the shoulder season volume. 5.5.2 - Thresholds of Significance Based on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project will result in a significant traffic impact if two conditions occur. First, the peak hour project traffic needs to meet or exceed one percent of the ' projected background peak hour traffic on one leg of a study intersection. Second, if the project meets or exceeds the first condition, the project would need to contribute enough traffic to cause or make an unsatisfactory level of service. 5.5.3 - Project Impacts Trip Generation and Distribution Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in the number of trips in the project ' area above that contributed by existing uses. Since the project site currently has a mobile home park that generates traffic, the additional traffic generated by the proposed project will be the net increase of the difference between the number of project generated trips and the number of existing trips from ' the mobile home park residences. To be conservative related to the project's traffic contribution, the Michael Brandman Associates 5.5-2 11:1Clicnt (PN -JN) 10064 \00640020\DEIR100640020 Sec 05 -5 Transpomnion CirculationAm �I 1 1 I 11 I 11 I r ul n J I Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR TransportationlCirculation net increase in trips was determined by the difference of the number of trips associated with a fully occupied hotel and the number of trips associated with a fully occupied mobile home park. This is considered conservative during the shoulder season because the existing 56 -unit mobile home park has 24 units that are occupied full -time and 32 units that are occupied part-time. Furthermore, this analysis assumes full occupancy of the 110 hotel rooms. Table 5.5 -2 includes the trip generation for the existing uses which were obtained from mobile home park trip rates, and trip rates for the proposed project were obtained from the resort hotel trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation, 7h Edition." Table 5.5 -2: Trip Generation Summary (Shoulder Season) La'ntl Use Units AM Peak Hour PMPeak Hour ADT . Total Trip Rates (ITE) Mobile Home Patio DU 09 .35 .44 .37 .22 .59 4.99 Resort Hotel Room 22 .09 .31 .18 .24 .42 5.82 Trip Generation Mobile Home Park 24 DU" 2 8 10 9 5 14 120 Proposed Project Resort Hotel 1 10 Rooms 24 10 34 20 26 46 640 Net New Trips — 22 2 24 11 21 32 520 a Only 24 mobile home units are assumed to be occupied during the shoulder season. Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 As shown in Table 5.5 -2, the proposed project generates a total of 640 trips daily, of which 520 are new trips. During the AM peak hour, the project generates 24 new trips and during the PM peak hour the project generates 32 new trips compared with the trip generation of the existing uses. Trip distribution of project - generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the project site. The proposed resort hotel will have a large proportion of local trips that do not impact any of the study intersections. The general distribution is illustrated in Appendix E. Approximately 50 percent of the proposed hotel traffic is oriented toward the north, 13 percent is oriented toward the west, 12 percent is oriented toward the east, and 25 percent is estimated to remain in the Balboa Peninsula area. Project - generated trips were distributed to the circulation system according to these distribution patterns. Since the proposed project is not expected to be complete prior to 2005, background trips were established for the year 2006. These trips were derived by adding an ambient growth rate and traffic generated by approved projects in the project area to the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area was distributed over the circulation system by City Staff and was added to the Michael Brandman Associates 5.53 H: \Client (PN- N) \0064 \00640020\DE[R \00640020 Sec 05 -5 Transportation CirculationAm Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR Transportation/Circulation ' existing peak hour volumes to obtain year 2006 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of project - generated traffic. Table 3 in Appendix E summarizes the approved projects and their percent complete. The project's contribution to the existing plus background scenario results in an exceedance of one percent at one leg during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at two of the study intersections (Newport Boulevard and Via Lido and Newport Boulevard and 32 "d Street) as shown in Table 5.5 -3. ' Table 5.5 -3: Summary of One Percent Analysis IlJ II If' II i1 11 I Intersectlon Protect AM Peak Hour Volumes % Lese Thant of Peak Hour Volumes. .... WS I . Newport & Hospital I 11 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0 0 3 1 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Highway 0 0 0 3 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Highway 0 0 0 3 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido I 14 0 0 No 6. Newport & 32 "d St ] 14 0 0 No 7. Newport & Coast Highway 0 0 0 3 Yes Interst?64on ii Nil t PM Poak Hour�Volumesr Less Thart1% of .; Peak Hour Volumes.'. EB WB I . Newport & Hospital 10 6 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 3 0 1 0 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Highway 0 0 3 1 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Highway 0 0 3 1 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 13 7 0 0 No 6. Newport & 32 "d St 13 7 0 0 No 7. Newport & Coast Highway 0 0 0 1 Yes Since the project resulted in the peak hour trip contribution of more than one percent at two study intersections, an ICU analysis for the background plus project scenario was performed. As shown in Table 5.5 -4, the intersections of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido and Newport Boulevard and 32 "d Street would operate at LOS B or better. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant traffic impact during shoulder season commuter periods. Michael Brandman Associates 5.5-4 WClient ( PN- JN)10064100640020\DELR100640020 Sec 05 -5 Transportation Circulation.doc ' Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR TransportationlOrculation ' Table 5.5-4: ICU Analysis Summary I u Ewstttlg Baakgrdund "" - periods. The travel patterns of patrons of a resort hotel may not correspond to usual non -resort Background ± i?roject lntersectlori conducted to determine the relationship of weekend (Saturday) trip rates to weekday trip rates ' associated with resort hotels. The 1TE trip generation rate for hotels for weekends was reviewed; however, 1TE does not have a reliable trip generation rate for resort hotels on weekends due to the variation of amenities provided at AM. PM AN!' PM- 1TE trip rate for conventional hotels such as business and vacation hotels indicates that the Saturday 5. Newport&Via Lido .456 .347 .460 .349 .460 .352 6. Newport & 32 °d St .632 .524 .632 .524 .632 .527 Level of service ranges- .000- .600 A seaside resort in Del Mar and at the Hotel Bel Air which is a secluded and isolated resort in the Bel .601- .700 B Air area of Los Angeles. The traffic counts indicated that the weekday and weekend trip rates did not ' .701- .800 C hotel weekday trip rate is also considered applicable as the weekend Saturday trip rate. .801 - .900 D .901 - 1.000 F, weekend traffic volumes was determined. A worst -case analysis (at least for the overall traffic conditions) was conducted for summer weekends. During this condition, the net increase in Above 1.000 F peak Weekend /Summer Traffic Conditions As stated previously, the City's TPO examines traffic impacts for the weekday shoulder commuter periods. The travel patterns of patrons of a resort hotel may not correspond to usual non -resort commuter trip characteristics such as a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Consequently, an analysis was conducted to determine the relationship of weekend (Saturday) trip rates to weekday trip rates ' associated with resort hotels. The 1TE trip generation rate for hotels for weekends was reviewed; however, 1TE does not have a reliable trip generation rate for resort hotels on weekends due to the variation of amenities provided at and in the immediate vicinity of the resort hotels. The 1TE information is based on one resort hotel whose amenities were not identified such that it is not possible to make an accurate comparison. The 1TE trip rate for conventional hotels such as business and vacation hotels indicates that the Saturday trip rate is approximately 10 percent greater when compared to the weekday rate. The proposed ' project includes a luxury resort hotel. Luxury resort hotels provide a range of luxury personal services such as individual spa treatments and exclusive dining. Luxury resort hotels are marketed to high -end travelers who are not tied to conventional commuter schedules as are the conventional ' business traveler and family vacationers whose travel patterns correspond more closely to normal peak hour weekday periods. For these reasons, the 1TE rate was rejected by the traffic engineer. Since the data for weekend trip generation rate for luxury resort hotels is not suitable for the project, a weekday and weekend comparison of trip generation at two resort/luxury hotels comparable to the ' project was conducted. A traffic count was performed at the L'Auberge Del Mar Resort which is a seaside resort in Del Mar and at the Hotel Bel Air which is a secluded and isolated resort in the Bel Air area of Los Angeles. The traffic counts indicated that the weekday and weekend trip rates did not ' vary significantly and, in fact, remained quite consistent. Consequently, the proposed luxury resort hotel weekday trip rate is also considered applicable as the weekend Saturday trip rate. In addition to the above analysis of trips rate, the effect of the project's traffic contribution to summer weekend traffic volumes was determined. A worst -case analysis (at least for the overall traffic conditions) was conducted for summer weekends. During this condition, the net increase in peak Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -! H: \Client (PN -K \0064 \00640020\DEQL \00640020 Sec 05 -5 Transpo t ion Circulation.doc ' Marinapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft OR Transportation/Circulation ' trips was determined by the difference of the number of trips associated with a fully occupied hotel and the number of trips associated with a fully occupied mobile home park. As a result, the proposed ' project would result in a net increase of 360 ADT. The net increase in traffic volume from the proposed luxury resort hotel was compared to the average ' summer weekend traffic volume experienced along Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of 20'h Street. The average summer weekend traffic volume of 35,000 ADT is based on traffic counts conducted for Saturday August 16, 2003 and Sunday August 17, 2003. The 360 ADT associated with the proposed resort hotel is approximately one percent of the summer weekend ADT. Based on the above information regarding the similarity of weekend and weekday trip rates for the proposed resort hotel, traffic counts for summer weekdays were reviewed. Based on traffic counts conducted for Thursday August 14, 2003, Friday August 15, 2003, Monday August 18, 2003, Tuesday August 19, 2003, and Wednesday August 20, 2003, ADT volumes vary from 25,600 to 32,500 which is a difference of 27 percent. As a result, the effect of the 360 ADT associated with the proposed resort hotel (representing approximately one percent of weekend and weekday ADT) would not be perceptible from the daily summer ADT fluctuations. Furthermore, the increase in summer traffic from the proposed resort hotel is expected to occur at times other than the peak traffic periods such as the time period when beach visitors exit Balboa Peninsula en -masse in the afternoon. Hotel patrons are expected to either ' be traveling in the direction opposite to the outbound beach traffic during this period or traveling during periods other than peak traffic volumes exiting the peninsula. Based on the above evaluation, the proposed resort hotel would result in less than significant traffic impacts during summer periods. 5.5.4 - Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the cumulative projects identified in Section 4.2 in this EIR would increase traffic volumes in the project vicinity. The trip generation and distribution of each of these related projects was provided by City staff. The seven study area intersections were evaluated to determine the project's traffic effect on each of the intersections. The peak hour intersection volumes associated with the related projects were added to the background traffic volumes. The project - generated traffic was subsequently compared to the background- plus - related project traffic. As shown in Table 5.5 -5, ' the project's contribution to the background- plus - related project traffic volumes is greater than one percent at two of the study intersections (Newport Boulevard and Via Lido and Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street). C I IM Michael Brandman Associates 6.5-6 H:\ Client ( PN- IN)10064100640020\DEad100640020 Sec O5 -5 Transportation Circulalion.doc I 1 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Transportation/Circulation ' Table 5.5 -5: Summary of Cumulative Conditions One Percent Analysis II II I1 I I fntersechon roJect� P�aTc HCurVplumes teas Then4% of Peak Hourdolumea; Cumulative + E13.' `. --WW 1. Newport & Hospital 1 11 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0 0 3 0 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Highway 0 0 0 3 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Highway 0 0 0 3 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 1 14 0 0 No 6. Newport & 32' St 1 14 0 0 No 7. Newport & Coast Highway 0 0 0 3 Yes Intersection Projec4 ®Peak Hour Vo Writes: j„essThanf %of.,.. Peak our Volume's. NB .: SB ' . EB WB 1. Newport & Hospital 10 6 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 3 0 1 0 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Highway 0 0 3 1 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Highway 0 0 3 1 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 13 7 0 0 No 6. Newport & 32 "d St 13 7 0 0 No 7. Newport & Coast Highway 0 0 0 1 Yes Since the project resulted in the peak hour trip contribution of more than one percent at two study intersections, an ICU analysis for the background plus related projects plus project scenario was performed. As shown in Table 5.5 -6 the intersections of Newport Boulevard and V is Lido and Newport Boulevard and 32 "d Street would operate at LOS B or better. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant traffic impact during shoulder season commuter periods. Table 5.5 -6: Cumulative ICU Analysis Summary Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -7 WClicni( PN- 1N)\ 0064\00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05- 5_Transponaion Circulaiion.doc Cumulative + Existing Background (Background + Intersection Back round+ 9 RelatetlPro cts Je Related Projects. + Project) AM PM AfN> PM AM PM AM PM 5. Newport & Via Lido 456 .347 .460 .349 .464 .357 .464 .360 6. Newport & 32nd St 632 .524 .632 .524 .638 .538 .638 .540 Level of service ranges: .000- .600 A .601- .700 B .701- .800 C .801- .900 D .901 - 1.000 E Above 1.000 F Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -7 WClicni( PN- 1N)\ 0064\00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05- 5_Transponaion Circulaiion.doc it Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR TransportationlCirculation 1 5.5.5 - Mitigation Measures ' No measures are required. II II II II II 1 1 I 5.5.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed project would result in less than significant traffic impacts. Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -8 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 05 -5 Transportation Cimulalion.doc I Marinapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality 5.6 - AIR QUALITY Information in this section is based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project by Giroux and Associates (see Appendix F for the complete report). 5.6.1 - Existing Conditions The project site's climate, as with all Southern California, is dominated by the strength and position of the semi - permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall. It drives the cool daytime sea breeze, and it maintains comfortable humidities and ample sunshine after the frequent morning clouds dissipate. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric processes that create the desirable living climate combine to restrict the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted in part by the desirable climate. Portions of the Los Angeles Basin therefore experience some of the worst air quality in the nation for certain pollutants. The effect of the wind pattern on air pollution is that any locally generated emissions will be carried offshore at night and toward inland Orange County by day. Daytime ventilation is much more vigorous. Unless daytime winds rotate far into the north and bring air pollution from developed areas of the air basin into Newport Beach, warm season air quality is much better in the project vicinity than in inland valleys of the air basin. Both summer and winter air quality in the project area is generally good. inland areas of Orange County may experience elevated levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides because of this winter radiation inversion condition. However, the coastal areas of Orange County have not substantially been affected by limited nocturnal mixing effects (no elevated levels of CO) in over 10 years. Ambient Air Quality Standards Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. It has been demonstrated, however, that chronic exposure to ozone, even at concentrations equal to the one hour federal AAQS, may have adverse long term health implications. A new federal ozone standard for chronic exposure (8 hours) was adopted in 1997 to deal with unhealthful longer term exposure. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollutants with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -1 H:Uient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-6 Air Quality.dm Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended to 1987 for national AAQS, and ambient air quality was still far from attainment by the end of 1987 in air quality problem areas like Southern California. Subsequent amendments to clean air compliance regulations extended the attainment deadline to 2010 for extreme non - attainment airsheds such as the SCAB. Because California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between State and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 5.6 -1. The entries in Table 5.6 -1 include the federal standards for chronic (8 hour) ozone exposure or for ultra small diameter particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (called "PM -2.5 ") adopted in 1997. Compliance with these new national standards will be addressed during the next update of the regional Clean Air Plan (ozone), or must wait for several years of data collection to determine baseline levels of (PM -2.5). Manufacturing and trucking associations challenged EPA's authority to promulgate standards without specific congressional authority as violating sovereign state's rights. The absence of any cost - benefit analysis was also challenged. These associations prevailed at the circuit and appellate court levels, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the stay in February 2001. The Court's decision did note inconsistency in the implementation dates of ozone standards, and halted full adoption of the new standards for PM -2.5 and the 8 -hour ozone standard until attainment schedules are coordinated. As noted in Table 5.6 -1, there are currently both federal and State standards for PM -2.5. California adopted an annual standard for PM -2.5 in June of 2003. Data collection is continuing for PM -2.5 and 8 -hour ozone, but no enforcement or attainment actions are currently ongoing for these standards. Table 5.6 -1: Ambient Air Quality Standards Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -2 RXIienl (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \006470020_Sec 05 -6_Air Quali\y.doc „- CitHoinle Standards ` .: .. ... .Federal Standard ... .... . Pollutant Averaging. ;COncerdmetlon Measurement . mim6d .. Primary ;Sewnda ....... .. ry. measuroment . Method ..:. . Time - .. 0.12 ppm 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (235 (180 pg/m3) Ultraviolet pg/ni3) Same as Ethylene Ozone (03) Photometry Primary Standard Chemiluminescence 0.08 ppm 8 Hour — (157 pg/m3) Annual Geo- 30 pg/m3 — metric Mean Respirable Same as Inertial Separation 150 Particulate 24 Hour 50 pg/m3 Gravimetric or pg/m3 Primary and Gravimetic Matter Beta Attenuation Standard Analysis (PM 10) Annual Arithmetic — 50 pg/m3 Mean Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -2 RXIienl (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \006470020_Sec 05 -6_Air Quali\y.doc I I I 11 I Ij I I I 11 I I I I I I Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality Table 5.6-1 (Cont.): Ambient Air Quality Standards Michael Brandman Associates 5.63 RUicni (PN-JN)\0064\00640020\DEIR\00640020Sec 05-6-Air Qwfity.doc A F ,o Pollu�rit - d-, Fine 24 Hour 65 µg/m3 Particulate Gravimetric or Same as Primary Inertial Separation and Gravimetic Annual Matter Arithmetic 12 ltg/m3 Beta Attenuation 15 µg/m3 Standard Analysis (PM2.5) Mean Annual 0.053 ppm Nitrogen Arithmetic Mean — Gas Phase (100 µg/m3) Same as Gas Phase Dioxide (NO2) Cherniluminescr:nce Primary Standard Chemiluminescence I Hour 0.25 ppm (470 µg/m3) 8 hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm (10 (10 mg/m3) mg/m3) Carbon Non-dispersive Non-dispersive Monoxide 1 Hour 20 ppm Infrared None Infrared (CO) (23 mg/m3) Photometry Photometry (NDIR) (NDIR) 8 Hour (Lake 6 ppm Tahoe) (7 mg/m3) 30 Days 1.5 µg/m3 AIHL Method average 54(12/74) High Volume Same as Lead Atomic Sampler and Calendar Absorption .5 Primary Atomic Absorption Quarter It 3 Standard Annual 0.030 ppm Arithmetic — (80 µg/m3) Mean 24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm — Sulfur Dioxide (105 ltg/m3) Fluorescence (365 ltg/m3) Pararosoaniline (S02) 0.5 ppm 3 Hour — (1300 µg/m3) I Hour 0.25 ppm — (655 ltg/m3) In sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per Visibility 8 Hour (10 kilometer - visibility of ten miles Reducing am to 6 pm or more (0.07 - 30 miles or more Particles PST) for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Method: ARB No Method (8/18/89). 1 Federal Turbidimenic Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Barium Sulfate (AlHL Method 61 (2/76) Hydrogen 0.03 ppm Cadmium Sulfide I I lour (42 µg/m3) Hydroxide STRacran Source: California Air Resources Board (7/09/03) Michael Brandman Associates 5.63 RUicni (PN-JN)\0064\00640020\DEIR\00640020Sec 05-6-Air Qwfity.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality IBaseline Air Quality has not been exceeded. 3. Measurements of carbon monoxide at the Costa Mesa station reflect the history of nocturnal air mass that has passed over intensively developed areas in Central Orange County before following the Santa Ana River drainage toward the ocean. The last violation of the 8 -hour CO standard in Costa Mesa was in 1992. The project area has likely been in attainment for CO even longer. The data suggests that baseline CO levels in Newport Beach are generally healthful and can accommodate a reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any ' adverse air quality effects would be expected. 4. PM -10 levels as measured at Mission Viejo periodically exceed the state standard, but no measurements in excess of the national particulate standard has been recorded in the last seven years. With more of the air having a marine origin in Newport Beach than in Mission Viejo, the frequency of violations of the PM -10 standard near the proposed project site is likely to be slightly lower than that suggested in Table 5.6 -1. L I Michael Brandman Associates 5.64 WChent (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-6-Air Qu Iity.dm Existing and probable future levels of air quality in Newport Beach can be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at its Costa Mesa and Mission Viejo monitoring stations. These stations measure both regional pollution levels such as dust (particulates) and smog, as well as levels of primary vehicular pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Table 5.6 from -2 summarizes the last seven years of published data a composite of gaseous species monitored at Costa Mesa and particulates at Mission Viejo (there are no particulate data available from Costa Mesa). The following conclusions can be drawn from these data: I. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels periodically exceed standards. First -stage smog episodes, as evidence of extremely degraded air quality, are, however, almost non - existent in coastal Orange County with the last first -stage smog alert as far back as 1985. I2. Annual maximum ozone levels tend to reflect some annual variations in dispersion patterns that cause concentrated airflow from more developed areas of the air basin to be carried into ' the coastal area during some years, while only the fringe of the basin -wide "urban plume" reaches the coastal corridor in others. Since 1993, the federal one hour standard of 0.12 ppm has not been exceeded. 3. Measurements of carbon monoxide at the Costa Mesa station reflect the history of nocturnal air mass that has passed over intensively developed areas in Central Orange County before following the Santa Ana River drainage toward the ocean. The last violation of the 8 -hour CO standard in Costa Mesa was in 1992. The project area has likely been in attainment for CO even longer. The data suggests that baseline CO levels in Newport Beach are generally healthful and can accommodate a reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any ' adverse air quality effects would be expected. 4. PM -10 levels as measured at Mission Viejo periodically exceed the state standard, but no measurements in excess of the national particulate standard has been recorded in the last seven years. With more of the air having a marine origin in Newport Beach than in Mission Viejo, the frequency of violations of the PM -10 standard near the proposed project site is likely to be slightly lower than that suggested in Table 5.6 -1. L I Michael Brandman Associates 5.64 WChent (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-6-Air Qu Iity.dm I Mannapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft E/R I I I I I I I I I I I 1] J 1 Table 5.6 -2: Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary (7997 -2003) (Number of days standards were exceeded, and maximum levels during such violations) ''POIIUfarWSl9ndard t9l17 :' 1!198 ''% 1.. j' 2000 200 1" < -. 2002 2003 Ozone 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm 1 5 1 1 1 0 4 1 -Hour> 0.12 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -Hour > 0.08 ppm 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 Max. l -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11 Carbon Monoxide 1 -Hour > 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -Hour > 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 7. 9. 8. 8. 6. XX XX Max. 8-H our Cone. (ppm) 5.8 7.0 6.4 6.3 4.6 4.3 5.9 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 -Hour> 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. I -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.11 Inhalable Particulates (PM -10) 24 -Hour > 50 µg/m3 4/56 6/59 6/60 5/XX 1/XX 24 -Hour> 150 µg/m3 0/56 0/59 0/60 t2/6O k33/57 0/XX 0/XX Mac. 24 -Hour Cone. (µg/m3) 86. 70. Ill. 80. 53. Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM -2.5) 24 -Hour > 65 µg/m3 - - 0/65 1/119 0/102 0/XX 0/XX Max. 24 -Hour Cone. (µg/m3) - - 57. 95. 53. 58.5 37.6 - =No monitoring previous to 1999. XX =No data available. Note: Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standards/samples taken. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Costa Mesa Station for gaseous species, El Toro Station for particulate pollutants to 1999, Mission Viejo for 2000 -2003. Air Quality Management Plan The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) could not meet the deadline for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM -10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air -shed with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-5 H: \Client (PN- JN)100641006400201DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-6-Air Qnhty.doc Marinapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The currently adopted clean air plan for the basin is the 1999 SIP Amendment, which accelerates the schedule for a number if new SCAQMD rules and regulations, approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2000. The most current regional attainment planning for ozone (VOC and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) is shown in Table 5.6 -3. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint' in August 2003. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) outlines the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM 10) by 2006. The locally - adopted air plan was forwarded for review by the California Air Resources Board (CARE) in September (2003). The plan was approved by CARB and was sent to EPA for its final approval. Components of the 2003 air plan adopted by AQMD include: Table 5.63: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan 5.6.2 - Thresholds of Significance Many air quality impacts that are derived from dispersed mobile sources, i.e., the dominant pollution generators in the basin, often occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have transformed primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally immeasurably small. Table 5.6 -4 Michael Brandman Associates WCHent (PN -R4)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sm 05 -6_Air Qu Iity.dm 5.6.6 Yoe, Co** Current Inventory ' Stationary + Areawide 337 147 236 On -Road Mobile 346 659 3,483 Off -Road Mobile 143 300 891 Total 826 1,106 4,610 2010 Forecast b Stationary + Areawide 531 98 337 On -Road Mobile 163 360 1,913 Off -Road Mobile 144 269 1,643 Total 838 727 3,893 Short- term + Intermediate Reductions <221> <120> <1,468> Long -term Reductions <204> <77> <0> 2010 Remaining e 413 530 2,425 2002 Base Year. b With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Levels at which all federal air quality standards will be met. * Summer ozone precursors ** Winter CO "hot spot' precursors. Source: California Air Resources Board, The 2003 California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality, and SCAQM D, Draft Final 1997 AQMP (October 1996). 5.6.2 - Thresholds of Significance Many air quality impacts that are derived from dispersed mobile sources, i.e., the dominant pollution generators in the basin, often occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have transformed primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally immeasurably small. Table 5.6 -4 Michael Brandman Associates WCHent (PN -R4)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sm 05 -6_Air Qu Iity.dm 5.6.6 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality identifies suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. Projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact: Table 5.6-4: SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds (lb /day) Poltutarrt " Construction Opt±tations ; , > ... ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 Sox 150 ]50 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993 Rev. Additional indicators are listed in the SCAQMD Handbook that should be used as screening criteria to evaluate the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. Whenever possible, the project should be evaluated in a quantitative analysis; otherwise a qualitative analysis is appropriate. The additional indicators are as follows: • Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or State ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area that would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP; • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot; • Project might have the potential to create or be subjected to objectionable odors; • Project could have hazardous materials on site and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions; • Project could emit an air toxic contaminant regulated by District rules or that is on a federal or State air toxic list; • Project could involve disposal of hazardous waste; • Project could be occupied by sensitive receptors near a facility that emits air toxics or near CO hot spots; or • Project could emit carcinogenic air contaminants that could pose a cancer risk. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Hazardous air contaminants (such as asbestos) may be Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -7 H Uiem ( PN- JN)10064100640020WEIR100640020 _Sec 05 -6_Air Qu Iiry.doc 'J Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Air Quality contained in older structures that may be demolished prior to redevelopment. Any demolition or renovation requires a pre - construction hazards assessment. If such materials are present, particularly asbestos, a number of strictly regulated remediation procedures must be implemented. Such mandatory measures are required to protect both remediation workers and the general public. Remediation impacts are therefore less- than - significant through required compliance with existing SCAQMD hazards control regulations. Secondary significance criteria are rarely triggered by commercial hotel/resort development such as that proposed in the Marinapark Resort project. Potentially significant impacts thus relate to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook numerical emissions thresholds identified above. 5.6.3 - Project Impacts Implementation of the proposed Marinapark Resort project would generate short-term construction and long -term operational air emissions. Emissions from Construction Activities Short-term construction activity emissions will occur during project build -out. Such emissions include on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust from demolition, grading, site preparation and construction activities, and off -site emissions from construction employee commuting and /or trucks delivering building materials. Construction activity emissions are difficult to quantify, since the exact type and amount of equipment that will be used or the acreage that may be disturbed on any given day in the future is not known with any reasonable certainty. The emphasis in environmental documents relative to construction activity emission impacts has, therefore, been to minimize the emissions as fully as possible through comprehensive mitigation even if the exact amount of emissions cannot be precisely quantified. Dust is normally the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default' factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into mid -range average values. This assumption may or may not necessarily be applicable to site - specific conditions on the project site. Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-8 H:Uiem (PN- 1M�0064100640020\DEIR2 00640020 _Sec 05 -6_Air Qu Iity.doc ' Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR Air Quality As noted previously, emissions estimation for project - specific fugitive dust sources is characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision. ' In the generic dust emissions factor developed by EPA for grading activities, the PM -10 fraction of fugitive dust emissions are predicted to be around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control measures being applied (SCAQMD Handbook, Table 9 -2). Mandatory measures required by South Coast AQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) are generally assumed to reduce this rate by approximately 50 percent. Average daily PM -10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated in the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26.4 pounds /acre. This estimate is based upon required dust control measures in effect in 1993 when the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was prepared. Rule 403 was subsequently revised to require use of a greater array of filgitive dust control on construction projects. These required dust control measures are included in ARB's URBEMIS 2002 computer model. Based on the computer model, the daily PM -10 emissions during grading activities is 6 pounds per day which is less than significant. Use of best available control measures (BACMs) is required to achieve a less- than - significant dust (PM -10) emission rate if the entire site is under disturbance on any given day. IDemolition of existing structures and the metered parking lot will generate dust as walls are pulled down and concrete foundations are broken up. The PM -10 emission factor for demolition activities is given by the SCAQMD as 42 pounds per 100,000 cubic feet (cf) of demolition volume. The proposed project will demolish two existing small, one -story structures. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that each structure is approximately 2,000 square feet (sf), or 30,000 cubic feet (floor pad- 2,000 sf x height -15 feet = 30,000 cf), and that rate of demolition will be both structures in ten days. The resulting daily PM -10 emission from demolition activities are approximately 2.5 pounds per day (6,000 cf= 100,000 cf x 42 lb = 2.52 lb). There will be no significant PM -I0 impacts associated with demolition activities. Current research in particulate exposure health effects suggest that the most adverse effect derives from ultra -small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A new national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM -2.5 ") was adopted in 1997. Very little construction activity particulates are in the PM -2.5 range. Soil dust is also more chemically benign than typical urban atmospheric PM -2.5. The limited amount of PM -2.5 within the sub - threshold PM -10 burden further reinforces the finding of a less than significant air quality impact. In conjunction with fine particulate matter generated from soil disturbance, larger diameter particulates will settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture, landscaping and other horizontal surfaces. Although most such dust is redeposited near its origin, the presence of nearby residences and the American Legion may create temporary soiling nuisance. Implementation of the required ' measures for Rule 403 would limit PM -10 emissions to 1.3 pounds per day which is considered less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 5.69 H:Uieut ( PN- JM \0064100640020\DEQ800640020 Sec 05-6-Air Qu Iity.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality Exhaust emissions will result from on- and off -site heavy equipment during demolition, grading, and site preparation. Emissions will also be generated during finish construction, especially during the application of paints or other architectural coatings. The types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that these emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. During demolition, grading and site preparation, Table 5.6 -5 identifies an equipment fleet that has been assumed to be utilized as a basis for estimating maximum daily equipment exhaust emissions at an average 40 percent operation of full rated load. Table 5.65: Representative Equipment Fleet Demolition GfatlinglSite Preparation 1 Dozer 2 Scrapers 1 Loader 1 Grader 1 Backhoe 1 Rubber -tired Loader 1 Other Equipment I Rubber -tired Dozer 3.9 1 Other Equipment The ARB's IJRBEMIS2002 computer model was used to estimate daily emissions during demolition, grading and finish construction. The results (lb /day) are identified in Table 5.6 -6. Table 5.6 -6: Estimated Daily Emissions ltctivity` R Nt1x Cfi' SQ2 I?M;1D fzhaust PMx10 Dust PM 10 Total. Demolition 3.9 35.9 27.1 0.1 1.6 1.3 2.9 Grading 9.0 73.1 66.0 0.0 3.6 6.0 9.6 Finish Work 92.7* 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 * Exceeds threshold due to architectural coatings. Mitigable to 30.9 pounds per day (less -than- significant) with recommended measures. Emissions for all other pollutants will not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and the mobile nature of the on -site construction equipment and off -site trucks will prevent any micro -scale violation of standards. There may be localized instances when the characteristic diesel exhaust odor is noticeable from passing trucks or nearby heavy equipment. Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24 -hour per day, 365 days per year, 70 year lifetime exposure. Public exposure to heavy equipment operating in the distance will be an extremely small fraction of the above dosage assumption. Diesel equipment is also becoming progressively "cleaner" in response to air quality rules on new off -road equipment. Any public health Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -10 11 Client(PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-6—Air Qwlity.doc 1 I Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-11 H: \Clicnl(PN -JN)\ 0065 \00640020\DE1R \00640020 Sec 05 -6_Air Qw1iw.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality ' risk associated with project - related heavy equipment operations exhaust is therefore not quantifiable, but small. Construction impacts disturbance activity air quality occur mainly in close proximity to the surface area. There may, however, be some "spill- over" into the surrounding community. That spill -over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is washed into public streets. Passing non - project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off -site dust impacts. Spill -over may also occur via congestion effects. Construction could entail roadway encroachment, detours, lane closures and 1 competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan that will maintain such "spill- over" effects at a less than significant level. Emissions from Operational Activities As cars drive throughout Southern California, the incremental pollution contribution from any single vehicle to the air basin pollution burden is added to the pollution generated from the several million existing vehicles. The impact from the net contribution of 520 vehicle trips from the proposed Marinapark Resort project is considered minimal on a regional scale. Basin -wide air quality impacts are, therefore, addressed in terms of project compatibility with regional air quality plans. If any given project or plan has been properly incorporated into basin -wide growth projections, which are the basis for regional air quality /transportation planning, then there will be no significant basin -wide impact because of unanticipated growth. Locally, in in changes the location of any collection of automotive sources, or changes the number of vehicles or travel speeds may impact the micro -scale air quality around any given development site. Traffic increases not only contribute air pollutants in direct proportion to their cumulative percentage of traffic volume growth, but they may slow all existing traffic to slower, more inefficient travel speeds. The development's traffic /air quality impact is thus potentially compounded. There are 520 projected vehicle trips associated with the luxury resort hotel. For typical local commercial trips in Orange County, averaging 5.5 miles one way, additional vehicle travel from project implementation will be about 2,860 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day. The California ARB land use and air pollution emissions computer model URBEMIS2002 was run for a year 2005 project build -out. The project - related mobile source emissions burden, along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds, is shown in Table 5.6 -7. Thresholds will not be exceeded and all pollutant emissions are below significance levels. 1 I Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-11 H: \Clicnl(PN -JN)\ 0065 \00640020\DE1R \00640020 Sec 05 -6_Air Qw1iw.doc Marinaleark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality 1 Table 5.6 -7: Project- Operations Air Pollution Emissions (pounds /day) I f_1 I I 1 I I Soule ...,;. 1REiG ; Nbx CO PNf i4 ' .. SOz ' Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 6.8 6.6 70.5 5.6 0.1 Area Source Emission Estimates' 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 Total: Opetational + Areas 6.9 7.1 71.3 5.6 0.1 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 Exceeds Threshold ( ?) No No No No No % of Threshold 13 13 13 4 <I 'Energy consumption, landscape maintenance, etc. Source: URBEMIS2002 Air Quality Model; Output in Appendix In addition to regional air quality concerns that focus on the photochemical conversion of air pollution emissions to more harmful forms, vehicular exhaust may impact air quality immediately adjacent to the roadway travel lanes. Such impacts occur during periods of maximum traffic congestion and minimum atmospheric dispersion. Maximum traffic congestion occurs in summer near the project site. However, minimum dispersion occurs in winter when traffic congestion is much less. Traffic stagnation in summer afternoons near the project site has limited local air quality consequences. Because operational CO emissions fall well below significance thresholds, the project contribution to any local air quality effects will be minimal. CO standards have not been exceeded near the project site in more than a decade. No micro -scale "hot spot" analysis is therefore necessary. There will be no significant micro -scale air quality impacts associated with the Marinapark Resort commercial project. Impacts Related to Exposure to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations and Odors The proposed project does not contain or process any materials that could expose sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project to substantial concentrations of pollutants. The proposed project is not expected to generate any objectionable odors. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project wou Id not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or generate objectionable odors. 5.6.4 - Cumulative Impacts The AQMP sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SCAB, including the project area, into compliance with all federal and State air quality standards and utilizes control measures and related emission reduction estimates based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Because the proposed project is in conformance with the AQMP and the Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-12 ' H: \Clienl(PN.N 0064 \00640020U)EIR \00640020 See 05 -6_Air Qm6ty.doe I I I 1 11 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality project is not significant on an individual basis, the project's incremental contribution to criteria pollutant emissions is not cumulatively considerable. 5.6.5 - Mitigation Measures Project - related operational emissions will be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, dust control measures are required to comply to SCAQMD's Rule 403. Following are the measures: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas; • Sweep or wash any site access points and public roadways within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway; • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material; • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph; or • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. Short -term construction emissions of ROG during the application of architectural coatings related to finish work would exceed the SCAQMD threshold. In an effort to reduce estimated ROG emissions related to architectural coatings, the following mitigation measures are recommended: AQ -1. Use pre- coated building materials. AQ -2. Use high pressure low- volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50% efficiency. AQ -3. Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. AQ -4. Adopt a construction traffic management plan. 5.6.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation Long -term operational emissions were found to be less than significant without mitigation, and therefore, do not require mitigation. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ -I through AQ -3 will reduce project related emissions during construction of the proposed project. Use of the above mitigation measures can reduce emissions from architectural coatings to approximately 113 of their unmitigated values. Daily ROG emissions of 26 pounds per day (92.7 = 3 = 30.9) can be achieved. Therefore, with the recommended mitigation measures less than significant would result from implementation of the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -13 H:\Clienl ( PN- JN)\ 0064\00640020\DEJR \00640020_Sec 05-6—Air Quality.doc I I 1 1 1 1 Madnapark Resort & Community Plan . Draft OR Noise 5.7 - NOISE Information in this section is based on the following documents: • Noise Impact Study, Giroux and Associates, April, 2004 (see Appendix G for the complete report) • Newport Beach General Plan, Noise Element 5.7.1 - Existing Conditions Acoustic Fundamentals Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air that is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Typical human hearing can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dB under normal conditions. Changes of I to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than I dB are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dB is typically noticeable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the noise. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are "felt' more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not I 1 I Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California and local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a roadway containing moving vehicles. Because noise spreads in an ever - widening pattern, the given amount of noise striking an object, such as an eardrum, is reduced with distance from the source. This phenomenon is known as "spreading loss." The typical spreading loss for point source noise is 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from the noise source. Michael Brandman Associates 5.7.1 H: \Client (PN-N\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05- 7_Noise.doe equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise I 1 I Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California and local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a roadway containing moving vehicles. Because noise spreads in an ever - widening pattern, the given amount of noise striking an object, such as an eardrum, is reduced with distance from the source. This phenomenon is known as "spreading loss." The typical spreading loss for point source noise is 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from the noise source. Michael Brandman Associates 5.7.1 H: \Client (PN-N\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05- 7_Noise.doe Marinapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft EIR Noise A line source of noise, such as vehicles proceeding down a roadway, is also subject to the spreading loss phenomenon. However, the rate of reduction includes the type of terrain over which the noise passes in addition to the distance. Hard sites, such as developed areas with paving, reduce noise at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of the distance while soft sites, such as undeveloped areas, open space, and vegetated areas reduce noise at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance. These represent the extremes and most areas will actually contain a combination of hard and soft elements with spreading loss noise reduction placed somewhere in between. The only way to determine the absolute amount of attenuation that an area provides is through field measurement under operating conditions with subsequent noise level measurements conducted at varying distances from a constant noise source. Most environmental noise sources produce varying amounts of noise over time, so the measured sound levels also vary. For example, noise produced during an aircraft over flight will vary from relatively quiet background levels before the over flight to a maximum value when the aircraft passes overhead, then returning down to background levels as the aircraft leaves the observer's vicinity. Similarly, noise from traffic varies with the number and types of vehicles, speed and proximity to the observer. Public Reaction to Noise People react not only to their perception of individual noise events, but also to how many events there are, and what time of day or night they occur. Public reaction to transportation noise can be expressed as the percentage of the population which is "highly annoyed" by exposure to increasing Ldn values. The number of persons "highly annoyed" represents the upper 25 -30 percent of all persons who are annoyed to some degree by the noise. Widespread complaints may be expected when the transportation noise level exceeds 65 dB Ldn and widespread threats of legal action may be expected when the transportation noise level exceeds 70 dB Ldn. Noise Measurement Standards Community noise is generally not steady state and varies with time. Under conditions of non - steady state noise, some type of statistical metric is used to quantify noise exposure over a long period of time. The following standards are used to define noise levels: • Day/Night Noise Level (Ldn) - The Ldn is a 24 -hour, time - weighted annual average noise level, measured in decibels, with an added penalty for people's increased sensitivity to noise at night from 10 PM to 7 AM. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies 45 Ldn indoors and 55 Ldn outdoors as the desirable maximum level of noise. • Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) - The Leq is a measurement of sound energy over a specified time (usually 1 hour). Leq represents the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over a timed interval in a single numerical value. For example, a 1 -hour Leq noise level measurement represents the average amount of acoustical energy that occurred in one hour. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -2 H:Uient ( PN- JN)10064100640020i1)EiRID0640020 Sec 05- 7_Noise.doc Resort 6 Community Plan - Draft EIR Noise • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - The CNEL noise metric is based on 24 hours of measurement. CNEL also differs from Leq in that it applies a time - weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when quiet time and sleep disturbance is of particular concern). Noise occurring during the daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty. Noise produced during the evening time period (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) is penalized by 5 dBA, while nighttime noise (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) is penalized by 10 dBA. The Ldn noise metric is similar to the CNEL metric except that the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. receives no penalty. Both the CNEL and Ldn metrics yield approximately the same 24 -hour value (within I dBA) with the CNEL being the more restrictive (i.e., higher) of the two Vibration Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is "felt' rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc., or man -made as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trucks or trains. Both natural and man -made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient as from an explosion. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude is generally characterized in three ways: particle displacement, particle velocity, and particle acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and for the purposes of soil displacement is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second per second or millimeters per second per second. Typically, particle velocity and /or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Table 5.7 -1 presents the human reaction and effect on buildings to various levels of vibration. Table 5.7 -1: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Vibration Level Peak Particle Velocity Human.Raaction Effect on Buildings , (inchesisecond)` 0.006 - 0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any of intrusion type 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration of which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected Michael Brandman Associates RXIiem (PN -IN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 sec 054 Ncise.doc I F I 1 1 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Noise Table 5.7 -1: (Cont.) Human Reaction to Typical Vibration (ihch wsecon !) 0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people. Virtually no risk of "architectural" damage to normal buildings 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in Threshold at which there is a risk of buildings. "architectural" damage to normal dwelling - houses with plastered walls and ceilings 0.4-0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by Vibrations at a greater level than normally people subjected to continuous expected from traffic, but would cause vibrations and unacceptable to some "architectural" damage and possibly minor people walking by bridges structural damage Source: Noise Impart Analysis for Marinapark Resort, Giroux and Associates, April 2004. 1 Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in ' the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies. For example, due to their suspension systems, city buses often generate frequencies ' around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is more uncommon, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz. ' The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of earthborne vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil and other sub - surface conditions through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation; surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. Compression waves, or P- waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a "push- pull" fashion). P -waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear waves, or S- waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P- waves, the particle motion is transverse or "side -to -side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation." As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever - increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave. Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -4 ii: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 sec 05- 7_Noise.doc Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Noise Regulatory Setting To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging, as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, and local government have established standards and ordinances to control noise. Federal Government The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the USEPA. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility's Health and Safety Plan. As any site construction will be required to operate under an approved Health and Safety Plan, occupational noise is not applicable and therefore not addressed in this document. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 45 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum interior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding. (This level is also generally accepted within the State of California.) While HUD does not specify acceptable exterior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings constructed under California Title 24 standards typically provide in excess of 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the exterior Ldn should not exceed 65 dBA. State of California The State Office of Noise Control has set acceptable noise limits for sensitive uses. Sensitive -type land uses, such as dwelling units and schools, are "normally acceptable" in exterior noise environments up to 65 dBA CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" in areas up to 70 dBA CNEL. A "conditionally acceptable" designation implies that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use type is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a "normally acceptable" designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. Applicable interior standards for new multi - family dwellings are governed by Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. These standards require that acoustical studies be performed prior to construction in areas that exceed 60 dBA Ldn. Such studies are required to establish measures that will limit interior noise to no more than 45 dBA Ldn. This level has been applied to many cities in California including Newport Beach. City of Newport Beach The project is subject to both the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Municipal Code. The goals of the Noise Element are to provide sufficient information regarding the community noise environment such that noise can be objectively considered in the land use planning process. Other goals focus on the protection and maintenance of those areas in the city that have acceptable noise environments, and to reduce excessive noise in those existing sensitive areas where noise has reached Michael Brandman Associates K \Client (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05- 7_NoiseAm Table 5.7 -2: Noise Ordinance Limits Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Noise Irded6i Noise Standard unacceptable levels. The last goal of the Element is to establish a comprehensive program to 700 am.;: minimize noise impacts from John Wayne Airport operations. to The Noise Element sets a maximum desirable exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL and an interior 10:OO.p.m: noise level of 45 dBA CNEL for hotel, motel, and transient lodging land uses, and an exterior noise ' level of 65 dBA CNEL for parks. m The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code contains the Noise Ordinance that identifies Designated ' Noise Zones for various land uses (Section 10.26.020) with specific numerical noise exposure (dBA►. ; . standards for these different uses (Section 10.26.025 Exterior Noise Standards and Section 10.26.030 ' Interior Noise Standards). The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Limits are identified in (dBA): Table 5.7 -2. Table 5.7 -2: Noise Ordinance Limits Noise ordinance standards apply to on -site noise generation from mechanical equipment, site maintenance, social functions, etc. Hotels must also meet structural intra -unit noise transmission standards in addition to the mandated 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard requirement. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) imposes such structural standards that govern noise transmission from one unit to another within the same building of a multi- tenant structure. Horizontal noise transmission through shared ( "party") walls must be reduced by 50 dB in a parameter called the "sound transmission class," or STC. Vertical sound transmission through the floor /ceiling assembly of stacked units must similarly have an STC = 50 or higher rating. Vertical transmission through floor /ceiling assemblies must also be able to reduce impact noise such as footfalls, dropped objects, etc. by 50 dB. The impact noise reduction is expressed in a parameter called the "impact isolation class," or TIC. If structural assemblies are sound ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -6 R: \Client (PN -1M \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05- 7_Noise.doc interior Noise Standards* Irded6i Noise Standard 700 am.;: 10 8Qp to . ;;:7.00 a.m: -' 10:OO.p.m: Designated NotseZOne 10 00 p m: 7:OOia m 10 OQ:p rtic 7:00 a.m.' (dBA►. ; . iaeA1 (dBA): Noise Zone 1: All single, two- and 55 50 45 40 multiple - family residential properties Noise Zone 2: All commercial 65 60 - - properties Noise Zone 3: Residential portions of 60 50 45 45 mixed -use properties Noise Zone 4: Industrial or 70 70 - - manufacturing Source: Noise Impact Analysis for Marinapark Resort, Giroux and Associates, April 2004. •If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. Noise ordinance standards apply to on -site noise generation from mechanical equipment, site maintenance, social functions, etc. Hotels must also meet structural intra -unit noise transmission standards in addition to the mandated 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard requirement. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) imposes such structural standards that govern noise transmission from one unit to another within the same building of a multi- tenant structure. Horizontal noise transmission through shared ( "party") walls must be reduced by 50 dB in a parameter called the "sound transmission class," or STC. Vertical sound transmission through the floor /ceiling assembly of stacked units must similarly have an STC = 50 or higher rating. Vertical transmission through floor /ceiling assemblies must also be able to reduce impact noise such as footfalls, dropped objects, etc. by 50 dB. The impact noise reduction is expressed in a parameter called the "impact isolation class," or TIC. If structural assemblies are sound ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -6 R: \Client (PN -1M \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05- 7_Noise.doc J 1 1 I 1 LJ 1 1 1 FI Resort & Community Plan - Draft E/R Noise rated, the UBC also has standards regarding penetration of such assemblies by piping, ducts, electrical outlets, etc. The City municipal code recognizes that construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24- hour community noise standard and these regulations are included in Section 10.28.040 - Construction Activity Noise Regulation. Here, the City places no performance standards or noise limitations on construction other than to restrict loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity, who works or resides in the vicinity of the construction site, to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity of the construction site. The City municipal code does not quantify the term "loud." The City has established quantitative goals based on a land use and noise compatibility matrix and performance standards for design of facilities for the purpose of determining land use suitability relative to the noise environment. These are identified in Table 5.7 -3. Table 5.7 -3: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient A A B B C C D Lodging Definitions: Zone A: Clearly Compatible- Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are Of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible- New constructionor development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible- New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction Or development does proceed, a detailed malysisof noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible- New construction Or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: City Of Newport Beach General Plan, Noise Element, October 1994. Table 1 Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix. Field Survey Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project derive almost exclusively from vehicular traffic on roadways. In order to better define the existing noise environment in the project vicinity, a 24 -hoar noise measurement program was conducted on February 5 -6, 2004. On -site noise measurements were taken at two locations. Results are summarized in Table 5.7 -4. Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -7 H: \Client(PN -1N)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05- 7_Noise.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Noise Table 5.7 -4: On -Site Noise Monitoring Results (dBA) Readings were taken at the following locations: NR -1 This reading was obtained from the play area of Las Arenas Park north of Balboa Boulevard approximately 186 feet from the centerline of Balboa Boulevard. NR -2 This reading was obtained near the Girl Scout office and tennis courts north of Balboa Boulevard approximately 60 feet from the centerline of Balboa Boulevard. Existing Traffic Volumes Long -term noise concerns from the urbanized character of the project area center primarily on mobile source activities on streets surrounding the project site. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal highway noise prediction model (FHWA -RD -77 -108) in a computerized version of the model developed by Caltrans. The model calculates the LEQ noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site - specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds, or noise barriers. ' Area build -out traffic volumes and noise levels along area roadways were derived from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic ' study information was used to obtain existing and future traffic noise levels along project site and vicinity roadways. ' Off -site noise levels were calculated along seven (7) area roadway segments for two different scenarios. Summer traffic conditions: Existing and Existing With Project; Winter Traffic ' Conditions: Existing and Existing With Project. Table 5.7 -5 shows the CNEL level at 50 feet from ' Michael Bmndman Associates 5.7 -8 H: \Client (PN.JM \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05 -7 NoiseAm PM isms x' Play Area Gtrl Scout O(fiCel Parameter Las Arenas Parks Tehms Courts4 NR7 NRY 24 -Hour CNEL 59 63 Maximum I -Hour LEQ 63 65 When ( ?) 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2nd - Highest Hourly LEQ 60 63 When ( ?) 11:00 am. to 12:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Minimum 1 -Hour LEQ 44 45 When ( ?) 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. 1- Second Maximum 89 91 1- Second Minimum 40 30 Source: Noise Impact Analysis for Marinapark Resort, Giroux and Associates, April 2004. Readings were taken at the following locations: NR -1 This reading was obtained from the play area of Las Arenas Park north of Balboa Boulevard approximately 186 feet from the centerline of Balboa Boulevard. NR -2 This reading was obtained near the Girl Scout office and tennis courts north of Balboa Boulevard approximately 60 feet from the centerline of Balboa Boulevard. Existing Traffic Volumes Long -term noise concerns from the urbanized character of the project area center primarily on mobile source activities on streets surrounding the project site. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal highway noise prediction model (FHWA -RD -77 -108) in a computerized version of the model developed by Caltrans. The model calculates the LEQ noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site - specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds, or noise barriers. ' Area build -out traffic volumes and noise levels along area roadways were derived from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic ' study information was used to obtain existing and future traffic noise levels along project site and vicinity roadways. ' Off -site noise levels were calculated along seven (7) area roadway segments for two different scenarios. Summer traffic conditions: Existing and Existing With Project; Winter Traffic ' Conditions: Existing and Existing With Project. Table 5.7 -5 shows the CNEL level at 50 feet from ' Michael Bmndman Associates 5.7 -8 H: \Client (PN.JM \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05 -7 NoiseAm Marinapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft EIR Noise the roadway centerline at the various roadways analyzed. The individual and cumulative impacts with and without project have also been analyzed. Table 5.7 -5: CNEL (dBA) at 50 Feet from Roadway Centerline t.d1 WiY:�O t..'I Balboa Blvd.: S. of Coast Highway 65.6 65.6 32"' St. -28' St. 63.3 63.3 23' St. -15' St. 66.7 66.7 Newport Blvd.: S. of Hospital Road Finley Ave. -32 "' St. 71.4 71.4 30" St.-26h St. 70.2 70.2 26"-2V' St. Winter, Traffic Condttlons F�uetir g I Existirt®wth Prolea ttoadway Segment':. Balboa Blvd.: S. of Coast Highway — — 32"' St: 28' St. — — 23" St. -15" St. 65.4 65.5 Newport Blvd.: S. of Hospital Road 71.5 71.6 Finley Ave. -32°' St. 30' St. -26th St. — — 26th -21s' St. 68.8 68.8 Source: Noise Impact Analysis for Marinapark Resort, Giroux and Associates, April 2004. - = No data available. 5.7.2 -Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines the proposed project is considered to have a significant noise - related impact if the proposed project would: • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels; Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -9 H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05.7_Noise.doc I �� 11 I 1 I I �II �J �I Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Noise • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • For a project 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; and • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The term "substantial' is not quantified in the State CEQA Guidelines. In most environmental analyses, "substantial' is taken to mean a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice, this is at least a +3 dB increase. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be +10 dB or more if noise standards are not exceeded by the increase. For purposes of this analysis, a +3 dB increase is considered a substantial increase. The following noise impacts would be considered significant: 1. If construction activities were to audibly intrude into adjacent residential areas during periods of heightened noise sensitivity. 2. If traffic noise were to increase by a perceptible amount ( +3 dB CNEL) and expose receivers to levels exceeding City of Newport Beach standards. 3. If new on -site outdoor recreational uses were exposed to levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL, or if existing on -site recreational uses were to experience increased noise exposures at an even marginally measurable level if the 65 dBA CNEL threshold is currently exceeded. "Measurable" is defried as +I dB CNEL. 5.7.3 - Project Impacts Impacts Related to the Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Impacts Related to On -site Land Uses The City has established performance standards for various types of land uses relative to the noise environment. Commercial land uses that include hotels, motels, and transient lodging are identified in Table 5.7 -3. The existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, identified in Table 5.7 -3, are below the 65 dBA. As a result, the proposed land use is a compatible land use with the inclusions of the obligations identified with Zone B in Table 5.7 -3. The proposed use is consistent with the applicable standard. Therefore, less than significant impacts to on -site land uses would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -10 R Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05 -71 Noiw.doc Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan - Draft EIR Noise ' Impacts Related to Off -site Land Uses Stationary- source noise includes those sources of noise that occur on -site, but potentially impact off- ' site receptors. While some minor amounts of noise are associated with the use of heating, air conditioning, and ventilation equipment, these sources are regulated under the Uniform Building ' Code as well as the Municipal Code and are commonplace in both commercial and residential areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to equipment. iImpacts Related to Excessive Groundborne Vibration Caltrans notes that excessive groundborne vibration is typically associated with such activities as pile driving or blasting, neither of which would be required during site construction. Only minimal groundborne vibrations would be created during site preparation and subsequent construction ' associated with project development. However, no excessive groundborne vibrations would be created by the operation of the proposed project. Therefore, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts associated with groundborne vibrations. Impact Related to a Substantial Increase In Ambient Noise Levels ' None of the analyzed roadway segments will experience noise impacts greater than +0.1 dB (see Table 5.7 -5). Therefore, there are no traffic noise impacts associated with implementation of the ' proposed project. Traffic noise levels at 50 feet from centerline of Balboa Boulevard near the project site are forecast to ' be slightly above 65 dBA CNEL. Existing recreational uses (tot lot and tennis courts) closest to Balboa Boulevard may be exposed to traffic noise that marginally exceeds 65 dBA CNEL. These uses will continue to be part of the project site after some upgrade /refurbishment. The project - related traffic noise impact to these uses of +0.1 dB (maximum) is imperceptible to human hearing. Placement of new recreational uses within the existing 65 dBA CNEL zone would be considered significant and require mitigation. However, these facilities are already located in the noise zone. The lack of any perceptible change in noise levels at the tennis courts or the tot lot for post - project ' conditions is considered less- than - significant. The nearest hotel fagade will be 186 feet from the Balboa Boulevard centerline. The roadway noise ' will diminish from a level of 66.7 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline to 61.0 dBA CNEL at the nearest point of the hotel under theoretical direct line -of -sight conditions. Intervening structures, parking lots, etc. will further diminish the 61.0 dBA level. Any outdoor hotel uses will be well outside the noise constraint zone of 65 dBA CNEL. ' Most hotel recreational uses are oriented toward Newport Bay instead of the parking lot. The design and location of buildings between the Balboa Boulevard roadway and outdoor recreational areas will 1 act as a barrier to the direct line -of- sight, thereby additionally reducing any potential traffic noise Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -11 ' H: \Client (PN -1N) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 05- 7_14.kc.doc Short -term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structures. The construction- related short -term noise levels would be ' higher than the existing or ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would cease once construction of the proposed project is complete. ' Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, the transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels and the second type is related to noise generated at the site during site ' preparation, excavation, and construction. The transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. Even though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential associated with passing trucks, the increase in long -term ambient noise levels would be less than I dBA when averaged over a 24 -hour period. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from transportation of workers and materials to the project site. ' Noise levels for construction itself would only occur for very limited times when construction is Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan -Draft EIR Noise ' impacts from Balboa Boulevard. Therefore, less than significant impacts to ambient noise levels would result from project implementation. ' Recreational boating ' activities potentially affect sensitive land uses adjacent to the Newport Harbor. Engine noise, loudspeakers and noise from occupants in Charter and Tour boats can create noise impacts upon sensitive receptors. Section 4.1.5 of the Newport Beach Noise Element requires permits for such operations. The permits regulate allowable noise impacts at residential/sensitive receptor uses along the bay according to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Therefore, less than significant impacts to ambient noise levels from recreational boating activities would result from 1 project implementation. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -12 RXIienl(PN.JN)\ 0064 \00640020\AEIR \00640020 See 05 -7 Noise.doe Impacts Related to Temporary or Periodic Increase in Noise Levels Short -term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structures. The construction- related short -term noise levels would be ' higher than the existing or ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would cease once construction of the proposed project is complete. ' Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, the transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels and the second type is related to noise generated at the site during site ' preparation, excavation, and construction. The transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. Even though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential associated with passing trucks, the increase in long -term ambient noise levels would be less than I dBA when averaged over a 24 -hour period. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from transportation of workers and materials to the project site. ' Noise levels for construction itself would only occur for very limited times when construction is performed near the proximate site boundary/structure on a worst -case workday. The other phases of ' construction, including the construction of the structures, would generate lower noise levels and are located further from the adjacent sensitive areas. Additionally, construction activities will be performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on ' Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. Following are mandatory obligations contained in Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code: • Mandatory compliance with the City of Newport Beach's noise control ordinance and implementation of the following project obligations would ensure that noise levels impacts remain less than significant. 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.7 -12 RXIienl(PN.JN)\ 0064 \00640020\AEIR \00640020 See 05 -7 Noise.doe Marinapark Resort B Community Plan - Draft OR Noise ' • Equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no ' equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. • Construction equipment shall be maintained properly and tuned -up to minimize noise emissions. • Stationary source equipment (e.g., compressors) shall be located so as to maintain the greatest distance from proximate residential dwellings. • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance from the ' dwellings. • The name and telephone number of a contact person shall be posted on -site. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to construction activities would result from project implementation with the mandatory compliance with these obligations. Impacts Related to Airport Noise Levels The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or in the immediate vicinity of any airport. The nearest public use airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport and the project site is located outside of the airport's 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose the on -site receptors to excessive aircraft noise levels. No private airstrips exist within two miles of the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a noise hazard for persons working on or visiting the project site. 5.7.4 - Cumulative Impacts For a cumulative impact to occur, traffic from the proposed project, in conjunction with traffic generated from the projects listed in Section 4 of this document, would have to surpass the 3 dBA significance threshold. For cumulative traffic to surpass this threshold, traffic generated would have to result in a doubling of existing vehicle traffic within the cumulative project area. The proposed project in conjunction with the related projects would not result in generating traffic of such a magnitude, and thus no significant cumulative noise impacts will occur due to project ' implementation. 5.7.5 - Mitigation Measures No measures are required. ' 5.7.6 - Level of Significance after Mitigation With the inclusion of the mandatory obligations relating to construction- related activities, ' implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to noise. ' Michael Branciman Associates 5.7 -13 WClient (PN -JN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 05 -7 Noise.doc I Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Aesthetics ' 5.8 -AESTHETICS The most dominant visual feature to the north is a sidewalk and public beach in the foreground beyond which is Newport Harbor and numerous boat moorings, including yachts and sailboats. There are various one and two -story residential buildings across the bay and on Lido Island and Lido Peninsula. Areas surrounding the project site on the west, south and east are dominated by various one and two- story residential uses, an SEC sub - station with scattered multi -story commercial uses such as a hotel just west of the site at 18th Street, and various businesses at the comer of 15d' Street at Balboa Boulevard. There are also two churches south of the site at 15ih Street. 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.8 -1 H: \Client(PN -IN) \0064 \00640020tDEIR \00640020 Sec 05- 8_Aesthoics.doe This analysis consists of identifying and evaluating factors that contribute to potential visual and aesthetic impacts of the project. Computer - generated visual simulations were prepared in order to illustrate and compare the existing site conditions with the proposed development plan. The simulations were prepared by Font Design Inc., and consist of "before project" and "after- project" illustrations of four different views of the project site. 5.8.1 - Existing Conditions Visual Character of Project Site The project site is visible from Balboa Boulevard, the main arterial for the Balboa Peninsula and from ' various locations in and across the Newport Channel to the north. The site encompasses approximately 8.1 acres and contains the Marinapark mobile home park, a public beach, and Las ' Arenas Park. Other views in the area consist of Veteran's Park and the American Legion Post 291 to the east, and 18th Street to the west. Las Arenas Park consists of a metered parking lot with 21 stalls, Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, four public tennis courts with ' screen fences 10 -feet in height, a children's play area, and a public beach located north of the mobile home park along the site's northern boundary. Minimal vegetation is present onsite, with the exception of some non - native, ornamental landscaping and a row of palm trees that line the boardwalk adjacent to the public beach situated along the ' northern portion of the project. Minimal security lighting exists and light standards for the four existing tennis courts provide lighting during nighttime periods. Site topography is relatively flat with little or no variation. Visual Character of Surrounding Area The most dominant visual feature to the north is a sidewalk and public beach in the foreground beyond which is Newport Harbor and numerous boat moorings, including yachts and sailboats. There are various one and two -story residential buildings across the bay and on Lido Island and Lido Peninsula. Areas surrounding the project site on the west, south and east are dominated by various one and two- story residential uses, an SEC sub - station with scattered multi -story commercial uses such as a hotel just west of the site at 18th Street, and various businesses at the comer of 15d' Street at Balboa Boulevard. There are also two churches south of the site at 15ih Street. 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.8 -1 H: \Client(PN -IN) \0064 \00640020tDEIR \00640020 Sec 05- 8_Aesthoics.doe Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR Aesthetics Recreation and Open Space Element Policy Policy 6.2 of the Recreation and Open Space Element pertaining to coastal views states that existing view opportunities should be protected and enhanced, especially views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay, in accordance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). 5.8.2 - Project Impacts Thresholds of Significance Environmental effects pertinent to aesthetics were assessed utilizing the impact significance threshold set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. A significant aesthetic and visual impact would occur if the project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or have a substantial adverse impact to a scenic vista. Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will result in the removal of the Marinapark mobile home units as well as the community facilities such as Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scott House, tennis court, children's play area, and surface parking. The project includes a resort hotel with auxillary uses as well as replacement of the existing community facilities. The existing visual characteristics of the project site will be altered with the implementation of the proposed project. Following is a discussion of features of the project that define the visual character of the proposed project. Public Trews. The project is consistent with Policy 6.2 by preserving and enhancing the public views from the project site. Land Use. The project site is divided into three areas: Planning Unit I is the 110 -suite resort hotel that includes ancillary uses. Planning Unit 2 is the community facilities (i.e., community center, girl scout house, four public tennis courts, children's play area, and public parking), and Planning Unit 3 is the public beach and the 12 -slip marina. Building Heights. Except for the main resort hotel lobby structure in Planning Unit 1, the hotel will have a maximum height of 24 feet. The main lobby will have a height of 34 feet. The maximum height of the community structures in Planning Unit 2 will be 24 feet and no structures will be placed within Planning Unit 3. Building Setback Requirements. Following are the setbacks incorporated into the proposed project. From Balboa Boulevard ... ............................... 15 -feet minimum From 18th Street .................. ............................... 5 -feet minimum From adjacent commercial uses ...................... 20 -feet minimum From Balboa Boulevard (parking structure) ...... 5 -foot minimum �i ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.8 -2 H! \Client(PN -JN) \0064 \00640020MEIR \00640020 See 05 -8 Acsthcti.s.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Aesthetics Building Character and Style. The proposed structures will include a Mediterranean Villa design style. Principal building surface material will be painted or integral color steel troweled hand - applied smooth plaster for the rustic villa character. The primary fagade colors will be light pastels of soft yellows, blues, and white. ' Landscaping. Landscaping will consist of a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Landscape standards include a minimum of five feet in width along Balboa Boulevard, 18'h Street, and the public beach. Additional landscaping will be provided within the project site. Parking lots will be provided with at least one tree for every five parking spaces. Screening. Screening consisting of walls, berms, fencing and landscaping will be provided for various uses within the project, such as tennis courts, including those abutting commercial areas, along public streets, parking areas abutting roads, mechanical equipment and trash enclosures. Lighting. All lighting, exterior and interior, will be designed and located to confine direct rays and glare to the resort site. A Lighting Plan and photometric plan will be prepared to include fixture types and technical specifications and will be reviewed by the City. A post - installation inspection will also occur to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated and illumination lighting sources are properly shielded. Visual/Aesthetic Impacts Based on characteristics of the proposed project, computer - generated visual simulations of the proposed development plan are presented in Exhibit 5.8 -2 through Exhibit 5.8 -5 and Exhibit 5.8 -1 ' provides a photographic index. Photographs were taken using a panoramic camera from these locations in the public rights of way adjacent to the site where the visual impacts of the project would be most prominent and one site on the Lido Peninsula. Font Design Visualization Inc., incorporated but the elevations of the proposed structures into a simulation model to simulate accurate, not completely precise, representations of the height, bulk, scale and design scheme of the proposed hotel from various views. These simulated views are thus considered appropriate and reasonable as analytical tools for the purpose of this EIR. Changes in the visual character of the site and surroundings resulting from project implementation are discussed in the following text. Photograph Location 1. This viewpoint is at the southern edge of the Lido Peninsula facing south toward the project site. The Newport Harbor, with various ship moorings, dominates the foreground view. In the middle ground the main visual feature is the public beach, beyond which is the existing Marinapark mobile home park, which consists of mostly "double- wide" single story mobile homes. There are also numerous tall palm trees lining the sidewalk in front of the mobile home park. As shown in the simulated view, harbor views from Lido Peninsula would not be obstructed by the proposed development. The view of the public beach from the vantage point would not be obstructed. The view of the mobile home park from this location is not considered unique or important. As shown in the visual simulation, the most prominent feature from this view of the Michael Brandman Associates 5.8 -3 RXIient (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\1)EJR \00640020_Sec 05 -8 Aesthetics.doc I I I IL I I I 11 J Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Aesthetics proposed hotel would consist of one and two story buildings to accommodate the 110 on -site guestrooms and suites. The existing palm trees will be preserved. The increased heights of the onsite structures are consistent with existing development to the east and west and do not substantially alter existing views. The implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant visual effect from this photograph location. Michael Brandman Associates 5.8 -4 H: \Client(PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05.8_Aesthetics.doc V.4 X W U w � � o X o 5 x W C U z ciO � o /^� U H O O LU O tr Q+ z m a w w w z Z J U � X O p C_ C O o� m O J a c o m m o ° w m o a L � al rn v o — < o � o HiNON n E (o) oil N � 00 N a Wes+ C I U Q� •O 1 1 a' ^V� 1 W 1 V z Ob �n CA W v d J yl U� N N O e n N Z ro w N 6 O HIMON �R �o io° j x Y Y G:N y._ � JI Nis � z - 1 . Y 3 " ^ v +sue >s 3rr ai 3 ir. - c 3 - v c rn N � 00 N a Wes+ C I U Q� •O 1 1 a' ^V� 1 W 1 V z Ob �n CA W v d J yl U� N N O e n N Z ro w N 6 O HIMON �R �o io° M N 0W ,^�Ir� 3 , V I • rl Xx w U N O Ate-, O N N w I w Ly W LL 5 a U 3 W 'y J U� y N O G m O F W Z .V o a H1NON g Well AM O N ifln O L � 1; I y ■ I I y x - I. lr �L it , � I AF' ^t •` 1 1 IL r�I I?' r I. r. 1� v '4 I M N 0W ,^�Ir� 3 , V I • rl Xx w U N O Ate-, O N N w I w Ly W LL 5 a U 3 W 'y J U� y N O G m O F W Z .V o a H1NON g Well AM O N ifln O L � 771 t4 MP ! ). Zoo, p \ —�� \ : . \ . \I-M _ \ / \ \ w \. /« I • � �� a�� I Marinapark Resort 8 Community plan - Draft EIR Aesthetics Photograph Location 2. This viewpoint is at the intersection of 18 Street at Balboa Boulevard facing northeast. Views from this location include a public parking lot, community center and Girl Scout building in the middle ground, beyond which portions of the mobile home park are visible. A portion of the Newport Harbor is visible in the background beyond the end of 18d' Street. There are also electrical poles and lines visible in the middle portion of this view. As shown in the simulated view, most of the buildings will be two -story buildings with individual hotel suites. The height of the proposed structures along 18`h Street is consistent with the adjacent uses such as the two -story hotel, and two -story residential uses along the south side of Balboa IBoulevard. The view will include new, increased landscaping at the resort. Minor views of the harbor will remain along 18d' Street and electrical lines on the site will be placed underground. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant visual impact from this location. Photograph Location 3. This viewpoint is immediately west of the Balboa Boulevard/ 17d' Street intersection facing north toward the project site. As shown in the existing view, this area of the project site is dominated by fencing surrounding the tennis courts at Las Arenas Park and several mature trees lining Balboa Boulevard adjacent to the park. Electrical lines are also visible at this location. No view to the bay is afforded presently. Future views include the two -story hotel suites, the two -story spa villa building, and the resort hotel lobby building. This location will also be the primary entrance for westbound traffic. This location 1 will include a monument sign, landscaping and a water feature. A partial harbor view through the project site will be provided after project construction and electrical lines will be placed underground. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant visual impact from this Photograph location. Photograph Location 4. This viewpoint is at the Balboa Boulevard/ 16t° Street intersection facing northwest toward the project site. This location includes additional views of Las Arenas Park with ivy covered chain -link fencing surrounding the tennis courts and a sandy vacant area. A portion of i the Marinapark mobile home park is also visible in the background. The tops of the boat masts on the bay are also visible along with the palm trees that line the beach. Future views at this location will consist of increased landscaping along Balboa Boulevard, new tennis courts and chain -link fencing, and the hotel suite and hotel lobby buildings behind the tennis I courts. A minor view of the bay will be provided through the proposed project. The existing palm trees along the beach will still be visible in the background; however, the tops of the masts on the bay will not be visible. The project also includes the undergrounding of the above ground utilities that extend across the site. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant visual impact from this location. Michael Brandman Associates 5.8 -10 WClient (PN- JM\0064\00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05 -8 Aesthetics.doc Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Aesthetics Overall Visual Effect Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing visual character of the project site; however, the project would create a less than significant impact on the visual quality of the project site from areas in the vicinity of the project site. Lighting Impacts The proposed project includes security lighting throughout the project site as well as lighting of the four tennis courts. The proposed lighting associated with the tennis courts would replace existing light fixtures that provide lighting for nighttime use. The project's increase in lighting due to security lighting as well as light emanating from hotel suites is expected to increase the overall lighting on the project site; however, with adherence to standard reviews of the lighting plans and the application of standard conditions this increase in lighting would result in less than significant lighting impacts. 5.8.3 - Cumulative Impact Implementation of the proposed project and the related projects identified in Section 4.2 would alter views in the vicinity of the project site. However, due to the distance of the related projects to the proposed project as well as the proposed site design, the project would not contribute to cumulative aesthetic or visual impacts. 5.8.4 - Mitigation Measures No measures are required. 5.8.5 - Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant aesthetic and visual impacts on surrounding areas. Michael Bmndman Associates 5.8.11 HAClient (PN.JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 -,Sec 05- 8_Aesthetics.doc Marinapark Resod & Community Plan - Draft OR Public Services and utilities 5.9 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 5.9.1 - Police Service Existing Conditions Police protection within the project area, as well as throughout the City of Newport Beach, is 1 provided by the City of Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD). The police department has one physical location which serves as police headquarters, located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. The services provided by NBPD to the community include: emergency police response, non - emergency police response, routine police patrol, traffic violation enforcement, traffic accident investigation, animal control, and parking code enforcement. The current ratio of sworn officers to population is approximately 1.8 officers per 1,000 population based on a permanent population of 79,000 and a summer population of 100,000 to 120,000 (including tourists). According to the NBPD, ' this ratio is considered to be adequate. Currently, NBPD is equipped with marked patrol cars, marked motorcycles, marked parking patrol and animal control trucks, volunteer cars, unmarked cars along with a mobile command post, SWAT van and rescue vehicle. The response time goal of the NBPD is under four minutes. The NBPD has divided the City of Newport Beach into 8 distinct police beats. Minimum staffing standards require at 4 least officers on the midwatch shift (3:30 p.m. to 3:30 a.m.), and at least 6 officers on the night shift (6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.). Minimum staffing for the day shift (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) is 4 officers. Thresholds Significance of A project is considered to have a significant impact on police services if the project will result in a substantial need for such services that cannot be adequately met by available Police Department personnel or equipment. Project Impacts Development of the proposed project will be an intensification of development over the existing mobile home uses. Lieutenant John Klein at the City of Newport Beach Police Department stated that the police department has and would continue to have sufficient manpower and equipment to serve the needs of the proposed project (J. Klein, 2003). The project would not result in the need for new police officers, facilities or services within the City. The project would have a less than significant impact on police services in the City of Newport Beach. Cumulative Impacts in in Implementation of the proposed project addition to all other related projects the vicinity of the project site could add to the cumulative impact on police services. The NBPD regularly evaluates police protection services throughout the City. The impacts associated with the surrounding projects Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-1 ' H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DF,IR \00640020 Sec 05- 9_Nblic Services Utilities.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR Public Services and Utilities are not considered cumulatively significant based on written communication from NBPD. The cumulative impacts of project development, along with the development of the related projects could require additional police staffing, equipment or facilities to maintain adequate levels of police protection through out the City of Newport Beach. However, the project's contribution to the city- wide impact on police protection is considered less than significant because the existing police services provided to the project area would not be substantially affected with project implementation. Mitigation Measures No measures are required. Level of Significance Impacts on police protection services associated with the project would be less than significant. 5.9.2 - Fire Services Existing Conditions Fire protection services are provided to the project area, as well as the remainder of the City of Newport Beach by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The department provides fire suppression and emergency medical services. Primary response to the project site is provided by Station I located at 110 E. Balboa Boulevard, less than one mile southeast of the project site and Station 2 located at 475 32nd Street, less than one mile northwest of the project site. Additional fire stations are strategically located throughout Newport Beach to provide prompt assistance to city residents. Each fire station operates within a specific district that comprises the immediate geographical area around the station. The locations of the Newport Beach fire stations and personnel and equipment are as follows: • Station 1 - 110 E. Balboa Boulevard, Balboa Peninsula. - One fire engine, 3 personnel • Station 2 - 475 32nd Street, behind City Hall. - One fire engine, 3 personnel - One fire truck, 3 personnel - One medic van, 2 personnel • Station 3 - 868 Santa Barbara, off Jamboree near Fashion Island Michael Bmndman Associates 5.9 -2 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 05 -9 Public Services Utilities.doc - One fire engine, 3 personnel - One fire truck, 3 personnel One medic van, 2 personnel • Station 4 - 124 Marine Avenue on Balboa Island One fire 3 - engine, personnel • Station 5 - 410 Marigold Avenue, Corona del Mar - One fire engine, 3 personnel Michael Bmndman Associates 5.9 -2 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 05 -9 Public Services Utilities.doc I I proposed project would have a less than significant impact on fire services. Furthermore, with two fire stations located within one mile of the project site, emergency response time would be adequate. Access roads are required per the California Fire Code when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access. Continuous fire access roadways and public hydrants will be provided throughout the project site in order to allow adequate emergency access. Written correspondence from the City Utilities Department determined that the municipal water supply should be adequate to meet future fire- related water supply demands. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on fire services. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project in addition to all other related projects in the vicinity of the project site could add to the cumulative impact on fire services. The NBFD regularly evaluates fire protection services throughout the City. The impacts associated with surrounding projects are not considered cumulatively significant and would not require additional fire personnel staffing, equipment or facilities to maintain adequate levels of fire protection throughout the City of Newport Beach and, in particular, in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered less than significant because the fire services currently provided to the project area would not be substantially affected. Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-3 H: \Clicni (PN -1N)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 —Sec 05-9—Public Services Utilitics.dw Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities ' - One medic van, 2 personnel • Station 6 - 1348 Newport Beach Avenue at Dover - One fire engine, 3 personnel • Station 7 - 2301 Zenith Avenue, Santa Ana Heights. - One fire engine, 3 personnel • Station 8 - 6502 Ridge Park Road. - One fire engine, 3 personnel Thresholds of Significance A project is considered to have a significant impact on fire and emergency services if the project will result in a substantial need for fire and medical emergency assistance that cannot be adequately met by available Fire Department personnel or equipment. Project Impacts Development of the proposed project will be an intensification of development over the existing uses. Kim Lerch, Fire prevention specialist for the Fire Department has indicated that staffing resources are adequate to serve the proposed project, but the project may increase calls for service due to an increase in employees, visitors and transitory residents (K. Lerch, 2003). Implementation of the I I proposed project would have a less than significant impact on fire services. Furthermore, with two fire stations located within one mile of the project site, emergency response time would be adequate. Access roads are required per the California Fire Code when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access. Continuous fire access roadways and public hydrants will be provided throughout the project site in order to allow adequate emergency access. Written correspondence from the City Utilities Department determined that the municipal water supply should be adequate to meet future fire- related water supply demands. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on fire services. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project in addition to all other related projects in the vicinity of the project site could add to the cumulative impact on fire services. The NBFD regularly evaluates fire protection services throughout the City. The impacts associated with surrounding projects are not considered cumulatively significant and would not require additional fire personnel staffing, equipment or facilities to maintain adequate levels of fire protection throughout the City of Newport Beach and, in particular, in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered less than significant because the fire services currently provided to the project area would not be substantially affected. Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-3 H: \Clicni (PN -1N)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 —Sec 05-9—Public Services Utilitics.dw Man napark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Public Services and Utilities Thresholds of Significance A project is considered to have a significant impact on waste disposal if it could not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Project Impacts Based on generation rates compiled by CIWMB, Table 5.9 -2 shows an estimate of the daily amount of solid waste that would be generated by the proposed project. Table 5.9 -2: Projected Daily Solid Waste Generation from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) Land Use UnfW.Area GeneraEon Fectof Total Demand (Ib /day) Community Center/ Girl Scout House 6,785 sf 6lbs /1000 sf/day 40.71 Luxury Hotel 110 rooms /66,949 sf 2lbs /room/day 220.0 Hotel Lobby 19,800 sf 5lbs /1000 sf/day 99.0 Business /Administration 2,154 sf 6lbs /1000 sf/day 12.9 Spa Villa 6,191 sf 51bs /1000 sf/day 30.9 Parking Structure 60,250 sf N/A N/A Total 162,129 sf — 403.5 sf= square feet lb/day = pounds per day. Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board website, downloaded April 2004. Therefore, compared with the existing waste generation estimate at the project site (522 pounds per day), the project would generate less waste than the existing use. IWMD has indicated that there is sufficient capacity within the Orange County landfill system to accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed project (J. Arnau, 2003). When structures such as buildings, surface parking and sidewalks are demolished as part of the initial site preparation phase for a project, demolition wastes are generated. Demolition - generated wastes from the project are expected to consist of heavy, inert materials such as concrete, asphalt, rock and soils, wood, drywall, plaster, metals and brick. Demolition waste debris has been specifically targeted by the State of California for diversion from the waste stream. Conformance with Section 12.63 of the City's Municipal Code and with the City's Inert Recycling Program identified in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element would conform to State diversion laws and reduce the amount of demolition waste entering the landfill. Moreover, State law requires excess landfill capacity be maintained in a system such as the Orange County landfill system. Therefore, with the conformance with the City's recycling program for inert demolition waste and the existing capacity in Orange County landfills, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to solid waste. Michael Brandman Associates H:\ Client (PN -K\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR\00640020_Sec 05-9-Public Services Utilities.doc I i I I I I I 11' 1 I 11 I r I i u I Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Public Services and utilities Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed project and future projects in accordance with existing city plans throughout the City would decrease the capacity of existing landfills. Overall, the County is required to maintain excess landfill capacity and is currently in the planning process of increasing capacity. The proposed project would have an incremental contribution to decreasing landfill capacity; however, this is not cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures No measures are required. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on solid waste facilities. 5.9.4 - Water Service Existing Conditions The Water Division of the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department currently provides domestic water to the project site. Water storage for City supplies is contained within the Big Canyon Reservoir located at 3300 Pacific View Drive in Newport Beach and has a total storage capacity of 200 million gallons. Water to the project site is currently provided via a 16 -inch cast iron water main is located below grade on the project site between 18th and 15th Streets. Sources of water include imported water from the Metropolitan Water District and from pumping groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The City produces up to 75 percent of its demand from groundwater with the remaining 25 percent purchased from MWD. Estimated daily water service demands are presented in Table 5.9 -3 Table 5.9 -3: Existing Daily Water Service Demands (estimate) Land Use Units /Area' Generation Factor Total Demand (9pd) Community Center 2,800 sf 220 gpd/1000 sf 616 Girl Scout House 3,985 sf 220 gpd/ /1000 sf 877 Mobile Home Park 56 units 100 gpd/unit 5,600 Total — — 7,093 gpd /unit = gallons per day per unit gpd/sf = gallons per day per square feet. Source, Michael Brandman Associates, 2004. Michael Brandman Associates 5.9.6 11: \Client(PN -rN) \0064 \00640020 \DEIR \00640020 Sec 05- 9_Public Services UtililicsAm I I I I I I I H 1 I Mannapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities Thresholds of Significance A project is considered to have a significant impact on water service if existing or planned facilities and supplies are not adequate to serve proposed land uses or existing water service is significantly disrupted. Project Impacts Based on estimated generation rates, Table 5.9 -4 shows an estimate of the daily water service demands required by the proposed project. Table 5.9-4: Projected Daily Water Service Demands from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) Land Use Units %Area Generation Factor Total Demand.(gpd) Community Center/ Girl Scout House 6,785 sf 220 gpd/1000 sf 1,493 Luxury Hotel 110 rooms/66,949 sf 200 gpd/unit 22,000 Hotel Lobby 19,830 sf N/A — Business /Administration 2,154 sf 220 gpd/1000 sf 473 Spa Villa 6,191 sf 600 gpd/1000 sf 3,715 Parking Structure 60,250 sf N/A N/A Total 162,129 sf — 27,681 sf = square feet. gpd/sf= gallons per day per square feet. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2004. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in domestic water consumption from the estimated existing 7,093 gpd to an estimated usage of 27,681. The City Utilities Department, through written correspondence, has stated that adequate domestic water supplies currently exist to serve the increased demand. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to domestic water supply. The existing water main located below grade on the project site will be relocated to a different alignment on the project site. There are no impacts anticipated from this relocation. Cumulative Impacts rImplementation of the proposed project in addition to all other related projects in the vicinity of the project site would increase the requirements for water supply. However, the requirements for water '• supply have been adequately evaluated in the City's Water Master Plan. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant because the proposed project would not generate the need for additional water supply or facilities. Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-7 WClient (PN -1N) \0064 \00640020 \DEIR \00640020 Sce 05 -9 Public Scrim Utilities.dac I I I I I 1 I 1 I i I I I Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Public Services and t/tllities Mitigation Measures No measures are required. Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts to domestic water services would be less than significant. 5.9.5 -Wastewater Service Existing Conditions Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) provides sewer and wastewater treatment for a 470 - square -mile area of central and northwest Orange County which includes the project site. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides local connections to the OCSD sewer system via an fl- inch local sewer line located under the project site. The local line extends between 15" Street and 20th Street and connects to a 24 inch OCSD trunk sewer line located under Balboa Boulevard. The OCSD Balboa trunk sewer main flows to Treatment Plant No. 2 in the City of Huntington Beach. This treatment plant processes an average of 51 million gallons per day (mgd) and has a total design capacity of 172 mgd. Table 5.9 -5 shows an estimate of the existing daily demand on wastewater services. Table 5.9 -5: Existing Daily Wastewater Service Demands (estimate) Land Use Units/Area Generation Factor Total Demand (gpd) Community Center 2,800 sf 220 gpd/1000 sf 616 Girl Scout House 3,985 sf 220 gpd/ /1000 sf 877 Mobile Home Park 56 units 100 gpd/unit 5,600 Total — — 7,093 gpd/sf = gallon per day per square feet. gpd/unit = gallons per day per unit. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2004. Thresholds of Significance A project is considered to have a significant impact on wastewater service if existing or planned facilities and supplies are not adequate to serve proposed land uses or existing wastewater service is significantly disrupted. Michael Brandman Associates 5.9 -8 fiXtient (PN -IN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 05-9-Public Services utilitwe .d. I I 1 I 1 I I I I I Resort 6 Project Impacts Plan - Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities Based on generation rates compiled by OCSD, Table 5.9 -6 shows the projected daily demand of the project for wastewater service. Table 5.9-6: Projected Daily Wastewater Service Demands from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) Land lJse .. IinttslArea Generation Factor Total Demand (&d) Community Center/ Girl Scout House 6,785 sf 220 gpd/1000 sf 1,493 Luxury Hotel 110 rooms /66,949 sf 150 gpd/unit 16,500 Hotel Lobby 19,830 sf NIA — Business /Administration 2,154 sf 220 gpd/1000 sf 474 Spa Villa 6,191 sf 660 gpd/1000 sf 4,086 Parking Structure 60,250 sf NIA N/A Total 162,129 sf — 22,553 gpd/sf = gallons per day per square feet Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2004. Therefore, compared with the existing wastewater generation estimate at the project site (7,093 gpd), the project would generate more wastewater than the existing land use. However, according to OCSD, the existing 8 inch sewer line would be adequate to serve the proposed development (pers. comm., Adam Nazaroff, OCSD, 1- 06 -04). The existing local 8 inch sewer line would not be located under any of the proposed project structures and would not need to be relocated. No significant impacts to wastewater systems would occur due to project implementation. Cumulative Impacts Development of future projects that are in accordance with the existing city general plan throughout the area served by OCSD would require extensions of and connections to the existing wastewater collection and treatment facilities. The existing and planned facilities owned and operated by OCSD would adequately serve planned growth in the City of Newport Beach. As previously stated, Treatment Plant No 2 currently has an excess design capacity of 121 mgd. The project's contribution of an estimated 22,553 gpd is not considerable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project, together with cumulative development and growth that is in accordance with the approved city general plan, would not have a significant impact on planned wastewater services or facilities. Mitigation Measures No measures are required. Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-9 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 sec 05-9-Public services Utilities.doc I I I I I 1 1 i L I 11 I I 1 I Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities Level of Significance Impacts to wastewater facilities would be less than significant. 5.9.6 - Natural Gas Existing Conditions In addition to electricity, natural gas is the second major type of energy consumed in the City of Newport Beach. The primary natural gas provider in the City of Newport Beach is the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). Current estimates of overall energy consumption indicate that natural gas is consumed primarily by the City's residential land uses for heating and cooking purposes. SCGC operates a local natural gas distribution network which is supplied by a high pressure regional transmission system. SCGC maintains information on existing pipelines, forecasts future needs based on General Plan land use development and overall general plan build -out and projected growth. The current natural gas system capacity for the project site is approximately 2.75 million cubic feet per year (mcf /yr). There are no existing easements on the project site and, currently, there are no planned or proposed enhancements to the system at this time. Future enhancements to the pipeline system would be dependent on future growth in the area and throughout the City of Newport Beach. Specific future enhancements to load, pressure, and the location of new facilities would also be dependent upon the specific types of growth planned for the area. Consumption demand estimates are based on an estimate to serve all appliances under peak hour operating conditions and varies depending on the number of appliances to be served. Table 5.9 -7 shows an estimate of the existing daily natural gas demand. Table 5.9 -7: Existing Daily Natural Gas Demand (estimate) Land Use Units/Area ` Generation Factor Total Demand (mcf/yr) Community Center 2,800 sf 24.0 cf/sf/yr 0.067 Girl Scout House 3,985 sf 24.0 cf/sf/yr 0.095 Mobile Home Park 56 units 49,260 cf/unit/yr 2.758 Total — 2.920 mcf /yr = million cubic feet per year cf/sf/yr = cubic feet per square foot per year Source: Appendix 9, SCAQMD CEQA .Air Quality Handbook, adopted 1997. Demand factors are based on SCGC _ average usage rates. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05-9-Public Services Utilities.doc 5.9-10 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Thresholds of Significance Public Services and Utilities A project is considered to have a significant impact on natural gas service if existing or future planned facilities and supplies are not adequate to serve proposed land uses or existing natural gas service is noticeably disrupted. Project Impacts Implementation of the proposed project would require enhancements to the existing natural gas supply system to ensure adequate supply and service to the project area. Service enhancements would be provided based on the growth of the area. As indicated in Table 5.9 -8, natural gas demand associated with implementation of the proposed project would be approximately 6.874 annually. According to SCGC, the proposed project can be adequately served by existing facilities and development of the proposed project would not significantly affect existing natural gas. Table 5.9-8: Projected Annual Natural Gas Demand from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) Therefore, SCGC is required to provide service to the proposed project and coordination is typical between the applicant/developer and SCGC to avoid any notable service disruptions during extension and upgrading of services and facilities. This typical coordination would also ensure that the nature, design, and timing of natural gas system improvements are adequate to serve the project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on natural gas services or facilities. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DErR \00640020_Sec 05 -9. Public Services Utilities.doc 5.9-11 Units /Arse Maturafi;as i)emand Total Demand Community Center/ 6,785 sf 24.0 cf /sf /yr 0.163 Girl Scout House Luxury Hotel 110 Rooms/66,949 sf 57.6 cf/unitlyr 3.856 Hotel Lobby 19,830 sf 57.6 cf/sf /yr 1.142 Business Administration 0.052 Building 2,154 sf 24.0 cf /sf /yr Spa Villa 6,191 sf 34.8 cf/sf /yr 0.215 Parking Structure 60,250 sf 24.0 cf/sf/yr 1.446 Total 162,129 — 6.874 cf/sf/yr= cubic-feet per square foot per year. a Southern California Gas Company, Average monthly consumption of natural gas, 1986. b No specific generation rate for this land use category. Similar land use category generation factors used. Note: Monthly rates were converted to annual rates. Souice: Appendix 9, SCAQMD CF.QA Air Quality Handbook, adopted 1997. Demand factors are based on SCGC averse usage rates. Therefore, SCGC is required to provide service to the proposed project and coordination is typical between the applicant/developer and SCGC to avoid any notable service disruptions during extension and upgrading of services and facilities. This typical coordination would also ensure that the nature, design, and timing of natural gas system improvements are adequate to serve the project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on natural gas services or facilities. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DErR \00640020_Sec 05 -9. Public Services Utilities.doc 5.9-11 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Resort B Communitv Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts Public Services and Utilities Development of future projects that are in accordance with existing city and county general plans throughout the area served by the SCGC would require extensions of and connections to the existing natural gas transmission and distribution systems. The existing and planned facilities owned and operated by SCGC are projected to adequately serve planned growth in the district. These facilities would be constructed with fees collected by the utility providers. No significant cumulative impacts on future natural gas supplies or facilities would occur from the development of the proposed project and future developments that are in accordance with existing city and county general plans. As individual developments within the project site are phased and other offsite developments are implemented, these developments will require extensions of natural gas facilities. These future extensions would be coordinated with SCGC to avoid any notable disruptions to existing services. Mitigation Measures No measures are required. Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts on natural gas services would be less than significant. 5.9.7 - Electricity Existing Conditions Electricity is one of two major types of energy consumed in the City of Newport Beach. Electrical power is provided by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). SCE's electricity is generated from a combination of oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, and renewable sources such as wind and solar energy. Most of Newport Beach's energy is consumed by residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and transportation uses. Current estimates of overall energy consumption indicate that the commercial sector is the largest energy consumer in Newport Beach. Table 5.9 -9 shows an estimate of the existing daily electrical demand. Michael Brandman Associates H \Client(PN -JN) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec O5-9_Public Services Utilities.doc 5.9.12 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Public Services and Utilities Table 5.9 -9: Existing Daily Electrical Demand (estimate) Community Center 2,800 sf 47.3 kw /sq /yr 0.132 Girl Scout House 3,985 sf 47.3 kw /sq /yr 0.188 Mobile Home Park 56 units 6,081 per unit 0.341 Total 0.661 sf = square feet. kwh/sf /yr = kilowatt hour per square foot per year. mkw /sf/yr = million kilowatts per square foot per year. Source: Appendix 9, SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, adopted 1997. Demand factors are based on SCGC Thresholds of Significance A project is considered to have a significant impact on electrical service if existing or future planned facilities and supplies are not adequate to serve proposed land uses or existing electrical service is notably disrupted. Project Impacts SCE has ongoing plans which analyze electrical demands on a yearly basis to plan for improvements as needed. The projected electrical consumption rates associated with development of the proposed project are identified in Table 5.9 -10. The proposed project would result in an increase in electrical consumption from the existing estimate of 0.661 million kwh/sf /yr to an estimated 1.272 million kwh/sf/yr. The energy demands of the project have been contemplated by SCE who would serve the site. Written correspondence from SCE indicates excess capacity is available for the increased requirements from the project. The development of the proposed project is not expected to significantly affect future electricity supplies. SCE is required to provide service to the proposed project and coordination is typical between the applicant/developer and SCE to avoid any notable service disruptions during extension and upgrading of services and facilities. This typical coordination would also ensure that the nature, design, and timing of electrical system improvements are adequate to serve the project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on electrical services or facilities. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 05-9-Public services Utilities. doe Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Public Services and Utilities Table 5.9 -10: Projected Annual Electrical Demand from Proposed Marinapark Resort (estimate) Land Use UmtsiArea Electrical Demand - Annual Demand. Factors (million kwhieflyr) , Community cents/ 6,785 sf 8.8 kwh /sf/yr 0.060 Girl Scout House Luxury Hotel 110 Rooms /66,949 sf 6.8 kwh /sf/yr 0.455 Hotel Lobby 19,830 sf 6.8 kwh /sf /yr 0.135 Business Administration Building 2,154 sf 8.8 kwh /sf/yr 0.019 Spa Villa 6,191 sf 11.8 kwh /sf/yr 0.073 Parking Structure 60,250 sf 8.8 kwh /sf /yr 0.530 Total 162,129 sf — 1.272 sf = square feet. kwh/sf/yr = kilowatt hour per square foot per year. Source: Appendix 9, SCAQIv1D CF.QA Air Quality Handbook, adopted 1997. Demand factors are based on SCGC average usage rates. Cumulative Impacts The existing and planned facilities owned and operated by SCE usage are projected to adequately serve planned growth in the area. These facilities would be constructed with fees collected by the utility providers. No significant cumulative impacts on future electricity facilities would occur from the development of the proposed project and future developments. Project development will require underground extensions of electrical facilities. These future extensions would be coordinated with SCE to avoid any notable disruptions to existing services. Mitigation Measures No measures are required. Level of Significance Impacts would be less than significant. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-14 WClient(PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 05-9—Public services lllililies.doc I 1 [1 1] I I I Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations SECTION 6: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 - SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS According to the State CEQA Guidelines - Section 15126, an EIR must disclose the significant unavoidable impacts that will result from a project. Moreover, these guidelines state that an EIR should explain the implications of such impacts and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding such impacts. Implementation of the project would result in the alteration of the physical environment. The project proposes mitigation measures that either reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts to a level below significance. After implementation of the proposed project, it has been determined that each of the project related impacts identified in Section 5 of this document can be feasibly mitigated to a level that is considered to be less than significant. 6.2 - GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS This section evaluates the potential for the proposed project to affect "economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]). There are two types of growth inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To assess the potential for growth- inducing impacts, the project's characteristics that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively that may affect the environment must be evaluated. Direct growth inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical obstacles to population growth, such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area. Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth are those, which may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents. As discussed in Section 3 of this document, the proposed project replaces existing development in an area of the City that is fully developed. There are no vacant, undeveloped parcels adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be developed as a result of the proposed project. In addition, no permanent housing is proposed. Implementation of the project does not require the Michael Bmndman Associates 6-1 H1Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 06 -CEQA Considcmdons,doc 1 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Other CEQA Considerations construction of substantial new infrastructure or facilities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in growth- inducing impacts, either directly or indirectly. ' 6.3 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRTRIEVEABLE COMMITMENT TO RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION IF ' IMPLEMENTED The environmental effects of the project are discussed in Section 5 of this document. Implementation ' of the project will require the long -term commitment of natural resources as described below. Approval and implementation of the actions related to the implementation of the project would result ' in an irretrievable commitment of non - renewable resources such as energy supplies. The energy resource demands will be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of ' people and goods, as well as lighting and other energy associated needs. Non - renewable resources will be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels, and will include ' fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by vehicles and equipment associated with the construction of the project. Those resources include, but are not limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, photochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead, and water. Since alternative . ' energy sources such as solar and wind energy are not currently in widespread use, it is unlikely that any real savings in non - renewable energy supplies (i.e. oil and gas) will be realized in the immediate future. ' More specifically, the primary effect of the development under the proposed project would be the conversion of a mobilehome park to a non - residential use. The financial and material investments that would be required of the applicant and the City would result in further commitments of land resources making it likely that the same or similar uses would continue in the future. Implementation of the proposed project represents a long -term commitment to a visitor - related land use. Environmental changes associated with the implementation of the proposed project result in is alterations of the physical environment. If the proposed project approved, and subsequently implemented new structures would be built. The commitment of resources and the levels of consumption associated with the proposed project are consistent with anticipated changes within the City and the region. Therefore, there is no particular ' justification for avoiding or delaying the continued commitment of these resources. 11 C Michael Brandman Associates 62 H \Client ( PN- 1N)\ 0064\00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 06 -CEQA Considermions.doe I h 1 1 11 I Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Attematives to the Proposed Project SECTION 7: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Section 15126.6(a) of the state CEQA Guidelines, as amended, mandates that an EIR include a comparative evaluation of the proposed project with alternatives to the project, including the No Project Alternative. As described in Section 3, Project Description, the proposed project is the implementation of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. This section focuses on alternatives to the proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse impact associated with the proposed project even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives or be more costly. Additionally, alternatives are discussed in the terms of achieving the project objectives and considering the feasibility of implementing the alternative. According to Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. Further, the criteria for selecting the scope and nature of the alternatives is based upon the "rule of reason' and includes site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency and other regulatory limitations. The following alternatives were selected for consideration: I. The No Project/No Development Alternative was selected to comply with Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. The Marinapark Marine Recreation Center was selected because this alternative is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Recreation and Environmental Open Space and is consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element which suggests expansion of park and recreational uses. This alternative was developed by the City of Newport Beach staff. The purpose of this alternative is to provide expanded recreational facilities for City residents and provide a project consistent with limitations of the Tidelands trust. 3. The Reduced Intensity Alternative was selected to reduce impacts associated with the proposed project. This alternative was developed by the City of Newport Beach staff. The EIR has focused on the effects on the environment that will result from implementation of the proposed project. The environmental impacts of the project are related to geology and soils, hydrology /water quality, biological resources, land use and planning, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, aesthetics, and public services and utilities. All environmental effects associated with the proposed project can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. The development objectives for the proposed project are as follows: • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; Michael Brandman Associates 7.1 HAClient(PN -1N) \0064 \006400200EIR \00640020 Sec 07- Altemaims.doc 1 1_l 1 C k LJ I 1 F Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Altematives to the Proposed Project • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. • Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between tideland revenue and tideland expenditures. • Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents. • Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users. • Ensure that site redevelopment does not generate noise, glare or traffic that could adversely impact the residents in the vicinity or the American Legion adjacent to the site. • Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. The Environmentally Superior Alternative will be selected from among these alternatives and the proposed project. An alternative that is environmentally superior will result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. Based on the evaluation of the three alternatives in this section, implementation of the proposed project would be environmentally superior among all of the alternatives. The analysis of alternatives includes the assumption that all applicable mitigation measures associated with the project will be implemented with the appropriate alternatives. However, applicable mitigation measures may be scaled to reduce or avoid the potential impacts of the alternative under consideration, and may not precisely match those identified for the proposed project. A description of each alternative and a comparative environmental evaluation of the identified impacts of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan are provided below. The analysis also evaluates the ability of the alternative to meet project objectives. 7.1 - NO PROJECTINO DEVELOPMENT 7.1.1 - Description The No Project/No Development alternative assumes that no new land uses (including infrastructure improvements) would be added to the project site. The existing mobile homes and recreational facilities would remain. While no development would be permitted under this alternative, the underlying General Plan and zoning designations would be retained, thereby allowing development of the project site in the future. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN.JN)\ 0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020_Sec 07- Allematwa.doc 7 -2 Ir u 'i I 1 1 11 I Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR Altematives to the Proposed ProJect 7.1.2 - Impact Evaluation The No Project/No Development alternative would result in no additional environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. This alternative would not increase potential impacts associated with geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, aesthetics, and public services and utilities. 7.1.3 - Conclusions Since this alternative would have no additional environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project set forth in Section 3.3, and therefore, is considered not feasible. 7.2 - MARINAPARK MARINE RECREATION ALTERNATIVE 7.2.1 - Description This alternative includes the removal of the existing mobile homes, and the development of recreational facilities on the project site. This alternative includes 1.64 acres of parkland area, 1.92 acres for a Girl Scout/Community Center, 1.2 acres of tennisibasketball courts, 2.77 acres of beach/slip parking area, and 0.50 acre of metered parking area. This alternative includes four buildings: harbor master building (100 square feet), Girl Scout building (4,165 square feet), community center (4,020 square feet), and a guard building at the entry (81 square feet). This alternative includes a total of 248 surface parking spaces. Finally, this alternative includes 2 charter boat moorings and 20 boat slips at 40 -feet in length and a public boat launch (see Exhibit 7.1). 7.2.2 - Impacts Geology and Soils This alternative would result in fewer structures and a smaller footprint of structures compared to the proposed project. Fewer structures would result in less impacts associated with settlement and liquefaction. The implementation of the project mitigation measures would reduce the potential liquefaction impacts to less than significant. All other geology and soils impacts would be less than significant or no impact. ' Hydrology and Water Quality The implementation of this alternative would result in a greater amount of impervious surfaces due to ' the substantial number of surface parking provided under this alternative compared to the proposed project. Therefore, greater amount of surface runoff could occur under this alternative compared to the project. This alternative would result in greater short -term water quality impacts from construction activities associated with the boat slips and boat launch causing turbidity. Greater long- term water quality impacts from automobile oil and grease residues associated with the surface parking lot and boat engine oil and gasoline released in the bay associated with the operation of the ' Michael Branciman Associates 7.3 HAClient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 07 -Ahem fiwv .dm �1 `1 �1 �1 1 t w a �z sY o W w w � t. d v, u� 4 C� X W � i~ ,O N W i-1 C� i-1 C� C� i-1 C� ii w w z 2 w J Q U N 0 N N N N HiNON B �� fL s 42 I 2L L i 0 pgNAS O .. t. d v, u� 4 C� X W � i~ ,O N W i-1 C� i-1 C� C� i-1 C� ii w w z 2 w J Q U N 0 N N N N HiNON B �� fL s 42 I 2L L i 0 pgNAS O L7 1 1 U Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR Attematives to the Proposed Project boat slips and boat launch. The implementation of the project mitigation measures would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Biological Resources The development of this alternative would result in greater impacts on marine life because this alternative includes larger boat slips and boat launch compared to the proposed project. Larger marine facilities will result in more dredging, and therefore, greater turbidity impacts on marine life. Marine life impacts associated with this alternative could be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the project mitigation measures. Land Use The implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the existing Recreation and Environment Open Space designation. Even though consistent, and the proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan designation, this alternative would result in similar land use and planning environmental impacts compared to the proposed project because both this alternative and the project would be compatible with surrounding land uses consistent with the City's General Plan policies. Transportation 11 With potentially greater trips, this alternative would result in greater long -term air emissions compared to the proposed project. However, since this alternative would result in less development compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in fewer construction emissions compared to the project. Overall, since long -term emissions may be greater, this alternative would result in greater air quality impacts compared to the project. Noise Implementation of this alternative would result in greater long -term and less short -term noise impacts because greater vehicle trips and less structural development, respectively, are associated with this alternative. Furthermore, with more boat slips, a greater amount of boat engine noise would occur under this alternative. Overall, this alternative would result in greater long -term noise. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts after mitigation. ' Michael Brandman Associates 7.4 li: \Client (PN," \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 07- Altematives.doc This alternative is expected to result in greater peak trips compared to the proposed project because use of the proposed recreational uses would coincide with peak commuter periods and peak peninsula visitor periods. An increase in peak trips would result in impacts on the surrounding street network. ' The implementation of this alternative and the project mitigation measures would result in less than significant traffic impacts. Air Quality 11 With potentially greater trips, this alternative would result in greater long -term air emissions compared to the proposed project. However, since this alternative would result in less development compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in fewer construction emissions compared to the project. Overall, since long -term emissions may be greater, this alternative would result in greater air quality impacts compared to the project. Noise Implementation of this alternative would result in greater long -term and less short -term noise impacts because greater vehicle trips and less structural development, respectively, are associated with this alternative. Furthermore, with more boat slips, a greater amount of boat engine noise would occur under this alternative. Overall, this alternative would result in greater long -term noise. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts after mitigation. ' Michael Brandman Associates 7.4 li: \Client (PN," \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 07- Altematives.doc Cl LI 11 11 1 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Altematives to the Proposed Project Aesthetics This alternative would result in less structural development, and therefore, would provide more views to Newport Bay from Balboa Boulevard compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in a reduction of existing impeded views toward the Bay from Balboa Boulevard. This reduction would be considered a beneficial impact. Therefore, this alternative would result in less aesthetic impacts compared to the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities Implementation of this alternative would result in less impacts associated with police protection, fire protection, solid waste facilities, water service, wastewater service, natural gas service and electricity service compared to the proposed project because this alternative would demand less services. 7.2.3 - Conclusion The implementation of this alternative would result in less impacts to geology and soils, aesthetics, and public services and utilities compared to the proposed project. This alternative would also result in similar impacts to land use and planning. Furthermore, this alternative would result in greater impacts to hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise impacts compared to the proposed project. Overall, this alternative would result in greater L 1 1 This alternative is the development of an 80 -room luxury resort hotel, a 4,500 square foot freestanding five -star restaurant, and 12 boat slips. This alternative would also include the same ancillary hotel structures as the proposed project. These structures include the business administrative building, hotel lobby, spa villa, and subterranean parking. This alternative also includes the reconstruction of the existing onsite community and recreational facilities and the removal of the existing mobile homes. The reconstructed community and recreational facilities include the Community Center /Girl Scout House, Tot Park, and four public tennis courts. This alternative includes the 12 boat slips of which four will be for public use and the remaining eight slips will be for resort hotel use. There will be a concrete walkway extending from the resort hotel to the boat slips and there is a bulkhead proposed similar to the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 7 -5 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 07- Altema6ws.doc environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. This alternative would meet many of the ' project objectives. However, it is not known if this alternative is economically viable, and therefore, it is unclear if it meets the objectives related to City revenues. It also does not serve visitors in the manner that the project envisions by not providing accommodations. 7.3 - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE 7.3.1 - Description L 1 1 This alternative is the development of an 80 -room luxury resort hotel, a 4,500 square foot freestanding five -star restaurant, and 12 boat slips. This alternative would also include the same ancillary hotel structures as the proposed project. These structures include the business administrative building, hotel lobby, spa villa, and subterranean parking. This alternative also includes the reconstruction of the existing onsite community and recreational facilities and the removal of the existing mobile homes. The reconstructed community and recreational facilities include the Community Center /Girl Scout House, Tot Park, and four public tennis courts. This alternative includes the 12 boat slips of which four will be for public use and the remaining eight slips will be for resort hotel use. There will be a concrete walkway extending from the resort hotel to the boat slips and there is a bulkhead proposed similar to the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 7 -5 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 07- Altema6ws.doc I 1 1 I n, Marinapark Resort ti Community Plan - Draft EIR Attematives to the Proposed Project 7.3.2 - Impacts Geology and Soils This alternative would result in less square feet and a smaller footprint of structures compared to the proposed project. Less structural area would result in less impacts associated with settlement and liquefaction. The implementation of the project mitigation measures would reduce the potential liquefaction impacts to less than significant. All other geology and soils impacts would be less than significant or no impact. Hydrology and Water Quality The implementation of this alternative would result in the same hydrology impacts because the same amount of impervious surfaces would be provided under this alternative compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in short -term and long -term water quality impacts from construction activities associated with the boat slips and long -term water quality impacts associated with the operation of the boat slips. The implementation of the project mitigation measures would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant. Biological Resources The development of this alternative would result in the same impacts on marine life because this alternative includes the same size boat slips as the proposed project. The same amount of dredging would occur under this alternative compared to the proposed project. The effects on marine life from the operations of the resort and restaurant under this alternative would be similar to the marine life effects from the operation of the resort under the proposed project. The marine life impacts could be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the project mitigation measures. Land Use The implementation of this alternative would result in similar land use and planning environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant land use and planning impacts. Transportation This alternative would result in 869 average daily trips (464 for the resort hotel and 405 for the restaurant) compared to 640 average daily trips associated with the proposed project. An increase of daily trips would result in greater impacts on the surrounding street network. The implementation of this alternative and the proposed project would result in less than significant traffic impacts. Air Quality With greater average daily trips, this alternative would result in greater long -term air emissions compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in less development compared to the Michael Brandman Associates 7 -6 HACliem (PN -1N) \0064 \00640020\DHO2 \00640020 Sec 07- AJ(emalwes,dm I u 1 1 I I 11 I 1 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan • Draft HR Altematives to the Proposed Project proposed project. With less development, this alternative would result in fewer construction emissions compared to the project. Overall, this alternative would result in greater air emissions. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant air quality impacts after mitigation. Noise Implementation of this alternative would result in greater long -term and short -term noise impacts because greater daily trips and less structural development, respectively, are associated with this alternative. Overall, this alternative would result in greater noise impacts. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts after mitigation. Aesthetics This alternative would result in less structural development, and therefore, would provide slightly more views to Newport Bay from Balboa Boulevard compared to the proposed project. Existing impeded views toward the Bay from Balboa Boulevard would be beneficially improved. Therefore, this alternative would result in less aesthetic impacts compared to the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities Although less development, this alternative could result in a greater demand for public services and utilities due to the addition of a free - standing five star restaurant. This alternative could result in a greater demand for police protection, fire protection, solid waste facilities, water service, wastewater service, natural gas service and electricity service. 7.3.3 - Conclusion The implementation of this alternative would result in less impacts on geology and soils and aesthetics. This alternative would also result in greater impacts on transportation, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities. Similar impacts to hydrology and water quality, biological resources, and land use and planning would occur compared to the proposed project. Overall, this alternative would result in greater environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. However, this alternative would meet many of the project objectives. 7.4 - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Based on the above analysis, the implementation of the proposed project would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -JN 0064 \00640020%DEIR100640020 Sec 07- Altematives.doc 7-7 Marinapark Resort 6 Community Plan - Draft EIR Organizations and Persons Consulted SECTION 8: ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 8.1 - PUBLIC AGENCIES City of Newport Beach Planning Department ........................ ............................... Public Works Department ................ ............................... Harbor Resources Department .......... ............................... PoliceDepartment ........................................ ............................... FireDepartment ............................................ ............................... Regional Water Quality Control Board ......................... 8.2 - PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS Austin -Foust & Associates, Inc ........................... Coastal Resources Management . ............................... Giroux & Associates ................... ............................... Cash & Associates ...................... ............................... MetroPointe Engineers ............... ............................... Southern California Edison ........ ............................... Southern California Gas Company ............................ ......... ..........................James Campbell .... ............................... Eldon Davidson Fong Tse Jim Delicce .... ............................... Tom Rossmiller Chris Miller ..... .....................Lieutenant John Klein ........... ............................Kim K. Lerch ....... ............................... Adam Nazaroff ............. ............................... John Arnau ......................... Wanda Smith Michael Brandman Associates 8-1 H:\ Client( PN- JN)\0064 \00640020WEIR\00640020 Sec 08- Organizations Persons Consulted.doc County of Orange Sanitation District ........................ ............................... ' Integrated Waste Management Division .................... State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board ......................... 8.2 - PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS Austin -Foust & Associates, Inc ........................... Coastal Resources Management . ............................... Giroux & Associates ................... ............................... Cash & Associates ...................... ............................... MetroPointe Engineers ............... ............................... Southern California Edison ........ ............................... Southern California Gas Company ............................ ......... ..........................James Campbell .... ............................... Eldon Davidson Fong Tse Jim Delicce .... ............................... Tom Rossmiller Chris Miller ..... .....................Lieutenant John Klein ........... ............................Kim K. Lerch ....... ............................... Adam Nazaroff ............. ............................... John Arnau ......................... Wanda Smith Michael Brandman Associates 8-1 H:\ Client( PN- JN)\0064 \00640020WEIR\00640020 Sec 08- Organizations Persons Consulted.doc Marinapark Resort & Community Plan - Draft OR Report Preparation Personnel ' SECTION 9: REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL 9.1 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department ..................... ............................... 9.2 - MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES .........James Campbell Project Manager ..................................................... ............................... ..........................Jason Brandman Assistant Project Manager ..................... ............................... ........................Michael E. Houlihan, AICP Environmental Planner ............................................................................. ............................... Kara Palm Jackie M. Wetteland Editor................................................................................................... ............................... Sandi Tomlin Graphics.................................................................................................. .........................Karlee Haggins Mike Serrano ' Word Processing ....................................................... ............................... ..........................Angel Penatch Reproduction ............................................................. ............................... ...........................Jose Morelos ' 9.3 - TECHNICAL SUBCONSULTANTS Air Quality and Noise Study (Giroux & Associates) ........................... ............................... Hans Giroux Biological Analysis (Coastal Resources Management) ............................ ............................... Rick Weir DrainageTechnical Study (MetroPointe Engineers) ........................... .......................Frangois Zugmeycr Traffic Analysis (Austin -Foust & Associates, Inc) ........ ............................... ............................Joe Foust Cathy Lawrence II II II II I II ' Michael Brandman Associates 9.1 H: \Client ( PN- JN)\0064 \00640020\DEIRU00640020 Sec 09 -Rcpon Pmpamliun Penonnel.doc Marinaparh Resort 8 Community Plan- Draft EIR References SECTION 10: Abstract Consulting Group. Geotechinical Investigation. September 5, 2001. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO, Traffic Analysis. April 2004. California Air Resources Control Board. "Software Users Guide: URBEMIS 2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 7.4." Published May 2003. California Department of Transportation, Division of New Technology and Research. "CALINE4 - A Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadways." Published June 1989. California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program. "Transportation Project -level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. " Revised December 1997. City of Newport Beach. City Council Policy No. L -18- Protection of Water Quality: Drainage - Public right -of -ways. Published April 2002. City of Newport Beach. City Council Policy No. L -22- Protection of Water Quality: Water Quality Management Plans for New Development and Redevelopment. Published April 2002. City of Newport Beach. General Plan. (various dates by element). City of Newport Beach. Municipal Code. (various sections) Coastal Resources Managemnt. Marine Biological Resources Impact Assessment. April 14, 2003. County of Orange. Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Central and Coastal Subregion. Published July 1996. County of Orange. NCCP /HCP Implementation Agreement. Published July 1996. County of Orange. Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Published November, 16, 1995. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Historical Topographic Map Report. December 15, 2003 Environmental Data Resources, Inc., Radius Map with GeoCheck. December 12, 2003 FEMA. Flood Hazard Areas Map. Published January 2004. Font Design. Visual Assessment. December 10, 2003. Giroux and Associates . Air Quality Impact Analysis Report. March 2004. Giroux and Associates. Noise Impact Study. April 2004. Michael Brandman Associates. Notice of Preparationdnitial Study. Published October 2003. Michael &andman Associates 10.1 FiXiient (PN -.IN) 10064 \00640020\DEIR100640020 1Sec 10- Refeences.doc Marinaparh Resort R Community Plan- Dreg EIR References MetroPointe Engineers, Inc. Drainage Technical Study: Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations Water Quality Management Plan. January 2004. Personal Communication, Lieutenant John Klein, City of Newport Beach Police Department, October 1 S, 2003. Personal Communication, Ms. Kim K. Lerch, Fire Prevention Specialist, City of Newport Beach Fire Department, November 24, 2003. Personal Communication, Mr. Eldon Davidson, Utilities Director, City of Newport Beach Utilities Department, December 15, 2003. Personal Communication, Mr. Adam Nazaroff, Orange County Sanitation District, November 17, 2003. Personal Communication, Ms. Jane Brown, Southern California Edison, November 5, 2003. Personal Communication, Ms. Kris Keas, Vice Technical Supervisor West Region- Anaheim, The Gas Company, October 29, 2003. Personal Communication, Mr. John Arnau, Planner III, County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department, November 17, 2003. Personal Communication, Ms. Fong Tse, City of Newport Beach Public Works Division, Development Engineering, March 25, 2004. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. Limited Phase U Environmental Site Assessment Summary Letter. February 17, 2004. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. Limited Phase H Environmental Site Assessment. April 9, 2004. South Coast Air Quality Management District. "Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan." Published August 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District. '7997 Air Quality Management Plan." Published November 1996. South Coast Air Quality Management District. "CEQA Air Quality Handbook. " Published November 1993. Written communication. City of Newport Beach. Planning Department Staff, January 14, 2004. Michael Brendman Associates 10.2 14dCItent(PN -JN) \0064 \00640020\DEIR \00640020 Sec 10- Refuences.doc Resort & Community Plan - Draft EIR APPENDICES Michael Brandman Associates H. Client (PN- W)M64\00640020�ER\00640020 Appendix Divide .doe Marinapark Resort & Community plan - Draft EIR Appendix A: IS /NOP and Responses Michael &andman Associates N'.\ Client( PN- fN)QO6 \OOBa00200EIR \00 W20_Appendiw Dividersdec Regent Newport Beach Hotel Project Initial Study Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 949.644.3219 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Jason M. Brandman, Senior Project Manager October 14, 2003 1 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Administrative Draft Initial Study Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1 Introduct ion ........................................................................................... ............................... I 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 Project Location ............................................................................ ............................... 1 1.3 Site History .................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.4 Environmental Setting ................................................................... ............................... 2 1.5 Project Descript ion ........................................................................ ............................... 6 1.6 Cumulative IMPACTS ................................................................... ..............................7 1.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Act ion .............................................. ............................... 7 1.8 Environmental Determination ........................................................ ..............................7 1.9 Intended Uses of this Document ................................................... ............................... 8 Section 2 Environmental Checklist Form ............................................................ ..............................9 Section 3 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ............................................ .............................22 Environmental Checklist Responses ........................................................ ............................... 22 1. Aesthetics .................................................................................... ............................... 22 H. Agricultural Resources .................................................................. .............................23 111. Air Quality ................................................................................... ............................... 24 IV. Biological Resources ................................................................... ............................... 26 V. Cultural Resources ...................................................................... ............................... 27 VI. Geology and Soils ......................................................................... .............................28 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Material s ............................................... ............................... 30 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................... ............................... 32 Ix. Land Use and Planning ............................................................... ............................... 34 X. Mineral Resources ....................................................................... ............................... 35 Xl. Noise .............................................................................................. .............................36 X11. Population and Housing .............................................................. ............................... 37 Xlll. Public Services .............................................................................. .............................38 XIV. Recreation ...................................................................................... .............................39 XV. Transportation and Circulat ion .................................................... ............................... 40 XVI. Utilities and Service Syst ems ...................................................... ............................... 42 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significiance .......................................... ............................... 43 Section 4 References LIST OF EXHIBITS 44 Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map .......................................................................... ............................... 3 Exhibit2: Local Vicinity Map ................................................................................. ............................... 4 Exhibit3: Site Plan .................................................................................................. ............................... 5 Michael Brandman Associates i L Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Administrative Draft Initial Study Introduction Section 1 - Introduction. Describes the project location and its environmental setting, a list of SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE ' The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Regent Newport Beach Hotel project. This IS has been prepared in conformance tSection with the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) that implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Implementation Procedures for CEQA. 1 The City of Newport Beach, through a vote of the electorate in this instance, has primary ' responsibility for approval or denial of the proposed project. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 15367 of the Guidelines, the City is the lead agency in the preparation of a project -level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City Council of Newport Beach will certify the EIR prior to submittal for voter approval or denial. Because the City has determined that an EIR is required for this project, this IS is organized in a manner that: • Identifies potentially significant impacts that require analysis in the forthcoming project -level EIR; • Identifies environmental factors that are less than significant or have no impact and therefore will only be described briefly in the EIR; and interested in formulation • Provides sufficient information to public agencies and other parties of a meaningful written response to the Notice of Preparation in accordance with Section 15082(b) of the Guidelines. This document is organized into the following sections: Section 1 - Introduction. Describes the project location and its environmental setting, a list of project design features, a detailed project description, a list of project objectives, identification of alternatives proposed for evaluation in the EIR, and intended uses of the EIR. Section 2 - Environmental Checklist. Provides an environmental checklist that identifies the level of impact associated with each environmental issue. tSection 3 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. Provides a narrative discussion of each environmental issue contained in the environmental checklist. 1 Section 4 - Reference Sources. Provides a list of references used in the preparation of this document. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, California (see Exhibit 1). The project site encompasses approximately 8. 10 acres and is located along the north side West Balboa Boulevard between 15th Street and 18th Street (see Exhibit 2). Major arterial access is provided along West Balboa Boulevard with secondary access along 150, Street and 18`h Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). Michael Brandman Associates f Beach Hotel -Administrative Dreg Initial Introduction 1.3 SITE HISTORY 1 Historically, the site has been comprised of the approximately 8.10 -acre Marinapark mobile home 1 park, a public beach and Las Arenas Park. The Marinapark mobile home park is a 40 -year old facility with approximately 15 full -time residents and 41 part -time tenants. Las Arenas Park consists of a metered public parking lot with 21 stalls, a City of Newport Beach Community Center, the Neva B. ' Thomas Girl Scout House, four public tennis courts, a children's play area, and a public beach located in front of the mobile home park along the site's northern boundary. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 The existing site encompasses 8.10 acres and is built -up in nature with a variety of residential (i.e., mobile home park) community service (e.g., community center, public tennis courts, beach access, ' etc.), and surface parking lot uses. The site is bordered on the east by an asphalt parking lot, Veteran's Park, the American Legion Post 291 and residential and commercial uses, to the south by West Balboa Boulevard and residential uses, and to the west by18'h Street, a hotel and residential ' uses. 1 I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 L Brandman Associates 2 1 ISEALBEACH Los Angeles / /Cou AHABflA 7 YOFBA LINDA FULLERTON S7 0 • PLACE NTIA �= 91 ANAHEI S CYPRESS 39 STANTON GARDEN GROVE SANTA l HUNTINGTON SS BE H 405 S COSTA MESA IRVINE • 73 NEWPORT BEACH CORONA DEL MAO LAGUNA BEACH \ CLE VEL�ND1 \\ NATiON.AL, I -- \ I FOREST LAGUNA 1)0 \ /, HILLS / MISSION VIEJO AGU • NIGUEL JUAN DANA POINT rCounry, �O /Q tl SAN CLEME NTE � NNNS - s 2.6 0 s Exhibit 1 009IA z SCALE IN MILES Regional Location Map Nfichacl Bmdman Asseciaws 00640020 • 1012003 1 regional.ai REGENT NEWPORT BEACH HOTEL PROJECT- IS /NOP N Q, .. cd a L W C� U O 0 N F W W z Z_ W J Q U N 0 0 0 N o T+ � C N U w � m � �? U O tHIHN 0 N � o L O O (�Y�f�l•1Yr _ � 1 I .Ppp� 711 I IF VA f mi• .,�IE "':fYYYY11Ci�f VIA ME, m h5 n a x y w E �9 �E B g I 1 I I I 11 I 1 1 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Administrative Draft Initial Study Introduction 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This 1S evaluates the development of the proposed Regent Newport Beach Hotel project on an approximate 8.10 -acre site situated along West Balboa Boulevard between 15`h Street and 18'h Street (see Exhibit 3). The proposed project is the development of the 110 -room luxury resort Regent Newport Beach hotel consisting of one and two -story villas in sixteen buildings with ancillary hotel structures including an administration building, a two -story hotel lobby building, a spa villa, and a 100- space, partly subterranean parking structure that will support four roof -top public tennis courts at approximately five (5) feet above the grade of Balboa Boulevard. The project also includes the displacement of the 56 -space mobile home park, and the removal of the existing onsite uses associated with Las Arenas Park (e.g., Balboa Community Center, Girl Scouts House, children's play area, four public tennis courts, and a metered 21 -space parking lot), and their replacement with a 6,191 square foot Community Center /Girls Scouts House, a 3000 square -foot tot lot, and a new 41- space, shared parking lot. In all, the proposed project will include approximately 360,000 square feet of development on 8.10 acres. Primary access to the project will be via West Balboa Boulevard and secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off of 18'h Street. Additional fire and delivery access will occur from 15`h Street. The proposed project will also include beach enhancements including a marina consisting of 12 new yacht slips (including four slips for public use) within the Newport Bay and a public beachfront walkway that will extend from the project's eastern property line to 18'h Street. Public access to the walkway will be provided via four access points, two along West Balboa Boulevard, one along the project's eastern boundary, and one along 18'h Street. 1.5.1 Discretionary Approvals The project proposes the following discretionary approvals: • Planned Community Development Plan • General Plan Amendment • Zone Change • Building Permits • Grading Permit • Use Permit • Coastal Development Permit • Coastal Harbor Activities Permit and/or Harbor Permit 1.5.2 Responsible Agencies • Traffic Study • Parcel Map • Final Precise Plan • Water Quality Management Plan • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Encroachment Permits • Local Coastal Program Amendment • Long Term Ground Lease • Mobile Home Relocation Impact Report According to Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency. Responsible agencies are those agencies that have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with the development of a proposed project. Trustee agencies are State agencies having discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project that are held in trust of the people of the State of California. The State Water Resources Control Board (i.e., NPDES permit), a responsible agency, and the California Coastal Commission (i.e., Coastal Development Permit), a trustee agency, would have discretionary approval over the proposed project. Development of the project is also subject to approval by the State Lands Commission, as a trustee agency, of the proposed lease of tidelands by the City of Newport Beach to the project proponent. Michael Brandrnan I Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Administrative Draft Initial Study Introduction 1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS , A discussion of the cumulative, significant irreversible, and growth- inducing consequences of a project that adversely affects the environment is required by the CEQA Guidelines on the adoption, , amendment, or enactment of public plans, ordinances, or policies. According to the Guidelines, attention must be given to impacts that limit the number of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long -term risks to health or safety. The growth inducing effects are also evaluated. ' An EIR must discuss the "cumulative impacts" of a project when its incremental effect will be cumulatively considerable. This means that the incremental effects of the individual project would be ' considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current ' projects, and the effects of probable future projects (Guidelines' Section 15065[c]). For purposes of evaluating the potential of the proposed project to have cumulatively considerable ' incremental effects, the effects of related past, current, and probable future projects will be evaluated in the E1R. ' 1.7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The E1R will analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Each alternative will be described and analyzed to determine if it can reasonably attain the identified objectives of the proposed project. The analysis will focus on whether the altematives are capable of eliminating or reducing to a level of insignificance any significant adverse environmental impact of the proposed project, A comparison of the altematives will also be provided in tabular format. The E1R could ' analyze the following alternatives including, but not limited to: • Alternative I — No Project/No Development Alternative. This mandatory altemative ' evaluates the potential impacts of not approving the proposed project. Altemative 1 assumes continuation of existing uses and improvements on the site pursuant to current General Plan and Zoning designations. ' • Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity Alternative. This altemative evaluates the potential impacts of reducing the intensity of development onsite. Altemative 2 assumes development , of a smaller hotel and a freestanding restaurant subject to approval of a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Alternative 3 — No Project /Development Pursuant to Existing General Plan Designation This alternative evaluates the potential impacts of developing the site consistent with the current General Plan designation. Altemative 3 assumes development of a marine recreation facility to include boat slips and on -site parking. 1.8 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Through the preparation of this 1S, the City has determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment and that a project -level E1R (Guidelines' Section 15161) will be prepared in compliance with Section 15120 of the Guidelines. The preliminary scope and content of the FIR have been determined based on the results of the 1S and information obtained from application materials submitted to the City by the project proponent. The scope and content will be further evaluated based on input received from public agencies and interested members of the public ' during the 30 -day Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period. 1 Michael Brandman Associates 7 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Administrative Draft Initial Study Introduction ' 1.8.1 Effects Not Found To Be Significant The City has determined that the potentially significant effects to the environment in the following environmental issue categories are less than significant or of no impact and, therefore, will only be described briefly in the EIR, in accordance with Section 15128 of the Guidelines. These factors are: ' • Agricultural Resources • Population and Housing • Cultural Resources • Recreation • Mineral Resources I I I 1.8.2 Effects Found To Be Potentially Significant Through the preparation of this IS, the City has determined that the proposed project has the potential to result in potentially significant impacts on the environment. The EIR prepared for the proposed project will analyze all impacts associated with the following environmental issues: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Public Services • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities /Service Systems ' 1.9 INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT This IS document has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in ' completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from public agencies and interested members of the public regarding the proposed project, following the distribution of the NOP of the EIR. The NOP will be circulated for a total of 30 days, during which written comments regarding the forthcoming EIR for the proposed project are invited to be sent to: 1 I J 1 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i I 1 1 1 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ® ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing 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? 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for 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? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? Michael Brandman ASSOclate5 9 Regent Newport Beach Hotel- InIdal Study Environmental Checklist Form b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and 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, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Associates M_ 0 /0/ O Me O ❑ ❑■ LK 0 FE] Ml n ❑ ® ❑ ❑ M_ 0 /0/ O Me O ❑ ❑■ LK 0 FE] Ml n 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Inhial Study Environmental Checklist Form e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) 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? 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of topsoil? Michael Brandman Associates II Regent Newport Beach Hotel- Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form ' c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ I ❑ ►1 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ® ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan 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? Michael Brandman Associates 12 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form 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? 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? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) 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- 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? Michael Brandman Associates ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ m El 0 El El ❑ I ❑ ❑ ■❑ 01 /1 /1 X 0 X C C Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? a) Physically divide 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? El El El El ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El El El ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ TO ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ El Michael Brandman Associates 14 I L� u I I�l [1 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form Michael Brandman Associates 15 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ®' conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? v7 i r. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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- ❑ ❑ ❑ El important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 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 ground home vibration or ground home noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ® ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ® ❑ ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) Fora 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? 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? : Michael Brandman Associates 15 Regent Newport Beach Hotel- Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ �� ❑ area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new ® ❑ ❑ ❑ homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ through extension of roads or other ❑ ❑ ❑ infrastructure)? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people ❑ ❑ ® ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? i) Fire Protection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ii) Police Protection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ v) Other public facilities? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) 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)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ►1. ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ Michael Brandman Associates 16 I F I I 1 � I 1 I 1 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form b) Exceed, either individually or 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 patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ❑ ® ❑ ❑ of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ® ❑ ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ® ❑ ❑ treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Associates 17 Regent Newport Beach Hotel- Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form , Michael Brandman Associates f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ® ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ® ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors)? N t ... .tr ^- 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 periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ® ❑ [] ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Michael Brandman Associates Beach Hotel- Initial Environmental Checklist Form 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. 1 11 I i 71 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates 19 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Farm 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. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact' as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by evidence provided in Section 3. ® Aesthetics ® Biological Resources ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ® Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Utilities /Service Systems ® Mandatory Findings of Significance Michael Brandman Associates ® Air Quality ® Geology /Soils ® Land Use/Planning ❑ Population/Housing ® Transportation/Traffic I Regent Newport Beach Hotel • Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form Environmental Determination ' On the basis of this initial evaluation (To be completed by the Lead Agency.): ❑ 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 an Environmental Impact Report is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially ' significant unless mitigated" impact 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 measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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 or Negative Declaration, including revisions or ' mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 1 Signed Date ' Michael Brandman Associates 21 �1 Regent Newport Beach Hotel- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation SECTION 3 ' DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES ' The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. ' I. AESTHETICS Existing Conditions ' Presently, the project site is developed with a mobile home park, and Las Arenas Park, which includes a metered 21 -stall parking lot, Balboa Community Center /Girl Scouts House, four public tennis courts, and a children's play area. The site is adjacent to Newport Bay, which fronts the ' property's northern perimeter. Minimal vegetation is present onsite, with the exception of some non- native, ornamental landscaping and a row of palm trees that line the boardwalk adjacent to the public beach situated along the northern portion of the project. Site topography is relatively flat with little or ' no variation. Environmental Checklist Responses ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Potentially Significant Impact. View corridors to Newport Bay from public rights - ' of -way adjoining the project site are obstructed by existing improvements on the site. Development consistent with the proposed project would provide limited view corridors from public rights -of -way to the Bay. A visual simulation analysis will be conducted and impacts on view corridors will be evaluated. Changes in the project or mitigations measures, as appropriate, will be recommended ' b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the viewshed area of any State scenic highway and there are no scenic vistas within proximity to the site. Moreover, there are no resources such as rock outcrops or designated historic ' buildings located on or adjacent to the site. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ' Potentially Significant Impact. The transformation of the project site from its current land uses to hotel hospitality land uses will alter the overall visual character ' of the site. Currently, views of the Newport Bay from West Balboa Boulevard are obstructed by the various uses at Las Arenas Park and the mobile home park. With the implementation of the proposed project, views of Newport Bay will still be somewhat obstructed. The proposed project incorporates public access view ' corridors. However, the project site is immediately adjacent to Newport Bay and the proposed project will result in a change and intensification of land uses on the project site, in addition to introducing two -story structures on a site that is currently ' developed within single -story structures. Michael Brandman Associates 22 Beach Hotel - Initial Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Boundary landscaping will be provided along the project's frontage with West Balboa Boulevard, 18`s Street, and the public beach. The landscaped grounds that will cover ten percent or greater of the net useable area of the parcel will consist of a combination of evergreen or deciduous trees, shrubs, and groundcover, with walkways and covered arbors that will be accessible to the public. The E1R will address the aesthetic impacts as a result of the transformation of the site from mobile home park and community uses to the proposed 110 -room luxury resort hotel and community uses through the use of a series of visual simulations. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Presently, the project site is developed with urban uses that contribute to nighttime illumination within the project area. Existing lighting sources include security lighting at Las Arenas Park and the Marinapark mobile home park as well as residential lighting from the mobile home park and residential traffic. Interior and exterior lighting for the proposed project may increase light and glare and will be analyzed in the E1R. Mitigation measures, as appropriate, will be recommended. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The project site and surrounding areas are highly developed with urban uses. There are no agricultural lands within the vicinity of the proposed project. Environmental Checklist Responses 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. b) Conflict with existing zoning for 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? No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are not zoned for agricultural uses, are not currently in agricultural use or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project does not involve any significant changes to the environment that will result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses. No impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. Michael Brandman Associates 23 1 7 L Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' III. AIR QUALITY ' Existing Conditions Local Setting Regional Setting ' The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is the jurisdictional exception of when the area experiences Santa Ana winds. Generally, on -site conditions do not contribute to air pollution; however, on -site soil stockpiling may potentially contribute to airborne responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and to a lesser extent dust during high winds if no precautions are exercised. the California Air Resources Board (CARB). ' A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if it would violate Like most of southern California, the climate within the project area is strongly influenced by the strength and location of a semi- permanent, subtropical high - pressure cell that is located over the Pacific Ocean. sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental Locally, the wind speeds are considered to be very low, which result in a limited capacity to plans and goals of the community in which it is located. horizontally disperse air contaminants. The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 miles per hour (mph) daytime breeze and an offshore 3 to 5 mph nighttime breeze. The typical wind flow Environmental Checklist Responses pattern only fluctuates occasionally during winter storms or when Santa Ana winds occur. During the a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofan applicable air quality plan. summer, pollutant accumulation is intensified due to the high temperatures and increased sunlight, which results in ozone formation and inversions, which do not allow for the dispersal of air contaminants. During the winter, ground inversions are severe, especially on cold and clear mornings ' Local Setting Overall, Orange County retains a higher level of air quality than the rest of the SCAB, with the exception of when the area experiences Santa Ana winds. Generally, on -site conditions do not contribute to air pollution; however, on -site soil stockpiling may potentially contribute to airborne dust during high winds if no precautions are exercised. ' Criteria for Determining Significance A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if it would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose ' sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofan applicable air quality plan. ' Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There is no long- term resident population or significant number of employees (i.e., approximately 50 employees) associated with the project in comparison to the existing labor force (i.e., 48,000 employees) within the City. Although the proposed project is not regionally significant, as defined in CEQA, there is a potential it is inconsistent with the local and regional growth projections and the SCAB Air Quality Management Plan. A technical air quality analysis will be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD and the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The analysis will provide a discussion of the project's consistency with applicable air quality plans. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Michael Brandman Assoclates N Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The SCAQMD has established thresholds for air pollutants. Construction and operation of the project site have the potential to generate significant air quality impacts. In the .short-term the proposed project will result in construction related air quality impacts. Activities such as earth moving, excavation, grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth will generate fugitive particulate matter emissions and exhaust emissions that may affect local and regional air quality. In the long term, vehicle emissions are the primary source of air pollution. The change of traffic patterns or the addition of traffic has the potential to affect local and regional air emissions. A technical air quality analysis will be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD and the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The analysis will describe the ambient air quality conditions, evaluate construction emissions and both local and regional operational emissions. A carbon monoxide hotspot analysis will be prepared and included in the analysis. The technical air quality analysis will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. c) Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated the SCAB as being a non - attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulates. Therefore, construction and operation of the project has the potential to generate significant air quality impacts. A technical air quality analysis will be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD and the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The analysis will describe the ambient air quality conditions, evaluate construction emissions and both local and regional operational emissions. A carbon monoxide hotspot analysis will be prepared and included in the analysis. The technical air quality analysis will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Construction and operation of the project site has the potential to generate significant air quality impacts. Project implementation will result in the generation of air pollutants during both the short-term and long -term. There are residential land uses located to the south and west of the proposed project. Moreover, the project site is directly adjacent to a public beach. There is the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, especially during the short-term construction period. A technical air quality analysis will be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD and the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The analysis will describe the ambient air quality conditions, evaluate construction emissions and both local and regional operational emissions. A carbon monoxide hotspot analysis will be prepared and included in the analysis. The technical air quality analysis will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as appropriate. Michael Brandman Associates 25 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation e) Create an objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will utilize diesel- operated machinery during construction activities. The use of diesel may produce odors that may affect adjacent residents. Construction activities are short -term in duration and, ' therefore, potential objectionable odors are not considered significant. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The project site itself is located within a highly developed area of the City of Newport Beach and ' currently supports urbanized uses, including a 56 -space mobile home park and associated parking, a metered 21 -stall surface parking lot, and Las Arenas Park, which includes the Balboa Community Center /Girl Scouts House, a children's play area and four public tennis courts. Little vegetation is 1 present onsite, with the exception of some non - native, ornamental landscaping and a row of palm trees that line the boardwalk adjacent to the public beach located along the north portion of the site. However, the project site is directly adjacent to Newport Bay, which supports species such as eelgrass t (zostera marina), an important marine plant that provides shelter for many species of juvenile fish and invertebrates and also serves as a foraging area for federally and State listed endangered and threatened bird species. Within the project area, the Bay also supports fish nursery habitat or marine ' resources (plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, federally listed and State - listed marine associated species and sensitive habitats). Environmental Checklist Responses a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ' b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the 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 the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other ' means? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is Incorporated. The proposed ' project will result in the development of a new 12 -slip yacht marina in Newport Bay and approximately 360,000 square feet of development directly adjacent to the Bay. There is the potential that eelgrass and other fish nursery habitat or marine resources (plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, federally listed and State - listed marine associated species and sensitive habitats) will be affected as a result of development. The E1R will include the preparation of a Marine Resources Assessment (MRA). The MRA will include a review of available marine biological ' data for the local area and a site survey. Potential impacts to marine biological resources and the surrounding marine environment will be analyzed and where impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be recommended as appropriate. Moreover, the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy adopted by the Michael Brandman Associates 26 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation National Marine Fisheries Service in 1991 has detailed specifications oil how to perform eelgrass mitigation. If appropriate, such mitigation will be recommended. The Marine Resources Assessment will be summarized in the FIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the FIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migralory fish or wildlife species with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in a highly urban area and the site itself is developed with a mobile home park and community service type land uses. There are no migratory corridors within the project area. However, there may be habitat that would support nursery sites for native resident or migratory fish. Therefore, significant impacts related to wildlife movement may occur. The Marine Resources Assessment will address these impacts and provide mitigation measures, as appropriate. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There are no locally protected biological resources on the project site. Therefore impacts to these resources are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. J) 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. The project site is not located within the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). The NCCP has been developed to protect diversity of natural wildlife within Orange County. The proposed project will not conflict with the NCCP. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in impacts and no mitigation measures are required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The project site is highly developed with urban uses including a 56 -space mobile home park and Las Arenas Park, which includes a metered 21 -stall parking lot, the Balboa Community Center /Girl Scouts House, four public tennis courts, and a children's play area. MBA conducted a cultural resources record search for the proposed project at the South Central Coastal Information Center which is located at the California State University, Fullerton and reviewed the 1992 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) for the City of Newport Beach. The record search and HRI indicated there are no cultural resources located on or directly adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the prehistoric and historic sensitivity of the area is considered to be low. The project site also contains the geologic Topanga Formation and Pleistocene terraces, which have potential for high paleontologic sensitivity. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' Section §15604.5? Michael Brandman Associates 27 1 LJ Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation No impact. There are no historical resources located on the project site. No impact will occur and no mitigation is required. rb) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project has been previously graded and developed. Any archeological resources located on -site most likely would have been recovered in conjunction with the past development activities. Therefore, ' impacts to archeological resources would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique ' geologicfealure? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project has been previously graded ' and developed. Any paleontological resources located on -site most likely would have ' been recovered in conjunction with the past development activities. Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant and no mitigation tmeasures are required. ' d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. No remains are known to be present on site. The ' project site has been previously graded. In the event that unknown remains are discovered on the project site, the proposed project will be in compliance with the ' State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, as required and cited below: If human remains are encountered, the state Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. The county coroner must be notified immediately of the find. if the remains ' are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the owner of the land or his/her authorized representative, the descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The ' descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification of the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Existing Conditions Southern California is a seismically active area. The five major fault zones within the project area that are considered to be active are: the San Andreas fault; the San Jacinto fault; the Sierra ' Madre /Cucamonga/San Fernando fault system; the Whittier /Elsinore fault system; and the Newport- Inglewood fault. All of these faults are capable of generating earthquakes up to a magnitude of 7.0. The City of Newport Beach, including the project site, is located along the southwesterly edge of the ' Los Angeles basin. The underlying geology of the project site consists of sandstone and siltstone of the Topanga formation and terraced deposits. The project site is not located within a currently ' designated Aliquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault zone. Michael Brandman Associates 28 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation The primary seismic hazard affecting the project will be groundshaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Groundshaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shaking will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and magnitude of the earthquake. The nearest active fault is the Newport - Inglewood Fault. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map issued by the State Geologist for the area of based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures arc required. ii) Strong Seismic Shaking? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is likely to be exposed to strong seismic shaking during its lifetime. The severity of the groundshaking will depend upon the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. A geotechnical report addressing this issue of strong seismic shaking will be prepared for the proposed project, which will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the City of Newport Beach the project site is located in an area that is susceptible to liquefaction. However, the General Plan does not identify the project site as an area unacceptable for development. Engineering design standards, including adherence to the Uniform Building Code, as required, generally can reduce project related liquefaction impacts. A geotechnical report, addressing seismic related ground failure, will be prepared for the proposed project, which will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as appropriate. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and there is minimal topographic variation throughout the development envelope. The potential for landslides is considered to be low. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Michael Brandman Associates 29 11 1 I Beach Hotel - Initial Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Less Than Significant Impact. The project site will require minimal excavation. The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the City Excavation and Grading Code, as well as the Development Project Guidance requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the Municipal Code to safeguard against soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Furthermore, the proposed project will implement Best Management Practices (i.e., use of sand bags, hydroseeding of graded pads, installation of landscaping after completion of grading, etc.) during construction activities. Therefore, significant impacts related to soil erosion will not result from the proposed project and no additional mitigation measures are required to reduce soil erosion impacts of the project. 1 I I 1 I e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseplic tanks or alternative wasted disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project site will not utilize septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts to soils from alternative wastewater disposal systems will result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Existing Conditions The project site is developed with a mobile home park, a Community Center /Girl Scouts facility, four tennis courts, and a children's play area. Such land uses are not typical generators of hazardous wastes or materials. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No Impact. The proposed project will not utilize or dispose of any hazardous materials of reportable quantities in its typical operations. Substances for landscaping, such as fertilizers and pesticides, will be subject to all applicable regulations. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Michael Brandman Associates c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and polenlially result in on or off rile 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. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The site is located in an ' area that is considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, due to the site's proximity to Newport Bay, there is the potential of the lateral spreading of soils towards the water. A geotechnical report, which will address unstable and expansive soils, will be prepared for the proposed project and be summarized in the EIR. The report will be included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. 1 I I 1 I e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseplic tanks or alternative wasted disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project site will not utilize septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts to soils from alternative wastewater disposal systems will result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Existing Conditions The project site is developed with a mobile home park, a Community Center /Girl Scouts facility, four tennis courts, and a children's play area. Such land uses are not typical generators of hazardous wastes or materials. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No Impact. The proposed project will not utilize or dispose of any hazardous materials of reportable quantities in its typical operations. Substances for landscaping, such as fertilizers and pesticides, will be subject to all applicable regulations. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Michael Brandman Associates Beach Hotel - Initial Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 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? Less than Significant Impact. Project construction consists of limited grading and trenching. These activities on the 8.10 -acre site involve typical construction methods and equipment onsite for a relatively limited and short duration. Construction equipment will include diesel and gasoline powered engines. A very small (incalculable) risk is present from gasoline or diesel tank rupture. However, compliance with construction site safety regulations limits the risk of upset to less than significant levels. Also, because of the limited and short duration of these activities, there is minimal risk of spillage. Development of the proposed project will not crate a health hazard or the potential for a health hazard related to pollutants. Therefore, no significant impacts related to the release of hazardous materials will result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. CK c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within one - quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. An inventory of materials and their respective quantities to be used in construction or operation of the project will be developed. Any material identified as inherently hazardous or hazardous as a result of the quantity to be handled on the project site will be identified and appropriate mitigation measures defined. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Past or present uses either onsite or within the surrounding area also have the potential to result in hazardous materials impacts through the release and/or migration of toxic substances. Moreover, project implementation will require the removal of onsite structures, which depending on date of construction may contain lead or asbestos materials. A regulatory database review will be conducted for the proposed project; results of the database review will be summarized in the E1R and the review results will be included in their entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as appropriate. 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? J) 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. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public or public use airport, or private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. Michael Brandman Associates 31 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Michael Brandman Associates 32 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Access to the peninsula is primarily obtained via Newport and Balboa Boulevards, and the project site is situated on Balboa Boulevard. The proposed project will not constrict access or result in modifications to Balboa or Newport Boulevard. The proposed project will not alter emergency access to surrounding uses and onsite emergency access will be provided via the onsite circulation system. Twenty -foot fire access corridors will be provided on both the eastern and western portions of the property and two additional twenty -foot fie access corridors will be provided in the central portion of the property, all of which provide access to the existing public beach. The onsite circulation system has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles (i.e., turning radii, etc). Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant 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 a highly urbanized area and is surrounded primarily by residential development and Newport Bay. The vicinity of the project site is considered to have a low fire hazard. Fire risk is dependent upon ' the moisture level in the plants and the presence of incendiary sources. Although fire is a risk for any kind of structure, the proposed project would not be at any greater risk than other uses adjacent to the site. Project design includes emergency fire access routes and the proposed development will be reviewed by the Newport Beach ' Fire Department to ensure that the design meets the Fire Department standards including building materials, sprinklers, internal fire walls, access for emergency vehicles, etc. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Existing Conditions The proposed project is located on the Balboa Peninsula, which separates the Pacific Ocean from Newport Bay. Newport Bay is comprised of the upper and lower bays. Upper Newport Bay is an estuary that receives drainage from a 150 square mile area of Orange County and Lower Newport Bay is the recreational and commercial harbor, known as Newport Harbor. The project site is relatively flat, rectangular in shape and approximately 8. 10 acres in size. The site is primarily built- ' up in nature with areas of ornamental vegetation. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Michael Brandman Associates 32 Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation d) 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 flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? J) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project will alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. In the short - term, construction activities may result in siltation and erosion as well as potential fuel oil spills, which could result in a decrease in water quality and an increase in turbidity and sedimentation as it relates to the amount of pollution flowing to Newport Bay and the ocean. The project site is under the jurisdictional responsibility of the Santa Ana Region of the California Water Quality Control Board, a state agency, which regulates discharges into the State's waters. As part of its oversight, the state ensures the project is implemented in accordance with federal water quality requirements during grading and construction. More specifically, the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 402[p]) requires discharges of stormwater associated with industrial and construction activity to be regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits. NPDES compliance requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality control. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) emphasizing stormwater BMPs during construction will require approval by the City. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which focuses on long -term operation of the project, will also be prepared and requires approval by the City. A hydrological study is being prepared for the proposed project. The study will be summarized in the E1R and included in its entirety as an appendix to the E1R. The E1R will describe potential drainage and water quality impacts from construction activities and long -term operation of the project, including project facilities designed to mitigate these effects. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere .substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a Associates 33 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre- 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. The project site is developed with urban uses and there are very few permeable surfaces onsite. Conversely, project design incorporates two detention vaults and a landscape scheme that may result in increasing the amount of rainfall that will infiltrate into the ground and, thus, result in a decrease in stormwater runoff. The project would not require the pumping of groundwater and, therefore, would not ' result in a depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. g) Place housing within a 700 -year food hazard as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other food hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 700 -year food hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect food flow. 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. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone or within a dam inundation area. J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ' Potentially Significant Impact. Given the generally flat topography of the project site and the surrounding area, and the distance from the mouth of a canyon stream, the project is not subject to mudflow. Potential impact of a tsunami will be evaluated and mitigation measures, as appropriate, recommended. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING ' Existing Conditions Presently, the project site is developed with a mobile home park, a public beach, Los Arenas Park and a metered 21 -stall parking lot, a Community Center /Girl Scouts house, four public tennis courts, and ! a children's play area. A public beach is located to the north of the project site. Primarily residential uses and some commercial uses, including a hotel, surround the project site. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Physically divide an established community? ' No Impact. The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. Project implementation will not result in any barriers that would preclude travel throughout the project area. There are residential land uses directly south of West Balboa Boulevard and west of 18'h Street. The proposed project will enhance access to the public beach through four on -site public access corridors and reconstruction of the public walkway. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will result from the and no mitigation measures are required. proposed project 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 Michael Brandman Associates 34 !J Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of , avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? , Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is currently designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space and zoned as the Marina Park Planned Community. The proposed project will require a General Plan Amendment, zone , change, amendment of the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program, the adoption of the Regent Planned Community District Plan, and a Use Permit. In accordance , with Chapter 20.35 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, a district plan is to " ... include various types of land uses, consistent with the general plan, through ' the adoption of a development plan and text materials which set forth hind use relationships and development standards." Additionally, the proposed project is ' located within the coastal zone and as such is subject to the California Coastal Act. An evaluation of the project's compatibility with existing land uses and , environmental plans and policies in the City's General Plan and other applicable regional plans and policies will be included in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as appropriate. ' c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? , No Impact. The proposed project is not located in an area that is designated within a habitat conservation plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Therefore, project implementation will not conflict with the existing NCCP or any , other applicable habitat conservation plans. No impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. , X. MINERAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions ' The proposed project is not utilized for mineral extraction, nor has it been identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology as an important mineral resource zone. ' Environmental Checklist Responses a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value j to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach's General Plan does not identify any known , minerals on the project site or within the surrounding area. The project will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of state, regional, or local value. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts are expected to occur and no , mitigation measures are required. 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. The project site is not delineated as a locally- important resource ' recovery site in the City's General Plan. Therefore, no impacts in relation to locally important mineral resources will result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. 1 Michaef Smndman Associates 35 1 II Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation XI. NOISE Existing Conditions The noise environment within the project area is dominated primarily by vehicle traffic and community activity. Within the project area, there is noise sensitive residential land uses to the south and west and across the Bay to the north on Lido Isle. The City of Newport Beach has established a maximum permissible interior noise level of 45 dBA for noise sensitive land uses. Sensitive land uses typically include residences, parks, churches, schools and hospitals. Traffic along West Balboa Boulevard generates the majority of the ambient noise in the project area. Occasional aircraft overflight and motorcycle drive -bys generate relatively high noise levels, but are not the major noise events in the project area. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Expose 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 goundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors within the project area include the residential land uses to the south, west, and north of the project site. The proposed project will contribute to the ambient noise environment in both the short-term and long -term, which may impact sensitive receptors. In the short-term, typical construction activities such as the operation of bulldozers, front loaders, scrapers, pumps, generators, compressors, etc., will elevate noise levels on the project site and the surrounding areas. In the long -term, project- related traffic will contribute to the ambient noise environment. Noise measurements will be taken at a variety of locations in the vicinity of the project site to establish the existing noise levels and traffic mix in the project vicinity. Community noise 1 standards relevant to this project are contained in the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. These standards will be summarized and their relevance to the project discussed in the EIR. ' The potential for noise impacts can be divided into short-term construction noise impacts on surrounding land uses, long -term on -site noise, and impacts of adjacent road noise on proposed uses. The application of the City's Noise Ordinance will be ' discussed in the EIR. The noise impacts associated with the project's traffic on adjacent land uses will be assessed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (based upon 24 hours of measurement) noise scale for the without - project and with - project conditions. Areas that will experience a significant noise increase will be identified. Noise associated with operation and occupancy of the proposed hotel including the sounds of human voices and music and their potential impact on nearby sensitive uses will be Michael Brandman Associates 36 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation evaluated. The absolute noise levels experienced in these areas will them be determined, and the resulting land use /noise compatibility discussed in the EIR. Noise levels generated by stationary sources will also be assessed for compatibility with the proposed land uses. Noise levels from stationary sources that potentially impact noise sensitive land uses will be estimated. The City's Noise Ordinance standards will be used to assess impacts. Based upon identification of cumulative noise impacts, the cumulative -plus project noise impacts in the area including mobile as well as any stationary sources of noise, will be assessed and discussed in the EIR. Mitigation for construction and/or operational impacts will be identified, as necessary. Residual impact, if any, would be compared with the impact criteria to assess adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures. The entire noise study will be summarized in the EIR, and included as an appendix to the EIR. As applicable, mitigation measures will be recommended. 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 a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an area that is regulated by an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or public use airport. Therefore, impacts due to aircraft noise would not occur and no mitigation measures are required. n For projects 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 with the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue and no mitigation measures are required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Existing Conditions The Marinapark mobile home park is comprised of 56 mobile homes each situated on a pad, which is rented by the owner of the respective mobile home. Twenty-seven percent of the tenants of the Marinapark mobile home park identify the park as their primary residences. The remaining seventy-three percent of tenants identify their units as vacation homes. There are residential neighborhoods located directly to the south and west of the proposed project. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will generate employment for approximately 50 people. This is considered nominal in comparison to the approximate 48,000 - person labor force within the City of Newport Beach. Due to Michael Brandman Associates 37 LI Regent Newport Beach Hotel- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation the being minor amount of employees generated by the proposed project, it is not anticipated that such employment will directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the project area, which would require new housing or extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, no significant population growth impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in displacing the tenants of the 56 mobile homes. Seventy-three percent of the mobile home park's tenants are not year -round residents of Newport Beach and utilize their units as vacation homes. According to the City of Newport Beach, mobile homes comprise approximately three percent of the City's housing stock and, currently, there are ten mobile home parks located within the City. In addition, the City of Newport Beach currently has a housing supply of approximately 37,000 units of which approximately four percent are vacant (1,480 units). Although not considered substantial, as defined by CEQA, any displacement of existing housing or people resulting from the proposed project could be adequately served by the existing housing supply within the City. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project is not considered to result in the displacement of a substantial number of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing. 1 In addition, prior to the displacement of the Marinapark mobile home park residents, the City will prepare a Relocation Impact Study in compliance with the State's Mobile Home Residency law. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant and housing impacts no population and mitigation measures are required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Existing Conditions The project site is developed primarily with residential and community service -type land uses. ' Currently, the site requires fire and police services and to a lesser degree schools and park services. • Fire Services. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently serves the project site. The Fire Department provides emergency fire protection, non - emergency service calls, paramedic services, and inspection services. The Fire Department operates eight fire stations throughout the City. • Police Services. The City of Newport Beach Police Department serves the project site. Crimes reported within the project area are generally larceny and burglary. • School Services. The public school district serving the project site is the Newport -Mesa Unified School District, which operates four elementary schools, one intermediate school, and ' one high school. • Park Services. Currently, the City owns and maintains 309 acres of parkland. Michael Brandman Associates 38 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Environmental Checklist Responses 1 Would the project result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? i v) Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project will replace and enhance the existing onsite recreational facilities (Community Center /Girl Scouts House, tennis courts, children's play area). However, the project will result in an intensification and change of land uses, which may result in an increased demand for police and fire services. If traffic increases in the area, it is likely there will be an increase in traffic related accidents and emergencies, which will require the response of the police and/or the fire department. Additionally, an increase in development may result in an ' incremental increase in theft, burglaries, and other such crimes that require police services. Potential impacts on public services will be further addressed in the E1R and, as applicable, mitigation measures will be recommended. , iii) Schools? iv) Parks? No Impact. The project includes no permanent housing and will not result in ' population increase in the area that would create a demand for additional schools or parks. XIV. RECREATION Existing Conditions ' Presently, the City owns and maintains 309 acres of parkland, in addition to community centers, school recreation land, gymnasiums, senior centers, and picnic areas. Las Arenas Park, which includes a Community Center /Girl Scouts House, public tennis courts, and a children's play area is , located onsite. Environmental Checklist Responses 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 will not result in a resident population increase in ' the project area; thus it will not result in an increased demand for recreational services and facilities. I Brandman Associates 39 1 I I I I I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Existing traffic generated by the project site is primarily attributed to the mobile home park; however, since only twenty-seven percent of the tenants are full time residents of the park, traffic generation fluctuates seasonally. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project may increase the existing traffic load on nearby roadways. A detailed Traffic impact Analysis (TIA) will be prepared as part of the EIR to evaluate the Newport Beach Regent Hotel project, its effects on the local street network and the ability of the roadway system to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed project. This study will conform to City Charter Section 423 and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis procedures specified by the City and be summarized in the EIR. Appropriate project design features or mitigation measures will be recommended as necessary. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level ofservice standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Michael Brandman Associates 40 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will demolish existing onsite recreational uses, including the Balboa Community Center /Girl Scouts House, four public tennis courts, and children's play area. However, project implementation will replace all of these recreational facilities at Las Arenas Park with new facilities. The children's play area will be replaced with a tot lot and the four public tennis courts will be replaced with four new public, tennis courts to be located atop the project's subterranean parking structure. The Balboa Community Center and Girl Scouts House will be replaced with a new structure that will accommodate both functions. In addition, the proposed project will install 12 new yacht slips, four of which will be for public use. The City of Newport Beach intends to continue to offer its full schedule of children's sailing programs from the beachfront adjoining the Newport Beach Regent property, in addition to offering tennis programs at the hotel's tennis courts. Environmental impacts associated with the development of these new recreational facilities, such as hydrology, traffic, etc., will be addressed within the ' EIR. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. XV. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Existing Conditions Upper and lower Newport Bay divides the City and creates barriers which result in lengthy circuitous vehicular traffic movements. The proposed project is located on the Balboa Peninsula. The site is bordered by West Balboa Boulevard to the south, 18'" Street to the West and 15'h Street to the East. Access to the site is currently provided from West Balboa Boulevard. Environmental Checklist Responses 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)? 1 I I I I I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Existing traffic generated by the project site is primarily attributed to the mobile home park; however, since only twenty-seven percent of the tenants are full time residents of the park, traffic generation fluctuates seasonally. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project may increase the existing traffic load on nearby roadways. A detailed Traffic impact Analysis (TIA) will be prepared as part of the EIR to evaluate the Newport Beach Regent Hotel project, its effects on the local street network and the ability of the roadway system to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed project. This study will conform to City Charter Section 423 and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis procedures specified by the City and be summarized in the EIR. Appropriate project design features or mitigation measures will be recommended as necessary. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level ofservice standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Michael Brandman Associates 40 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project may result in exceeding the level of service standards for the project area's circulation system. A detailed TIA will be prepared as part of the EIR to evaluate the Newport Beach Regent project, its effects on the local street network and the ability of the roadway system to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed project. This study will conform to City Charter Section 423 and the TPO analysis procedures specified by the City and be summarized in the EIR. Appropriate project design features or mitigation measures will be recommended as necessary. c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. Impacts to air traffic patterns are not anticipated due to the nature of the proposed project. As the project is planned to provide no more than 110 rooms, the project will not result in an increase in air traffic or substantial safety risk due to an increase in air traffic levels. Therefore, there will be no impact to air traffic patterns and no mitigation is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (farm equipment)? No Impact. Primary access to the project site is via West Balboa Boulevard. Controlled secondary access is provided via 18`� Street. The project will not result in the construction of new roadways or the alteration of the existing off -site circulation system. The project area is highly urbanized and it is not anticipated that hazards will occur as a result of incompatible uses. Therefore, there will be no impacts related to design hazards and no mitigation is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not alter emergency access to surrounding uses and onsite emergency access will be provided via the onsite circulation system. Twenty-foot fire access corridors will be provided on both the eastern and western portions of the property and two additional twenty-foot fire access corridors will be provided in the central portion of the property, all of which provide access to the existing public beach. The onsite circulation system has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles (i.e., turning radii, etc). Therefore, there will be no impacts related to emergency access and no mitigation measures are required. fi Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will result in the construction of a 100 -space subterranean parking structure and 68 surface parking spaces for hotel uses. According to the City's regulations, only 55 parking spaces are required. In addition, the proposed project will replace the existing 21 -space metered surface parking lot with a 41 -space shared parking lot for the non -hotel uses onsite. A parking study is being prepared to verify the adequacy of parking being provided by the proposed project. This study will be summarized in the EIR and mitigation measures will be provided, as appropriate. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Michael Brandman Associates t Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation No Impact. No conflicts with any adopted alternative transportation policies, plans or programs are anticipated. Therefore, no impacts would result from project ' implementation and no mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Existing Conditions The existing development requires electrical, natural gas, water, wastewater, solid waste, and communication services. • Electrical and natural gas services within the project site and surrounding area are provided by SCE and The Gas Company, both of which have various transmission and distribution systems located throughout the project area. • Water services are provided by both the City of Newport Beach, which maintains the storm drain systems within the project area and the Irvine Ranch Water District, which provides water supply and wastewater services to the site. • Solid Waste collection services within the project area are provided by the City of Newport Beach (Barrel service for residents and businesses) or private collection companies. Solid waste collected within the City is disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Canyon Landfill, 1 located on Sand Canyon Road in the City of Irvine and operated by the County of Orange. • SBC Communications and Cox Cable provide telephone and cable service to the project site, respectively. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ' 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are 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 commitments j) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Michael Brandman Associates 4 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation h) Would the project include anew or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best , Management Practice (BAP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors)? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An intensification and change in the type of land uses on the project site may result in increasing the demand placed upon utility and service systems. The proposed project may require additional extensions and hookups to existing infrastructure. The EIR will examine the project related impacts upon utility and service systems. As applicable, mitigation measures will be recommended. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICIANCE 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 periods of California history or prehistory? , Potentially Significant Impact. No sensitive resources have been identified at the , project site. However, the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment (i.e., aesthetics, air quality, transportation/traffic, etc.). This issue will be evaluated in the EIR b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Potentially Significant. The project site is located in a highly developed urban environment and is considered an in -fill parcel. An assessment of cumulative impacts including other current and probable future projects will be included in the , EIR, as required by CEQA. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact. Increases in traffic, air pollutant emissions, alteration of views and traffic congestion may have effects on persons in the vicinity of the project site. The EIR will assess the level of these effects generated by the proposed project as it relates any features that would directly or indirectly expose human beings to adverse effects. I I Michael Brandman Associates 43 1 I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Michael Brandman Associates 44 Regent Newport Beach Hotel - Administrative Draft Initial Study References SECTION 4 REFERENCES The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, 1 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. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code Newport Beach Municipal Code. of the 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Michael Brandman Associates 44 I I Gray Davis GOVERNOR November 4, 2003 (MON) 4.12'04 14'.25/ST.14'.19/N0.4862620542 F I STATE OF CALIFORNIA d-4 Z!N Governor's Office of Planning and Research I State Clearinghouse `s To: Reviewing Agencies Re: Regent Newort Beach Hotel SCH# 2003111021 Notice of Preparation Tal Finney INTERIM DIRECTOR Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Regent Newort Beach Hotel draft Environmental ]Matt Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: James Campbell City of Newport Reach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beatty CA 92659 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613. Planner, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency Post.tt -Fax Note 7671 Dale (kl_0 P#aee5b 3 To From coJLept. Co. Phone # Phone Fan * 71 / I119 FpC # t 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812 -3044 916- 445 -0613 FAX 916- 323 -3018 www.opr.ca.gov 5 FROM OPR (MON) 4.12'04 14: 25 /ST. 14: 19 /NO. 4862620542 P 2 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2003111021 Project Title Regent Newort Beach Hotel Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description Development of the 110 room luxury resort Regent Newport Beach hotel consisting of one and two story villas in sixteen buildings with ancillary hotel structures including an administration building, a lowslory hotel lobby building, a spa villa and a 100 space, partly subterrrnean parking structure that will support four roof -top public tennis courts at approx. 5 feet above the grade of Balboa Blvd. Lead Agency Contact Name James Campbell Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949- 664 -3210 email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach I I Fax I State CA Zip 92659 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Project issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Parks and Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Agencies Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 6 Date Received 11/04/2003 Start of Review 11/04/2003 End of Review 12/03/2003 1 11 u I J I I J Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. I a 9 a` m c L ¢ j0 0 E 0 p OR 2 00 11 8m 8 0 2— (L 2L m a_S �wo m t`c �e� om� uU F-ma o� 5m5@y m i°Em N m`o a =_fr`o msTi 1-m `o C7u omm °.�^ JaOQ'C J N LL�} N $b c d Q O ¢� 6 °0u om0 _CCv � 3 S mA O ms q ;Pam� N �.`oCJ w FO Q` W 7 o m p� m C:M � °I ¢ m m 3 o �o ° i2i D D D D r D D o D D � C Oa C p N t9 d N b n q O C N N T C C C C C C C Cc 0 E E a 2 c a a E C o iq O- a 3 c C� 8 m gT 0 o Al ° mE 42 a cc i .m U p no J x m mimaN g m Lraqa$01 J j, 5 «mm m m? ,d W 0%° `o ` o cF35 m oam ox o oo o COE no .la m o�v 8 vt i o o mey m oL m n S wa D OA0 an 0 0 0 0 0 0 a D 0 D D C C CO c « W O q C 3 to d mp m m m E m 8 m = E E E E p E E 6a E m s m m C7 m U Y N Z m S P V m x (7 a U U m c m m cq `oLLC m C IL o �E d c IL o �Lui W L Q p m N `m _ O w LU C 0 mE o Zm m Q m Q g d E m EE$ ¢m a E ¢L E ¢ ct oc5¢ M0 2 o o aH �= m zoo D 0 ■ D D D 8D D D =v D D O ■ � s 10 E c c iL �dY E = 0 5 m m m m c m = L m m Z a @ w (7 m� o ° Z ¢ U m (7 N Q� w oLLL > E CR eCw ym m Arc CE6� @ H mL a.Y °`m U — °¢ ¢R o'' wo o c m Sa° mmm �v c c E °E m> E m r 5m m— m« o Um mn LL0a m O. F-FF Om— Uoc� ; m �O aE N m C7 `ot Ea£ °¢ of E�CE o 0 yo @ 2c E5 ��° qTU� `o EU C7 `0 sv �d °Uo 0 O J 0 f E O C 'S N �gg O E m m J VL daw u(5 acr 0 w 8aa odi dm ¢� ycia H � 8 z 8°8iw` 8¢ ¢ Z ¢E! zC3 zA 13 � ��5z:��bo.z�'b N o n n �4 n n n YqoH edo rlA N N r Ri C zw 3 ¢ '5 C .3 N s mm O m ¢ .2 o.m ¢ m¢m m O« '2N uLLim� m m m Q ro r2W �� Nm$U W W O Omm N= a0 U W0 Q «r Ua£ (I 7 U 000 N¢ tlW AO �¢ Ups¢ cUii mmQ c(�� U a > Co Q OSELL C C 0G OD a- cciz° cwgvi c00 c °� c�0. © � ❑ �06 cA :11 S m ca 0 D o a o a D 9 a` m c L ¢ j0 0 E 0 p OR 2 00 11 8m 8 0 2— (L 2L m a_S �wo m t`c �e� om� uU F-ma o� 5m5@y m i°Em N m`o a =_fr`o msTi 1-m `o C7u omm °.�^ JaOQ'C J N LL�} N $b c d Q O ¢� 6 °0u om0 _CCv � 3 S mA O ms q ;Pam� N �.`oCJ w FO Q` W 7 o m p� m C:M � °I ¢ m m 3 o �o ° i2i D D D D r D D o D D � C Oa C p N t9 d N b n q O C N N T C C C C C C C Cc 0 E E a 2 c a a E C o iq O- a 3 c C� 8 m gT 0 o Al ° mE 42 a cc i .m U p no J x m mimaN g m Lraqa$01 J j, 5 «mm m m? ,d W 0%° `o ` o cF35 m oam ox o oo o COE no .la m o�v 8 vt i o o mey m oL m n S wa D OA0 an 0 0 0 0 0 0 a D 0 D D C C CO c « W O q C 3 to d mp m m m E m 8 m = E E E E p E E 6a E m s m m C7 m U Y N Z m S P V m x (7 a U U m c m m cq `oLLC m C IL o �E d c IL o �Lui W L Q p m N `m _ O w LU C 0 mE o Zm m Q m Q g d E m EE$ ¢m a E ¢L E ¢ ct oc5¢ M0 2 o o aH �= m zoo D 0 ■ D D D 8D D D =v D D O ■ � s 10 E c c iL �dY E = 0 5 m m m m c m = L m m Z a @ w (7 m� o ° Z ¢ U m (7 N Q� w oLLL > E CR eCw ym m Arc CE6� @ H mL a.Y °`m U — °¢ ¢R o'' wo o c m Sa° mmm �v c c E °E m> E m r 5m m— m« o Um mn LL0a m O. F-FF Om— Uoc� ; m �O aE N m C7 `ot Ea£ °¢ of E�CE o 0 yo @ 2c E5 ��° qTU� `o EU C7 `0 sv �d °Uo 0 O J 0 f E O C 'S N �gg O E m m J VL daw u(5 acr 0 w 8aa odi dm ¢� ycia H � 8 z 8°8iw` 8¢ ¢ Z ¢E! zC3 zA 13 � ��5z:��bo.z�'b N o n n �4 n n n YqoH edo rlA Jan 06 04 05:56p DEPARTMENT OF TP District 12 3337Mcfiebua Drive, Suite 390 Irvine. CA 92622-8894 TeJ4 (W) 2724-2267 Y= (949) 724-2492 ATION FAM MAIL December 2, 2003 Mr. James Campbe14 Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Departmen� 3300 Newport Boulk.,ard Newport Beach, CAy92658-8915 Subject- Regent Nlkwnort Beach Hotel (925) 730-0065 P.13 1 SU #:2003111027 LOS W: 1323 SR PM SR,_ :8,R-73 Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Prepw ktion (NOP) of a Draft Eavironment6l Impact Report (DEIR) for Regent Newport Beach go Project. The project consists of al 110 -room luxury resort hotel, administration building, and aspi vilh� partly subterranean parldni structure that will support four roof top tennis courts. 11--he prnject site is located along the north side of West Balboa Boulevard between 156'hnd I e R6 �,ut the City of Newport Beach. The nearest State Routes to the project are Pacific Coast Hija (PCH), SR- 55, and SR-73. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no corrularif i at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right-of-way, an:encroachme . tt permit will. be required. Applicant are required to plan .for sufficient permit proceeding time, :rWxa may include engineering studies a4ad environmental documentation. V Please continue to k�ep, us informed of any future developments. which could p.gternitially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact qm please, do not hesitate to call Mary6 Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Foat•a• Fax Note 71171 b ,eq,A, 0?�W ovk ! prfof, ICR/Community.Fla{lning Branch FVXA 2 F" c: Terry Roberts, OfLe of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic, Caftrans HQ IGR/Community Plaming Gail Farber, District 12 Deputy Director of Planning Saied Hashemi, Ttaffic Operations North Leslie Mandershei� , Environmental Planning B Jan 06 04 05:52p (925) 730 -0065 p.5 State of California - The Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME _ MARINE REGION 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100 Monterey, California 93940 (831) 649 -2870 htto://www.dfcLca.cLov November 19, 2003 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 RECEIVED 5 PLANNING DEP.ARTti'EN7 CITY AM ~}/ 2 A 2W3 PM 71819,10111112;1; 1u;41518 Subject: Comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Regent Newport Beach Hotel Project, SCH 2003111021 Dear Mr. Campbell: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed your Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Regent Newport Beach Hotel Project, Newport Beach, California. The proposed project would develop a 110 -room luxury resort consisting of one and two -story villas in 16 buildings with ancillary structures such as an administrative building, lobby, spa, subterranean parking structure, and tennis courts. The proposed project would displace an existing 56 -space mobile home park and would remove a community center, play areas, public tennis courts, and parking spaces. The community center would be replaced as would the play areas and the parking lot. The project includes development on 8.10 acres. The proposed project also includes beach enhancements, a public walkway, and a new 12 yacht marina within Newport Bay. The Department is a Trustee Agency in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Our primary objective for reviewing environmental documents is to be able to provide the project sponsor with recommendations for avoiding or minimizing negative impacts to fish and wildlife, their use and users. In attempting to meet this objective, our attention is usually focused upon potential habitat damage or loss, acute or chronic effects to fish and wildlife from changes in habitat quality, and possible use conflicts. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be included in the DEIR: The DEIR should contain a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. Conserving Cal forma's 'Wirdl fe Since 1870 r Jan 06 04 05:52p [925] 730 -0065 p.6 I Mr. James Campbell November 19, 2003 Page Two Focused species- specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species- specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). The DEIR should contain a thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off -site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian, and marine ecosystems. Impacts to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas such as impacts to benthic habitat from added marina docks should be fully evaluated and provided. The DEIR should discuss the expansion of bay coverage from new docks and the resultant loss of bay habitat available to sight foraging seabirds. Compensation for direct impacts to fish and wildlife habitat should be proposed in the form of habitat replacement, restoration, and improvement. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project impacts. It is the Department's position that a project should cause no net loss of wetland (e.g., intertidal) acreage or wetland habitat value. This would include expansion of any seawalls or bulkheads further seaward. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources - should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. If the proposed project involves beach replenishment activities the Department is concerned with the potential burial of any adjacent eelgrass habitat. Additionally, we are concerned with the increase in turbidity and suspended solids associated with beach building activities and the potential adverse impacts to marine plants, invertebrates, and fishes. Also of concern is the potential for excessive turbidity or siltation. Shoreline erosion conditions before, during, and after construction, and the fate of eroded materials should be studied and discussed. The DEIR should address any erosion which might be caused by deflected wave or water current energy or I 11 I I I I I i i I I I I I ' Jan 06 04 05 =52p I (925) 730 -0065 p.7 Mr. James Campbell November 19, 2003 Page Three other forces influenced by structures proposed to be placed in the water (e.g. new marina). The Department will need to be able to evaluate influences on water currents, flushing, sedimentation, and normal sediment transport. • Potential water quality problems which should be addressed by DEIR include sewage, litter, petroleum products, cleaning agents and wash down waters, fertilizers, heavy metals, pesticides and other materials which may enter the water. The Department also has a position of not approving the placement of creosote - treated wood products (e.g., pilings) in waters of the State. • Where a seawall, bulkhead, or rip -rap is proposed, construction materials should be identified and impacts discussed. Where rip -rap or rubble is to be used, materials should be considered for use which are of suitable diameter to - approximate natural rock habitat. • If dredging and dredge material disposal are part of the project, the DEIR should demonstrate whether this is maintenance or new work dredging, describe the geographic extent and types of habitat impacted, identify the volume of materials and proposed location of disposal, and discuss the quality of sediments to be ' removed. • Existing human uses such as fishing, or nature study in and adjacent to the project area should be identified and described. Impacts to these uses will need to be discussed. We thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns and look forward to reviewing your DEIR. As always, Department personnel are available to discuss our comments, concerns, and recommendations in greater detail. To arrange for a discussion, please contact Ms. Marilyn Fluharty, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, telephone (858) 467 -4231. ISincerely, Eric J. Larson, Northern California Manager ' Bays and Estuaries Ecosystem Coordinator Marine Region - Belmont cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento (original sent to Lead Agency) 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Marilyn Fluharty- Marine Region, San Diego Dec 17 03 01:20p (925) 730 -0065 J I I I I I I I i L _. MEMORANDUM To: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach From: Regent Newport Beach Hotel Subcommittee Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach Subject: Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Regent Newport Beach Hotel (the "Project') Date: November 18, 2003 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the captioned Project located on over eight (8) acres along West Balboa Blvd. between 15a Street and 18th Street in the City of Newport Beach, California. We offer the following comments in the hopes of improving the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") and the Project. 1. Project Description: The NOP contains an incomplete and confusing Project Description which the DEIR should complete and clarify. First, the Project Description of the hotel facility proper does not discuss the character and density of the "one and two-story villas:" the DEIR should discuss the number, location, and character of such villas individually and collectively. Also, the Project Description indicates the construction of four (4) public tennis courts. The DEIR must explain how this amenity which is located on the roof -top of the subterranean garage will be easily accessible and available to the public and the mechanisms which will encourage such use. Further and importantly, the Project Description conflicts with other parts of the NOP. For instance, the Project Description states that the Project includes a subterranean parking garage with one hundred (100) spaces and a forty -one (41) space surface shared parking lot. However, section XV t) notes that, in addition to the above, the Project will include sixty-eight (68) surface parking spaces for hotel uses. The DEIR must clarify and explain in the Project Description the nature and extent of parking resources for the Project and for replacement of existing parking spaces. In addition, the Project Description fails to discuss employee, contractor and supplier parking and access. The DEIR should discuss these Project features fully and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. p.I Dec 17 03 01:20p EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 2 November 18, 2003 (925) 730 -0065 p•2 Section 1.7 discusses Project Alternatives including the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1), the Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative 2), and the General Plan Consistent Alternative (Alternative 3). Alternative 2 is unclear: the NOP fails to discuss the nature, extent and rationale for Alternative 2's features. Alternative 3 is likewise unclear: it fails to discuss clearly the nature, extent and character of the alternative features including marine recreation and other uses. The DEIR should explain each of these Alternatives clearly. Finally, we have several formatting and identification concerns. First, the contact information for Mr. Campbell appears to be incorrect and inconsistent. Second, the maps are useless: they lack sufficient detail to inform the public of the nature of the Project and its features. The DEIR should include a detailed set of maps for location of the Project, its design and its features. 2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion: a. Aesthetics: The NOP states that the view corridors to Newport Bay from Balboa Boulevard are currently obstructed by the existing improvements on the site and that the Project will provide limited view corridors of the Bay. However, existing views are over the top of the single story structures, and include palm trees along the Bay, the tops of masts from sail boats on the Bay and the hills in the background. With the addition of the Project's two -story structures, portions of the existing view corridors to the Bay from Balboa Boulevard will be eliminated. The Environmental Checklist Responses indicates that the Project will include public access view corridors; however, the Project description does not address these view corridors. The DEIR should address all features of the Project including the two story structures and the subterranean garage with roof top tennis courts, explain the impacts of the two-story structures on Balboa Blvd. views. In addition, the NOP states that a "visual simulation analysis will be conducted and impacts on view corridors will be evaluated" and mitigation measures will be recommended as appropriate. The DEIR should include a visual simulation analysis in its entirety, or summarize the visual simulation analysis and include the analysis as an appendix which is generally available to the public. Through this analysis, the DEIR should analyze and address any impacts on the views to the Bay by the introduction of two-story structures. Further, the DEIR should analyze and address Project related aesthetic impacts to the character of Balboa Boulevard, which will be substantially altered by the volume and mass of the structures that are proposed. Also, the DEIR should analyze the impacts of lighted tennis courts which will be elevated approximately five feet above grade by the proposed project. Dee 17 03 01:20P (9251 730 -0065 EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 3 November 18, 2003 b. Air Ouality Section III a) recognizes that the Project may be inconsistent with "the local and regional growth projections and the SCAB Air Quality Management Plan." The NOP notes that the DEIR may include the Project's consistency with such plans. Such discussion must include a discussion of the consistency of existing uses with such plans. Sections III b), c) and d) recognize that the Project may create air quality impacts and indicates that the DEIR will include an appendix on air quality impacts. Such appendix and all appendices should be part of the DEIR and be generally available to the public. C. Biological Resources: The NOP states that the Project site is directly adjacent to the Newport Bay which "supports species such as eelgrass ... and invertebrates and also serves as a foraging area for federally and State listed endangered and threatened bird species." Howcver, the Checklist and Discussion conflicts with this explanation: the Project site appears to include a new twelve (12) slip marina which may affect the above biological resources in the Newport Bay. The DEIR should correctly identify the scope and extent of the Project site including the Project's extension into the bay, recognize Project related impacts on biological resources and propose any necessary mitigation. d. Cultural Resources: The NOP recognizes the developed character of the Project site. The DEIR should recognize that the Project site has not been studied. If, however, human remains or other cultural resources are found during Project construction, the DEIR should explain the procedures proposed for preserving such resources and notifying the appropriate regulatory entities. e. Geology and Soils: The Checklist recognizes that the Project may have potentially significant impacts on geology and soils unless mitigation occurs. For instance, Section IV a) iii) notes that the project site is located in an area susceptible to liquefaction and Section IV d) notes that, due to the Project's proximity to Newport Bay, soils may spread laterally toward the bay and result in instability. Although Section IV b) recognizes that the Project will require excavation, it states that such excavation is minimal. The DEIR should explain the exact nature and extent of such excavation, include a geotechnical report which discusses, explains and, if I p.3 Dec 17 03 01:20p EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 4 November 18, 2003 [925) 730 -0065 necessary, propose mitigation for any impacts of the Project and associated excavation on the soils at the Project site. L Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Section VII recognizes that the Project may create significant impacts unless mitigation occurs. The DEIR must explain the nature of such impacts and propose the necessary mitigation. For instance, Section VII b) concludes that the Project likely will have no significant impact or significant hazard to the public or the environment due to accidents or upsets involving hazardous materials. The DEIR should consider this aspect seriously. The Project site may have hazardous materials in the land to be excavated and/or the structures and improvements including trailers, mobile homes and boats (if any) which may require removal. Removal of such materials and structures could create the potential for upset or accident since the materials must be moved to a secure disposal location. The DEIR must explain this activity, discuss the threshold of significance, study the significance of the impact and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Likewise, Section VII d) recognizes that the Project may create significant impacts which will require mitigation because the Project is located on a site which may have hazardous materials and/or the potential for release of such materials. Section VII d) does not discuss whether or not the excavation of soils or dredging of the bay may release such materials and whether simply the removal of structures and other improvements may create such potential. Further, this section also fails to consider or promise consideration of historic uses in and around the Project site including any uses involving potentially hazardous materials which may have migrated to the site. In any event, the DEIR should fully discuss these aspects of the Project, e.g. soils removal, historic uses including adjacent uses which may affect the site and other issues, any dredging and removal of structures and improvements, and if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. g Hydrology and Water Ouality: Section VIII recognizes that the Project will affect existing drainage and may create significant impacts on hydrology and water quality without mitigation. The NOP notes that the Project will require a myriad of permits from federal, state and local authorities. The DEIR should explain in detail the potential impacts including short term construction impacts and long term operational impacts of the Project. Then, the DEIR should discuss, not merely the permitting processes and promise of compliance, but propose actual measures which will be part of the Project's application and proposed permit. Further, the NOP promises that a hydrology study will be prepared, summarized in the DEIR and included as an appendix. In addition to these, the Appendix should be generally available to the public. p•4 , I I I LJ I I I J I I i I 1 I I -- .......4- Drc 17 03 01:21p (925) 730 -0065 EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 5 November 18, 2003 1 Section VIII h) indicates that the Project with its proposed excavation and possible dredging will have no impacts on groundwater. The DEIR should explain and expand this discussion and explain how, with the excavation, the Project will have no impact on groundwater resources. Indeed, construction of the Project including the subterranean garage may require de- watering facilities. If so, then the DEIR should reconsider the significance of Project impacts on groundwater. h. Land Use and Plannine: Section IX b) recognizes that the Project potentially conflicts with applicable land use regulations. Specifically, it states that the project will require a General Plan Amendment, a zone change, an amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program, the adoption of the Regent Planned Community District Plan and a Use Permit. It also states that the DEIR will include an evaluation of the Project's compatibility with existing land uses and environmental plans and policies of the City, and mitigation measures will be recommended as appropriate. Section DC d) notes that the Project is not in the vicinity of a habitat conservation plan. However, the City is in the process of developing a plan for eel grass. The DEIR should discuss these efforts fully, identify any impacts and, if necessary, propose any necessary mitigation. i. Noise: Section XI recognizes that the Project may create significant noise impacts unless mitigation occurs. The DEIR must fully analyze and explain the nature and extent of any such impacts including all short team impacts relating to construction and all long term impacts relating to the operation of the Project. In the discussion of XI a), b), c), and d), the NOP recognizes that noise impacts of the Project may be different from existing or the no project altemative due to increased traffic. I However, this is only the tip of the iceberg: both long term and short term impacts will arise which will not occur in the no build alternative. The DEIR should thoroughly discuss all such impacts including noise associated with the hotel and its activities where little or no such noise occurs in the no build alternative. Further, Section XI's discussion is one - sided: it concerns only noise receptors which are external to titc Project. The DEIR should also consider, analyze and discuss Project intemal noise receptors, e.g. guests, visitors, employees and contractors, in order to determine fully the nature and extent of the Project impacts. If necessary, the DEIR should provide mitigation for this internal impact. I I p.5 Dec 17 03 01:21p (925) 730 -0065 EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 6 November 18, 2003 1 Population and Housing: Section XII recognizes that the Project may create less than significant impacts on housing in the City. Section X11 a) estimates that the Project may result in an increase of fifty -eight (58) employees for the hotel. Given the character of the hotel, e.g. an upscale five star resort, this figure seems low even for the reduced scale of the Project. The DEIR should fully analyze this aspect, provide a range of employee numbers, and discuss the impacts of a projected maximum number of employees. The DEIR should also discuss the availability of housing for any such maximum number of workers including any workers who may require access to low cost housing. Section XII b) indicates that, although the Project may displace existing residents of the mobile home park, most of these are not full -time residents and their mobile homes are merely vacation homes. Although it may be advisable to change the use of the site, the DEIR must fully discuss any displacement including removal of any low cost housing including senior affordable housing which may be present on the site. The DEIR analysis may occur in the section on Population and Housing or in the section on Land Use and Planning. K Public Services: Section XIII i), ii) and v) indicates that the Project may create potentially significant Impacts on public services including fire and police services. Although the NOP indicates that full discussion of such impacts awaits the preparation of the DEIR, we believe that the DEIR should fully discuss impacts on public services including fire and police in view of the heightened security consciousness in the City and throughout the country. This discussion should include all necessary information including for example the number of project calls for any such services as well as the numbers of calls for the no build alternative. 1. Recreation: p.6 I Section XIV recognizes that any Project related impacts on recreation will be non - existent or less than significant. Section XIV b) is troubling: although it concludes that the Project will have a less than significant impact on recreational facilities, it concludes that any significant impacts may require mitigation. The DEIR should clarify this and other issues relating to recreation. Section XIV a) indicates that the Project will have no impact on the use of existing recreational resources. The DEIR should carefully consider this conclusion and analyze the nature and character of the proposed use. We understand that one rationale for the Project is that it will increase access to and views of Newport Bay. If so, then the DEIR should analyze the Project related impacts of any such increased access on recreational resources and propose necessary mitigation. !I Cl I I I I I 1 I I 11 Dec 17 03 01:22p (925) 730 -0065 EQAC City of Newport Beach Page 7 November 18, 2003 For example, currently the public may gain access to the Bay through the existing mobile home park. We understand that the Project will increase such access. The DEIR should address any impacts due to this increased access and if necessary, propose mitigation. ISection XIV b) addresses the Project's recreational features. As indicated above, the conclusion is confusing: Significant impacts requiring mitigation or no significant impacts. Likely the former is the case. Currently, the Project site includes four (4) public tennis courts which are easily accessible. The Project proposes a roof top alignment above the proposed subterranean garage. The DEIR should discuss public use and access to this roof top facility as well as guest use and access. The DEIR should propose necessary mitigation in case public use is adversely affected by the Project. In addition and as discussed below, the DEIR should address public parking for any such recreational use, e.g. use of the roof top tennis courts. p.7 I In addition, currently the Project site has docks and related facilities for boat mooring. The DEIR should address the Project related use of such recreational space, fully address any Project related impacts including use of limited number of spaces and, if necessary, provide mitigation. Further, as indicated above, the Project is supposed to increase public access to the Bay and Bay front beaches. The DEIR should discuss this Project amenity and benefit, analyze any impacts including impacts on water quality and/or recreation, and if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Also, the Project proposes to replace many existing on site recreational facilities including tennis courts, community center /Girl Scout Center and children's play area. The DEIR should discuss and analyze the compatibility of such uses with the proposed hotel, any impacts of the hotel on such uses and/or vice versa, and, if necessary, mitigation for such impacts. IM. Transportation and Circulation: Sections XV a) and b) recognize that the Project may create significant traffic impacts which may require mitigation. The discussion promises a traffic study, and if necessary, mitigation or Project features which may address such problems. However, the discussion fails to appreciate the seasonal character of traffic along Balboa Blvd. The DEIR should incorporate the analysis promised by the NOP and also discuss, analyze and if necessary propose mitigation for Project impacts on seasonal traffic problems in the area and the Project's impacts on such traffic problems. ' Section XV d) concludes that the Project will have no impact related to design hazards. However, this conclusion Iacks support. The DEIR should discuss and analyze the Project's design and impact on the intersections at 15', 16', 17th and 18ie Streets with I Dec 17 03 01:22p F.QAC City of Newport Beach Page 8 November 18, 2003 (9251 730 -0065 Balboa Blvd. This analysis should address the Project impacts on driver's lines of sight at these various intersections for drivers gaining access to Balboa Blvd. In addition, the NOP contains a truncated Project description which may affect Section XV d)'s analysis. For instance, this section does not address access for service vehicles to the 100 car garage by way of the alley from 15`h Street and next to the Veterans Park and barbecue area where there is no sidewalk. Section XV f) indicates that the Project may result in inadequate parking. As indicated above, the Project description including the description of Project parking demands and resources is incomplete. First, the nature of the shared parking is unclear and requires specificity. The DEIR should fully discuss the nature of such parking plan, its ability to meet the parking demand and any necessary mitigation. The NOP promises that the DEIR will incorporate a parking study as an appendix. As indicated above, the appendices including the parking appendix should be generally available. More importantly, the parking study should address all of the Project's parking demands including the Project's guests, employees, service providers and consultants as well as the demands of the other uses on the site. In addition, the parking study should also address parking in the area including the Project's potential impacts on street parking. For instance, will the Project result in a loss of street parking because of dedicated turn lanes? Also, will special events at the Project affect on- street parking including metered and non - metered parking adversely? The DEIR should analyze these and other issues, and if necessary, propose appropriate mitigation. n. Mandatory Findings of Significance: Section XVII analyzes the mandatory findings including the Project's impact on and degradation of the environment, cumulative impacts and any impacts which may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Although Section XVII notes that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts for each category, it fails to mention whether the DEIR will consider mitigation measures for any such impacts. We encourage the preparers to include a discussion of mitigation measures for any such impacts. 3. Conclusion: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important Project. We hope that these comments will further perfect the DEIR and the Project. p.a I I I LI I I I n I J I I I L� I IJan 06 04 05:09p I Central. Newport Beach (925) 730 -0065 p.9 Community .�sociation P.O. Bas 884 • Newport Beath, Califcmia 92661 1 November 19, 2003 PLANNINE PAR C D - +7w1 ,, CITY 0i: Ni- U,1o:n campground.. AM �sOV ` `I 2{]03 Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner 718191101111121112131415 6 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard I Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice Of Preparation — Regent Newport Beach Hotel Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Regent Newport Beach Hotel. This hotel is proposed to be located within the boundaries of the Central Newport Beach Community Association ( CNBCA) and, therefore, is of special concern to our members. The CNBCA comments on each section are as follows: Section 1: 1.2 Project Location — the EIR should discuss the project's abutting and intruding into Newport Bay. 1.3 Site History — the EIR should identify the half -court basketball as an existing use. It also should include the history of the site as a public campground.. 1.4 Environmental Setting - again, the EIR should address the adjacency to Newport Bay. It should be noted that the "asphalt parking lot" described as bordering the proposed project is part of the American Legion and is also a dry boat storage facility. Mention also should be included in the EIR of the adjacent Edison power station and the proposed sewer lift station. By the time the draft EIR is distributed the residential property to the east of the proposed project could be a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility and, should the conversion occur, should be identified in the EIR. Exhibit 3 — the size of the map makes the detail indiscernible. There is no scale so a determination of the impacts, most especially of the proposed marina, Jan 06 04 05:10p (925) 730 -0065 p.9 , can be assessed. The draft EIR must have better graphic definition including scale, measurements, cross sections and elevations. 1.5 Project Description — the project description is inadequate in that there is no discussion of potential restaurant, cafe, banquet room facilities, etc. These are major traffic generators. Removal of the half court basketball improvement is not mentioned. These items must be clarified in the EIR. The discretionary approval list should have had the agencies responsible for issuing the discretionary approvals and the addition should be included in the EIR. No mention was made of a public election in the discretionary approvals. 1.6 Cumulative Impacts — the EIR should include all proposed and potential projects, including the promotion of tourism, from Peninsula Point through West Newport up to Superior and Placentia on the north west and up to 171h Street, Costa Mesa, in its assessment of local cumulative impacts. These are areas that impact and are impacted by traffic, etc. from activities on Balboa Peninsula. 1.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Action — Impacts of Alternative 1 should be analyzed in the EIR with the mobile home park at its current and historic occupancy rather than attributing all year full occupancy to its units. Alternative 2 will need more discretionary approvals than identified and discussion should be expanded in the EIR. Alternative 3 is vague and completely open to manipulation. The EIR should address uses allowed under current zoning that have at least been earlier acknowledged by City studies. This would include recreation uses such as described in a 1983 PB &R Commission report on "Marinapark Study — Alternative Uses" which included a public swimming beach, open space and public landscape, beach access ways, small boat hand launching, public parking and a community multi - purpose building. No study has ever proposed boat slips as defined in the NOP. Such a use would be virtually impossible to construct under existing regulations and would create a highly impactful Alternative 3 for analysis in the EIR thus rendering such a use as not feasible. 1.8 Environmental Determination — Thank you for requiring an EIR. Recreation as well as Population and Housing should be reclassified into "Effects Found to be Potentially Significant" and analyzed in the EIR. The reasons for this recommendation will be included in following discussion. Section 2 — Please see comments in Section 3. Section 3 — Discussion of Environmental Evaluation I I LI I I I I I I I I I 11 IJan 06 04 05:10p (925) 730 -0065 p.10 1. c) The mass of structures must be addressed in the EIR as well as the view of the proposed project from the bay side and from properties facing the bay. The proposed boat slips also will impact the view from the public I beach and the aesthetics of the open beach as it now exists. There is no architectural rendering by which to judge the aesthetic impacts but any architectural features which extend above the two stories described must be analyzed in the EIR. I. d) The EIR must address light spillage onto the beach and bay and the effect on of the light on wildlife. The area currently is quite dark and the impact will be substantial on Balboa Boulevard, adjacent land uses, the bay as well as boats moored and passing and uses across the water. II. No comments. III. The checklist understates the number of potential employees. The EIR must address a legitimate number of employees for the project as used in industry standards for luxury hotels. Construction will have substantial-air quality impact. To minimize the effects of diesel fumes during construction, as described in the NOP, is a disservice to those who have to breathe them and fumes must be mitigated. Disturbing the land for construction, especially for an underground garage, has the potential of releasing underground gases that are found locally and mitigation should be addressed in the event of this happening. These concerns should be addressed in the EIR. IV. The beach in front of the potential project is a favorite resting and foraging spot for a variety of marine bird species. There is little open bay beach for ' such birds. The new boat slips are proposed for overnight occupancy and the end tie and slips could be used for charter vessels. The EIR must address the impact of light, noise, and increased human activity on the birds which need this beach. V. Only the surface of this site has historically been used. The proposed project will require substantial excavation. The EIR should require a mitigation measure for an on -site archeo -paleo monitor during construction to determine if any cultural resources are unearthed. VI. The proposed project will require substantial grading to construct the underground 100 car garage. Additionally the proposed boat slips will require piling. Impacts of those activities should be addressed in the EIR and mitigated as necessary. This also includes mitigating dewatering that will be necessary. VII. The proposed boat slips have the potential to facilitate hazardous materials from boats entering the bay water. This includes leaching from 3 i Jan 06 04 05:51p (925) 730 -0065 p.2 ' paints, spillage of oil, diesel and gas as well as any illegal discharges from heads. Mitigation measures must be included in the EIR. There have been potential generators of hazardous wastes in the area. A gasoline station was closed under appropriate regulation at 15th and West Balboa. There was an oil distribution facility at 18th and Balboa, the use of which was discontinued well before hazardous material mitigation was a concern. The EIR should investigate any potential migration onto the site that would be disturbed during construction and should require mitigation as necessary. The proposed project will exacerbate emergency access and egress from the Peninsula. There is only one route onto and off the Peninsula for its substantial population which swells in the summer with tourists. The EIR should address the cumulative impact on emergency access, especially if Peninsula evacuation or massive public aid is needed and the cumulative impact of hotel occupants and employees on the emergency system in the case of a large event. Vlll. Dewatering will be necessary during construction. The EIR must address the impact and mitigate for it. IX. The proposed project abolishes an existing community, the mobile home park. It also separates the residential area west of 181h Street from the balance of the residential areas east of 18th Street, thus creating an island of residential use between the commercial uses of the Newport Pier and the proposed hotel. This impact should be addressed in the EIR and mitigated as needed. X. Sand within the State tidelands is considered an asset of the State of California. Any removal of sand from the site, including the bay must be addressed with the State and appropriately mitigated. XI. Noise from the proposed project's components must be addressed in the EIR. This includes music, parties in the rooms /villas, the backing up warning bells from deliver trucks, etc. Occupancy of boats overnight in the proposed new slips and the use of the end tie for charter vessels has the potential to increase noise substantially and the impact must be addressed in the EIR. The fact that noise carries differently over water than land must also be included in the analysis. Appropriate mitigation must be included. XII. A statement is made that there will be approximately 50 employees. This number is well below the industry standard used for luxury hotels. An appropriate number of employees must be included in the analysis. While the incremental number is nominal for the entire City, it is significant for the Peninsula. Housing for the potential employees, including low wage earners should be addressed in the EIR, especially as a cumulative impact on the Peninsula and adjacent cities. rd 1 I F I I I I I I I I I 11 IJan 06 04 05:51p Ll (925) 730 -0065 p.3 XIII. Increased usage of the beach may require additional lifeguards. Increased boating activity resulting from new boat slips will impact the Harbor Patrol. These impacts should be analyzed in the EIR. XIV. Rather than an environmental determination of "No Impact," Recreation should be changed to "Potentially Significant Impact." It is grossly unfair to include this site with other parks in the City. The environmental checklist is oriented toward a project's increasing the need for recreation and impacting existing facilities by demand and inadequately addresses this site. The checklist is wholly inadequate when addressing a zone change and general plan amendment that would change zoning on 8.1 acres from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to zoning compatible with a commercial hotel. There is little bay beach available in the City. The project must be analyzed as a unique coastal access and recreation feature and not lumped together with the traditional parks in the City. This site includes over 900 linear feet fronting the bay. The property was accumulated by the City with the express purpose of providing public recreation. The impact on the beach's recreational utility for quiet enjoyment, hand boat launching, boat landing, and swimming must be addressed. Most of all the loss of the potential to create a public marine - oriented recreation facility utilizing the entire 8.1 acre site as originally envisioned (and historically used) must be analyzed in the EIR. It is difficult to imagine that mitigation can be achieved. XV. It goes without saying that traffic is of substantial concern in Central Newport as well as the rest of the Peninsula and City. In review of Response a) traffic must be analyzed at all hours during all times of the year. There is gridlock during the summer, just at the time guests would be arriving for check -in and for hotel events. This must be included in the analysis and a determination made if the increase is an unavoidable impact or if mitigation is possible. Response b), again all circumstances must be analyzed, Response d) From the graphic of the hotel, albeit small, it appears there is no way to turn into the hotel from east -bound Balboa Boulevard, the logical approach to the hotel on a Peninsula. This inadequacy will result in vehicles, including trucks and limosines making a u -turn at 15th Street thus backing up traffic.. During peak summer periods this u -turn may become impossible. The only other alternative is to use an alley beside Veterans Park which is narrow and which abuts a park and other uses. These impacts must be analyzed. Response f), it is difficult to understand how the city's regulations would require only 55 parking spaces for a 120 room hotel, ancillary uses and recreation uses including public tennis courts and a community center. A "real world" analysis of parking must be made. This includes full time summer usage with full employment, full rooms, all hotel ancillary facilities utilized as well as full usage of the community center, boating facilities and tennis courts. Jan 06 04 05:52p [925] 730 -0065 p.4 Overlapping shifts of employees must be included in the analysis. Also the City has allowed the hotel at 18"' and West Balboa to use spaces in the 21 space City parking lot. This overflow must be included in the analysis. Consideration must also be given to parking for public beach visitors not using the hotel. This intensity of usage is not just a one day "Fourth of July" event but occurs all summer and on nice days throughout the rest of the year. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We also propose that a mitigation monitoring program be included as a requirement for the potential project to ensure that conditions of approval are met. We look forward to receiving the Draft EIR incorporating our concems. Very truly yours, Louise Fundenberg, President Central Newport Beach Community Association M I 1 I [1 I 1 I I II I 1 1 i 1 1 IJan 06 04 04:36p 1 I (925) 730 -0065 p.3 Cary D. Lowe Attomev at Law 228 SAINT ALBANS AVENUE SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91030 (323) 255 -7600 FACSIMILE (323) 255 -6330 clowe @socal.rr.com Specifically, the Initial Study should be modified to identify the following issues as having potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore requiring analysis in the EIR: a. Cultural Resources. Issue V.a. October24,2003 ' RECEIVED BY VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS PLANNING, DEPARTMENT CITY OF N'- u1enZZ7 REACH ' James Campbell, Senior Planner OCT 2 9 2003 City of Newport Beach AM PPA Planning Department 718 19 ;10111112111213141516 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Regent Newport Beach Hotel Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR Dear Mr. Campbell: On behalf of the Marinapark Homeowners Association, l would like to comment on the Initial Study prepared in connection with the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Regent Newport Beach Hotel project. In addition to the environmental issues identified in the Initial Study as having potentially significant impact, there are several other issues which the Initial Study did not identify, but which also may result in potentially significant impacts. Specifically, the Initial Study should be modified to identify the following issues as having potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore requiring analysis in the EIR: a. Cultural Resources. Issue V.a. The Marinapark mobile home park is a historical resource within ' the meaning of Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Historically, the site was an early location of beachfront recreation/camping facilities predating the urbanization of the area, and the existing mobile home park has occupied the site for nearly half a ' century. It represents one of the last remaining examples of the coastal mobile home communities which once were a Southern California institution, and thus possesses the distinctive characteristics that establish its historical significance. Development of the proposed project would result in the complete demolition of this community and obliteration of its historical value. Marinapark.Corr.CiryNB. 102403 (IS) Jan 06 04 04:36p (925) 730 -0065 p.4 I James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach October 24, 2003 Page 2 b. Geology and Soils. Issue VI•a. Although the proposed project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Fault Zone, it is in sufficiently close proximity to the active Newport- Inglewood Fault that the project would have a high likelihood of exposing people and structures to a potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death C. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Issue VII.s. The proposed project would substantially increase the number of people, and the level of traffic and other activity, at this location, midway along a narrow, densely developed peninsula. As a result, it would impair implementation of and physically interfere with the City's plans for responding to emergencies on the peninsula or carrying out an emergency evacuation of the peninsula. d. Land Use and Planning. Issue IX.a. _ The proposed project would not only divide an established community, but would literally obliterate it. For over 40 years, the Marinapark mobile home park has been a cohesive community at this location, and can not realistically be relocated. Consequently, development of the proposed project would result in termination of the existence of this community. e. Population and Housing. Issues XII.b. & c. The Marinapark mobile home park represents the last housing in the area which is affordable to households of low to moderate income. The current residents of the mobile home park (the population of which is underestimated in the Initial Study) include a significant number for whom there are no alternative housing opportunities in the City. Consequently, development of the proposed project will displace substantial numbers of both people and housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Failure to include the above - described items in the analysis contained in the EIR will render that document legally deficient and subject to challenge. , We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these documents, and look forward to reviewing the EIR when it becomes available. ' Sincerely, e Lo I oV Cary . CDL:sh , cc: John Rettberg, Marinapark Homeowners Association Muinapuk.CamCityNa. 102403 (IS) Jan 06 04 04:36P FROM I IOctober 30, 2003 (925] 730 -0065 P•6 FAX NO. : + + + + + + + + + ++ DEBORAH CALVERT PO BOX 11221 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 949 50 -2080 VOICE & FAX Oct. 30 2ee3 11:46W P1 Attentiom: Mr. Jtanes Campbell, Senior Plmum City of Newport Beach ' Planning Dept 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 9265&8915 Oct. 30 2ee3 11:46W P1 Sincerely, Dcbbie Calvert Concerned Citizen of Newport Beach I 1. I Attentiom: Mr. Jtanes Campbell, Senior Plmum RE: Regmt Newport Beach Hote! Envitomacrilml Impact Issues Dear Mr. Campbell, I'm a 40 year [eskkat of Orange County, property owner and resident of Newport Beach., and although t currently live in district nwnber duve, I did rent for one year near this location, at 18" Saco & Oceanfront and am quite familiar with the noise, traffic, populzbon, reaestion use, etc. of this area. Upon review of the initial study prepared by Michael Brandman Aasociatvs it's apparent they've concluded the projesi Big have poteubally significant erryuntuDWWl impacts unless mitigation is incorporated. It's my opinion that this is not a devcJopmem that's needed in this commaauy. That at the very least if any changes are made it makes sense to me to keep this area as a recreation area and or open arse ( park) for the residents of the peninsula, inatcad of adding hundreds of t additional people arnong ftr current popular ion, as either workers and/or transients and/or temporary Hotel clientele, WHATEVER the source, creating a traffic nightmare, more water poludon, sewer considerations. which are all more problarav this this small peninsula can afford- Sincerely, Dcbbie Calvert Concerned Citizen of Newport Beach I 1. I Jan 06 04 04:36p (925) 730- 0065 P.O , Nov 03 03 04:36p November 1, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Newport Beach c/o Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: Proposed Regent Hotel LISPS & FAX (949)644 -3229 Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning Department: I have been a resident of Newport Beach since buying a home at 1826 -26%2 W. Balboa Blvd. nearly 14 years ago. Your announcement for the October 29b meeting to review the initial Environmental Impact Study was inadvertently delivered to my tenant. I did not receive it until today and therefore was unable to attend the meeting, but would nevertheless like to provide some concerns that I feel strongly about in this letter. Thank you for sending any fume correspondence regarding the Proposed Hotel to my P.O. Box 888 Newport Beach CA 92661- 0888 address to avoid confusion. Increased Traffic On Vilelle Place Most residents (including myself) with property that front Vilelle Place between 18"i and 19`b Street have bedrooms within several feet of this street. The preliminary development site plan that I viewed over a year ago in the planning department showed a traffic pattern whereby vehicles taken directly off Balboa Blvd. into the hotel parking lot, and then returned back to the boulevard via a currently locked gate on Vilelle Place. Increased day and night traffic down Vilelle Place is unacceptable under any circumstances. p.2 ' Proposed trogic from the opening of currentlylockedgaee on Vilelle Place will result in unacceptable ovqffic past bedrooms of homes between fe to l e Streets. Page I of 2 I I I 1 ' Jan 06 04 04:37p (925) 730 -0065 Nov 03 03 04:36p Morissette 11/01/03 Reduced Or Modified Use Of Marina Park Beach One of the reasons I bought my home in this block was because of the beach on the bay. The location is unusual in that it offers a moderately wind - protected stretch of beach and water for wanting, windsurfing, or sailing small boats. Any reduction of the beach's length could ' compromise its use for these purposes — especially in the summertime when the West end is restricted by ropes and buoys for swimming. p.9 j 1 Page 2 of 2 p.3 Reduced Metered Parking Or Increased Demand For Existing Parkin% Another reason I purchased my home on this block was because of the greater number of metered parking spaces for tenants and visitors. The wait for a metered parking place on a typical summer day along the bay beach has increased in the past ten years from 15 -20 minutes to now, 30 -60 minutes. I continue to be puzzled by the increased use, since there appears to be no change in the resident population or number of units in the area_ Nevertheless, the parking is currently unacceptable. A large development that would encourage additional transient traffic would only ' increase the existing problem. Reduced Marina Park Public Facilities Any reduction in the Marina Park public facilities, especially including the lighted tennis courts, the playground, and the basketball court is unacceptable. Yet another deciding factor when purchasing my home was the proximity to these facilities. I don't really care if the locations are juggled within the block, as long as the facilities remain in the block and public facilities. I have the same view with regard to the Marina Park beach. A change the use of the beach (e.g., private use for hotel guests, or redevelopment as a marina with boat slips) is completely unacceptable. The beach is a unique public space on the bay for wanting, launching small boats, as well as swimming. Few of these spaces remain on the bay. ' Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments. Please keep me informed of any other opportunities for public comment on this issue that will have considerable impact on my neighbors and I in the coming years. Very- truly yours: i Craig Morissette (949)675 -2237 P.O. Box 888, Newport Beach, CA 92661 -0889 j 1 Page 2 of 2 p.3 Jan 06 04 05:08p (925) 730 -0065 p.4 t SANDRA GENTS, PLANNING RESOURCES , 1586 MYRMEWOOD COSTA TvMSA, CA. 92626 PHONE/FAX (714) 75-0814 November 19, 2003 RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT James Campbell CITY O;r N;:t"VD,._.r °EkCH Senior Planner miV 2 0 M ' City of Newport Beach AM PM Planning Department 7181g1101111121I1Ei3141816 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 -8915 Subject: NOP for Regent Newport Beach Hotel Dear Mr. Campbell: , These comments are submitted in response to the City of Newport Beach Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Regent Newport Beach Hotel. It is understood that the project would consist of a 110 -room luxury resort hotel housed in one and ' two story structures at the existing Marinapark site. The project would also include a 110- space, partly subterranean parking lot, four roof -top public tennis courts, a 6,191 square foot community center /Girl Scout house, a tot lot, and 41 -space surface parking lot. The project would entail the removal of the existing 56 -space mobile home park, the Balboa community Center, the Girl Scout House, children's play area, tennis courts and parking. Although these uses are described verbally, the environmental impact report (EIR) for the project ' should include a site plan showing existing uses. Further, the proposed site plan shows a fair amount of detail in a small space. In order for decision makers and members of the general public to have the opportunity for meaningful review of project details, plans in the DEIR should be provided on fold -outs a minimum of eleven by seventeen inches in size. For a meaningful comparison, the square footage and land area occupied by existing, and proposed uses must be provided in the DEIR. Would the proposed resort occupy only the area now occupied by the mobile home park, or would it extend beyond that, into areas now occupied by walkways or alleys? , In addition to those issues identified in the Initial Study, the following questions and comments must be addressed in the environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project: ' Proiect Approvals ' Is the proposed project consistent with provisions of the City Charter regarding this site in particular and city -owned land in general, or would a charter amendment be required to implement the proposed project? , Page 1 of ' ' Jan 06 04 05:08P (925) 730 -0065 P,5 What type of permit would be required pursuant to City administration of Government Code Section 65590? Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts must address changes to the circulation system, including the removal of the Nineteenth Street/Banning bridge for transportation master plans. Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect Alternatives to the proposed project must include development pursuant to the 1983 Marinapartc Alternate Uses Study prepared by the Marinapark Study Committee under the aegis of the Newport Beach Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission at the direction of the City Council. An alternate site for the proposed resort should also be considered. Aesthetics The EIR should examine impacts on views from Lido Island and the bluffs above the harbor, in Newport Heights. Air Quality Does the potential exist for the release of odors during excavation of materials during the construction phase of the project? Biological Resources The EIR must examine the potential for indirect impacts on biological resources due to impaired water quality, noise, and light/glare. Cultural Resources As an older structure that has had an important role in the community, does the Girl Scout House meet criteria for listing in the Register of Historic Places? Hazards and Hazardous Materials Has an investigation, including review of site history and historic photos, been conducted regarding the presence of abandoned tanks on the site? Impacts on emergency access to the Peninsula due to construction activities must be examined. Hydrologv and Water Quality How would "first flush" from storm waters be retained on site? Page 2 of 4 Jan 06 04 05:08p (9251 730 -0065 p.6 ' How would commingling of urban runoff from the site and tidal waters in the highest high tides be prevented? Would excavation for subterranean parking encounter groundwater? If so, what means would be ' used to dispose of the water? The boat slips would contribute to the cumulative need to boat pump -out facilities. The marina ' should include a boat pump - out station. Cumulative impacts due to leaching of heavy metal from boat paints must be examined. Construction must be scheduled to avoid the rainy season so that excess sediment will not be ' washed into the Bay. Noise ' The noise analysis must include the effects of noise traveling across the water to residences on Lido Island. , Population and Housing It is astonishing that a City with a highly publicized dearth of low and moderate income housing t would deem as "no significant impact" the loss of fifty six housing units, of which fifteen or so are apparently occupied year- round. Relocation impact studies typically address merely the barest needs for relocation of the existing residents. The financial assistance often falls short of true needs, and typically the studies utterly fail to address the social and emotional costs of moving for the usually elderly residents. Thus, the preparation of relocation impact study does not guarantee that no adverse impacts would occur to population or housing. The EIR must examine the effects of the proposed project on available housing stock within the City of Newport Beach. Particular attention must be given to units occupied by low and moderate income residents, consistent with the requirements of Section 65500 of the California Government Code. The housing analysis must examine how the proposed project would affect the City's ability to meet the housing goals spelled out in the City's adopted General Plan Housing Element. The ' analysis must also examine how the proposed project would affect the City's ability to meet its assigned Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Initial Study discusses full -time occupancy as a percent of tenants. Do the percentages also , reflect the number of units? What percent of units is currently occupied rear - round? The discussion of housing must specify both numbers of units and tenants, and should quantify low and moderate income households and tenants. 1 Paa 3 of 4 1 ' Jan 06 04 05:09p [925] 730 -0065 11 Recreation ' The assertion that an existing children's park can be eliminated and re- established; tennis courts can be eliminated and rebuilt; community buildings can be demolished and rebuilt; and major construction can occur both adjacent to and across the beach, all without any impacts on ' recreation defies the imagination. How many linear feet of beach shoreline exist on the site now and how many would exist upon ' implementation of the proposed project? How many square feet of public beach exist now, and ' how many would exist in the future ?. How many square feet of children's play area exist now and how many would exist in the future? How many total square feet of community meeting space, including the Girl Scout House exist now and how many would exist in the future? ' Would these areas be reduced or eliminated entirely during construction? Would any walkways or alleys currently providing beach or park access be eliminated? How would access be maintained during construction? The EIR must identify short-term, as well as long -term impacts on recreation, including disruption due to construction. This must include impacts on the beach and other on -site recreation facilities. Among those items to be considered are effects on the ability to launch ' small watercraft from the site. The EIR must examine access to coastal recreation both during construction and long -term. This must include parking availability and increased demand for parking in the project area. ' The EIR must examine how what is essentially a life -time lease of the site for commercial use would affect the ability of the City to meet its goals under the adopted Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Transportation and Circulation ' Based on the site plan, it appears that at least one of the driveways would line up with a street on the opposite side of Balboa Boulevard, Would cars be permitted to make left turns to exit the site? Would vehicles be permitted to cross Balboa and continue on through towards the beach? Would this create a hazard? ' - Page 4 of 4 p. 7 Conclusion The above items must be included in documentation for the proposed project. I look forward to reviewing additional documentation as it becomes available. Yours Truly ' Sandra L. Genis ' - Page 4 of 4 p. 7 Jan 06 04 05:55p (925) 730 -0065 p.11 ' JAN D. 2221 East 16" Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 November 25, 2003 James Campbell. Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 VANDERSLOOT, M.D. Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 Em". JonV3(r#aol.com r `G, .lY ti,ab _ Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Regent Newport Beach Hotel Project Applicant: Sutherland Talla Hospitality Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the Regent Newport Beach Hotel at the area commonly known as Marinapark. Please put me on the distribution list for any notices concerning this project I just received notice of availability of this document on November 20, 2003, and received the Initial Study itself on November 23, 2003. Due to the citywide interest in this project and an upcoming citywide vote on the project, this Initial Study should have received wider distribution throughout the City. The Initial Study itself does not include a Distribution List, and I request that list be included in the DEIR. I believe there was inadequate public notice of the NOP and IS. I believe the Draft EIR should contain more information than the Initial Study indicates will be included in the DEIR Under Section 1.6, Cumulative Impacts, an analysis should be made of the cumulative impacts of hotels possibly ringing the bay, induced by the development of this project. Also, the Cumulative Impact of loss of REOS from the General Plan should be analyzed, as the St Mark Presbyterian Church project, with loss of 10.81 acres of REOS is being processed concurrently with this project, which will lose an additional 8.1 acres of REOS from the City's General Plan. Under Section 1.7, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, the alternative proposed by the PBR Commission a couple of years ago should be included in the DEIR and.analyzed for feasibility and possible adoption by the decision makers. Also, an alternative of creating a passive park serving as a window to the bay along Balboa Blvd should be considered, with removal of the mobile homes, similar to the El Moro situation at Crystal Cove State Park. Under Section 1.8.1, Effects Not Found To Be Significant, the IS finds that impacts to recreation are less than significant or of no impact. However, the project changes the General Plan Land Use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to a District Plan, resulting in loss of 8.10 acres of REOS. This is a significant impact and should be considered as such, including the cumulative impacts of loss of REOS designations of other areas in the City, such as the St. Marks project. The St. Marks project is being processed concurrently with the Regent Newport Beach Hotel project, which will result in a loss of an additional 10.81 acres of REOS. The loss of 1 1 1 1 1 rl J r-- J 1 1 1 1_I ' Jan 06 04 05:55p (925) 730 -0065 p.12 I 1 JAN D. VA"ERSLOOT, 2221 East 16' Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548-0326 M.D. Office Phone: (714) 843 -0770 Office Far: (714) 848 -6643 Email: JonV3Caaaol.com ' Sincerely, /IanD. Vandersloot, ENID 1 1 1 1 1 F 8.10 acres of REOS from the Regent Hotel plus 10.81 acres of REOS lost with St. Marks is a ' cumulatively significant loss of 18.91 acres that should be analyzed and mitigated. Analysis should include traffic and other environmental impacts from both projects since REOS open space is being converted to more intensive uses. Mitigation sites for replacement open space ' should include land such as the Lower Castaways site. Other mitigation strategies such as retaining more open space in the project site that would retain the REOS designation should be considered, such as 50% retained as open space. Such a strategy; including replacement open space at Castaways, should ensure that no net loss of REOS in the Citv occurs with either or both ' of these projects. Section 3, Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, Environmental Checklist Responses, I. ' Aesthetics, Environmental Checklist Responses: a) scenic vista, b) scenic resources, c)existing visual character. The DEIR should include an analysis of the scenic vista and scenic resources if the current General Plan designation of REDS is ultimately fulfilled, that is, removal of the 1 mobile homes and other view blocking structures. Under the existing REDS designation, there could be a wide -open vista of the bay for the public along Balboa Blvd, probably the last opportunity to reclaim and preserve a bay view for the public in perpetuity. The proposed project will forever take away this view, and that is a significant impact. The view corridor that is proposed for the project is pathetic compared to the potential views created by the current REDS designation. ' Thank you again for the opportunity to make comments and please put me on the distribution list for further notices, including my email address ofJonV3@aol.com. ' Sincerely, /IanD. Vandersloot, ENID 1 1 1 1 1 F u, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [1 1 1 1 1 Resort B Communitv Plan - Draft E/R Appendix B: Geotechnical Investigation ' Michael Brandman Associates HKIiem (PNJN)W064\OObt00200E1RW 0020 Appendix Divider doe GE®TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NORTH SIDE OF BALBOA BLVD. TO THE BAY BETWEEN 15th & 18th STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 01-011 DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 REVISED AND UPDATED DECEMBER 16, 20033 Itat oft7.1Ii�i7te1[i STEPHEN R. SUTHERLAND COMPANY, INC. 4500 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 650 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 .ABSTF3.,�CT CONSUL 71NO GROUP 5645 E. SRN JOAN BRIDE • ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92869 (714)639 -7440 • FAH (714)639 -7442 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............. ............................... SCOPE OF WORK ............. ............................... SITE CONDITIONS ........... ............................... FIELD INVESTIGATION . ............................... SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................ LABORATORY TESTING . ............................... REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Soil Bearing ............ ............................... Settlement.............. ............................... Lateral Soil Pressure ............................ Expansive Soils ...... ............................... Soluble Sulfate ....... ............................... Footing Design ...... ............................... Concrete Slab Construction ............... Driveway and Hardscape Design..... Drainage................. ............................... Shrinkage and Subsidence .................. Fill Materials .......... ............................... Site Seismicity ........ ............................... Liquefaction ........... ............................... SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS........... INSPECTION .................. ............................... SEASONAL LIMITATIONS ......................... CONCLUSION ............... ............................... GENERAL....................... ............................... ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX Laboratory Testing Procedures .................. ............................... Soil Classification Chart ............................. ............................... Exploratory Boring Logs ............................. ............................... Maximum Density Curve ......................... ............................... Consolidation Curve .................................. ............................... Direct Shear Summary ............................... ............................... BearingValue ............................................... ............................... PlotPlan ......................................................... ............................... VicinityMap .................................................. ............................... I FApe 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 -6 6 6 7 7 7 -8 8 -9 9 -10 10 10 11 11 A B C D E F G H Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. Page ] INTRODUCTION ' This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation performed on the property located on the north side of Balboa Blvd. between 15th Street and 18th Street, 1 Balboa peninsula, Newport Beach, California. The site has an area of approximately 8 acres. ' The site is being developed for the construction of a recreational resort with one and two story buildings (see proposed development plan, attached). The structures are to ' be supported by conventional continuous and pad footings with slab -on -grade concrete fl oors. SCOPE OF WORK ' The scope of work included: • Research of City of Newport Beach records (Geotechnical Reports, Building ' Permits, Street Improvement and Utility Plans) of previous work performed at or near the site. ' Visual inspection of the site and adjacent property. ' • Subsurface investigation comprised of drilling and sampling t-vvo 8 inch and three 4 inch diameter borings. 1 Installation of a ground water monitoring well. ' • Laboratory testing of samples collected from the borings. 1 • Preparation of this report. ' A e S T R A C T C a N S J 1 + -N G 3 R C V P Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. , Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS The site is a rectangular shaped, relatively flat parcel of land (900' x 350') , located on the north side of Balboa Blvd. The between 15th St. and 18th St. and on the public beach and Newport Bay to the north. At the time of this study the property is developed with a mobile home park, tennis courts, community center and park. All of the existing improvements will be removed as part of the development The topography of the site is described as relatively flat with t2 feet of vertical separation across the site. Drainage is sheet flow to the north and south with no defined drainage pattern. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation consisted of drilling 5 boring to a depths of 10 feet to 40 feet. The 10 foot borings were drilled using a Mobile Drill Minute Man drilling rig equipped with 4 inch hollow stem augers. The 40 foot borings were drilled with a CME 75 drill rig equipped with 8 inch hollow stem augers. Selected specimens of the in -place soils were obtained by using a 2.5 inch I.D. drive tube sampler equipped with brass rings and a Standard Penetration Sampler driven with a 140 lb. hammer /30 inch drop. In addition to these relatively undisturbed specimens, bulk samples of the soils were obtained for additional laboratory analysis. These soil samples served as the basis for the laboratory testing and the engineering conclusions contained in this report. The logs of the borings and a plot plan showing approximate boring locations are included with this report. A B S I R A C T C ON S L I L T I N G OR 0 LI P Project No.: 01 -011 ' Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. Page 3 rSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The soils encountered in the boring are generally classified as sand. There is some silt in top two feet. Ground water was encountered at a depth of 3.7 feet. The grain size of the sand varies from fine to coarse grained. A more detailed description of the soils is depicted on the exploratory boring logs. 1 LABORATORY TESTING ' The laboratory testing consisted of performing classification, strength, settlement, and expansion tests; determining in situ dry density and moisture content; and determining ' the moisture- density relationship of major soils. Descriptions of test procedures are included in the Appendix of this report. 1 ' REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' Soil Bearing The proposed structure may be supported on both continuous and pad footings. tFootings may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 1,800 pounds per square foot for footings placed to a minimum width of 12 inches and depth of 12 inches. The ' above bearing values may be increased 20 percent for each increase of 12 inches in width of depth to a maximum of 3,600 pounds per square foot. For short duration loading such as wind and seismic conditions bearing pressures may be increased by 33 percent. The bearing capacity may be re- evaluated upon completion of the grading. If ' so, revised values will be presented in the final Compaction Report. I A S S 7 R A C 7 C O N S U L T iN G 3 R 0 1 P I Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. ' Page 4 Settlement Calculations of settlement were based on results of consolidation tests and the anticipated loading and settlement characteristics of the in situ soils. These calculations indicate that pad footings under maximum loading conditions will settle approximately 3/8 of an inch, and the continuous footings under maximum loading conditions will settle 3/8 of an inch. Differential settlement is expected to be one -half of the total settlement. It is anticipated that the majority of settlement will occur during grading and the first phases of construction. The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that grading will be performed in accordance with the grading specifications. Lateral Soil Pressure For purposes of designing the structure for lateral forces, an allowable lateral soil pressure of 250 pounds per foot may be used for the building design. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used for concrete placed directly on the natural soils. Expansive Soils The results of tests indicate that the soils existing on the site have no expansion potential. The test results are as follows: TEST DEPTH LOCATION FT. B -1 0 -3' Expansive Index: 0 PERCENT EXPANSION 144 /PSF 0 As result of these tests, no special recommendations are deemed necessary for construction on expansive soils. A 0 S T R A C T C a N S U LT 1N 0 OR O UP Soluble Sulfate TEST DEPTH LOCATION FT. B -1 0 -3' Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. Page 5 PERCENT SULFATES 0.0032 The soluble sulfate content is less than 0.10 percent. Type five cement is not required. Footing Design Exterior and interior footings for single story structures should be founded 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade with a minimum width of 15 inches. Two -story structures shall have footings 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade with a minimum width of 18 inches. Reinforcement should consist of two #5 reinforcing bars placed one at the top and one at the bottom of the footing. These reinforcing bars shall be positioned at the center of all continuous footings, properly lapped and tied. Two story footings shall be extended across all garage openings. Concrete Slab Construction Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 8 feet and must be considered in Grading Specifications and Foundation Design. To overcome potential damage resulting from liquefaction induced differential settlement the slab shall be a either a stiffened structural slab or a post- tensioned slab. The following recommendations for a stiffened structural slab. The stiffened structural slab shall be designed in accordance with Section 1815 of the 1997 UBC and the following design parameters: Effective Plasticity Index (PI): 2 Overconsolidation Coefficient (Co): 1.6 Soil Slope Coefficient (Cs): 1 Climatic Rating (Cw): 15 Soil Bearing Value: 1,800 lb /sq.ft., may be increased 20% for each increase in width and /or depth to a maximum of 3,600 lb /sq.ft. A BSTPA C` z 0 N S IJ IT 1N 0 PC VP 1 Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. ' Page 6 Concrete Slab Construction (continued) , Lateral Bearing Value: 250 IN sq.ft. per foot of depth, may be increased 10% for each , increase of 1 foot in depth to a maximum of 2,000 pounds per foot. Minimum Design: ' • Reinforced concrete beams shall place around the perimeter of the slab (minimum of 18" wide by 24" deep). Interior beams shall be placed per Figure 184II -7 ' (minimum 12" wide by 18" deep). • A full 7 inch slab reinforced with a double mat of #4 reinforcing bars crossing at 18 inches on center. The top mat shall be placed a minimum of 2 inches below the , surface, a space of 2 inches between the top and bottom mat and the bottom mat 3 inches above the bottom of the slab. • The slab shall be placed over 4 inches of sand place over a 6 mill plastic membrane placed over the compacted subgrade. Drivewav and Hardscape Design Driveway and hardscape subgrade shall be compacted to 90% of maximum density to a depth of 24 inches. All driveway and hardscape shall be a minimum of 5 inches thick and reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars crossing at 18 inches on center and placed in the center of the slab. All concrete flatwork shall have construction or weakened plane joints at 6 to 8 foot intervals, maximum. Drainage It is recommended that all drainage, including roof and landscape water, be directed away from the building and into the nearest drainage facility to minimize moisture in the soil. All planter adjacent to structures shall be sealed at the bottom and equipped with subdrains. A as 1R A C T C O N S U LT I N O O n o U P 1 Project No.: 01 -011 ' Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. Page 7 ' Shrinkaee and Subsidence Based on the in -place densities of the natural soil and assuming an average fill density of 92 percent relative compaction, calculations indicate that there will be a 5 percent decrease in volume between the cut and fill operations. In addition, it is estimated that there will be 0.15 of a foot of subsidence due to reworking the surface soils. 1 Fill Materials On -site materials may be used for the fill if free of debris, or fill materials shall consist of materials approved by the Soils Engineer and may be obtained from any other ' approved source. The materials used should be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances and shall not contain rocks or lumps greater than six inches in ' maximum dimension. ' Import soils to be used as structural fill shall be predominantly granular with very low expansion potential (less than 20). All import soil shall be approved by the soils ' engineer prior to delivery to the site. Site Seismicity tNo active or mapped faults cross or project toward the site and the potential for active ' faulting across the site, within the lifetime of the structure, is considered remote. Recent probabilistic seismic hazard evaluations show a 10% probability of excedence j of 0.3 to 0.4 g within a 50 year period which roughly corresponds to the expected lifetime of the building. The seismic risk at this site is similar to many sites in Southern California. The nearest active fault is the Newport - Ingelwood Fault located at a distance of less than 2 km. Seismic Design Parameters in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code: ' From Section 1636.2 the soil type is Sp • From figure 16 -2 -- Seismic Zone Map of the United States, the site is in Zone 4. • From Table 16 -I - Seismic Zone Factor Z, the value of 0.40 shall be used in Zone 4. ' From Table 16 -Q -- Seismic Coefficient Ca = 0.44Na, Soil Type Profile Sp & Z = 0.4 ' ABSTRACT CONSULTING 0 R 0 UP Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. ' Page 8 Site Seismicity (continued) • From Table 16 -U -- Seismic Source Type = B (Newport Ingelwood Fault) • From Table 16 -S -- Near Source Factor Na =1.3 • From Table 16 -T -- Near Source Factor Na = 1.6 Liquefaction The site is located within a special study zone for liquefaction. The following testing was performed to aid in analysing the liquefaction potential. Grain size distribution analyses were performed on samples collected at depths of 20 feet and 35 feet in Boring 5. The grain size was evaluated using a hydrometer analysis. Hydrometer analyses were performed using 50 gram samples. The samples were soaked overnight in a solution consisting of distilled water and a water softener (sodium hexametaphosphate). After soaking distilled water was added to the sample, it was thoroughly agitated in a 1000 mg flask and a hydrometer was placed in the flask. At selected time intervals, the hydrometer level in the solution was measured to evaluate the particle suspension. From the readings taken, the percentage sand, percentage silt, and percentage clay were determined. The percentage of clay was assumed to be all particles finer than 0.005 mm. Liquid Limit is the water content corresponding to the behavior change between the liquid and plastic states of a silt or clay. The liquid limit is arbitrarily defined as the water content at which a pat of soil, cut by a groove of standard dimensions, will flow together for a distance of 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) under the impact of 25 blows in a standard liquid limit device (ASTM D 4318 -98, 2000) A e S 11 A C 7 C ON S U _7 IN G G R 0 U R Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. Page 9 Liquefaction (continued) The results are presented below: Boring Depth (ft) % sand % silt %clay Liquid Limit Classification 5 20 -31- 48 21 18 sandy silt 5 35 -16- 27 57 43 silty clay The moisture content is less than 0.9 Liquid Limit in both samples. These soils do not fall under the so- called "Chinese Criteria', (Seed and Idriss, 1982). The potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered high. The effects will be mitigated by the recompactson of the upper soils with layers of geotextile fabric and the use of a stiffened slab foundation system. GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. All pad areas and five feet outside exterior footings, shall be over - excavated 42 inches below natural or finish grade, whichever is greater in depth. ' 2. Prior to receiving fill, the bottom of the excavated area shall be ripped 6 inches, watered as required, and compacted to at least 90 percent of ' maximum density. A geotextile fabric material, specified by the soils engineer, shall be placed over the bottom of the over excavation after approval by the soils engineer. The fabric shall be placed at 6 inch intervals to 30 inches below finish grade. ' 3. Driveways and parking areas shall be compacted to a depth of 24 inches below subgrade. 1 A 8 S T R A C T C O N S U L T IN G G R O U P Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. ' Page 10 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS (continued) 4. All vegetation and debris shall be removed from the site prior to placing any fill. 5. The maximum density shall be determined in accordance with ASTM: D 1557 -91. 6. All reworked and fill material shall be placed at, or above, optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density. 7. All imported soil must be approved by the Soils Engineer, or his representative, prior to importing. 8. All utility trenches must be compacted to 90% of maximum density. INSPECTION The Soils Engineer shall provide inspection for the site clearing and grading in order to certify that the grading was done in accordance with the approved plans and grading specifications. SEASONAL LlIMATIONS No fill shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not resume until the field tests by the Soils Engineer indicate the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. A S S T R A C T C 0 N S L IT IN G G R O U R I 11 1 1 II Project No.: 01 -011 Balboa Blvd. 15th St. to 18th St. Page 11 CONCLUSION The proposed development is geotechnically feasible. When graded in conformance with the recommendations and grading specifications presented herein the proposed grading will not adversely affect the stability of the site or the adjacent property. GENERAL The recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of field investigation and laboratory testing, and represent our best engineering judgement. When prepared in accordance with these recommendations, the site will be suitable and acceptable for proposed construction. It should be understood that subsurface conditions can and will vary through out the site. Before providing bids, contractors shall make thorough explorations and findings. If soil conditions encountered differ substantially from those described in this report, this office should be notified immediately so that appropriate recommendations can be made. This consultant is not responsible for any financial gains or losses accrued by persons /firms or third party from this project. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Project Architect and Engineer and are incorporated into the plans and specifications and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations. Respectfully submitted, ABSTRACT CONSULTING GROUP George Bach, GE 107 expires 12/31/2004 ' Distribution: 5 Addressee II A B S I R A C7 C O N S U L T I N G G R O U P I V I 1 1 5 11' � ATTACHMENTS I I I I I 11 u I /, . ® . ! § \ . i |.S / i o '� ! yet» - : | , § I | # i \ . 133.1 � !� .41 f. z. A e X— LU W6 J o LL u LU 44 .20 w CA E- Cl) ra Cl) ui -i 0 Z 0 D C) iW co F- Ir 0 ui Z ti P% &I 2- d 06 •.J LW. C • LL 0 N 0 C 0 c 0 • .0 C Ar :3 A CL un LLJ z z z '�p %r4- 20 ^ U N U u e X— LU W6 J o LL u LU 44 .20 w CA E- Cl) ra Cl) ui -i 0 Z 0 D C) iW co F- Ir 0 ui Z ti P% &I 2- d 06 •.J LW. C • LL 0 N 0 C 0 c 0 • .0 C Ar :3 I I 1 I I I APPENDIX 1 I I I I I I i I i LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES MoistureLDensity The field density of the soils were determined by split barrel sampling. The sampler was equipped ! with 2-1/2 inch brass liner rings and was driven manually. Settlement The settlement characteristics of the insitu soil are determined by performing standard consolidation tests (ASTM D 2435) on undisturbed specimens. The samples are tested in the original sample liner ring and the increment loads for consolidation are applied for periods of 24 hours by means of a single counter - balance lever system. The pressure settlement curves are shown on the attached plates. Shear Streneth The shear strength of the soil is determined by performing direct shear tests and unconfined compression tests. The direct shear tests are performed on both undisturbed specimens and on samples remolded to 90% of ASTM: D- 1557 -00 Method A. The samples are either tested at insitu moisture or are saturated to simulate the worst field condition and sheared at a constant rate of 0.1 inches per minute. The relationship between normal stress and shear stress is shown on the attached Direct Shear Summary. The unconfined shear strength of selected undisturbed specimens is determined in accordance with ASTM: D -3080. These tests are performed at the existing moisture content. The results of these tests are shown on the Boring Logs. Maximun Densitv /Optimum Moisture The maximum density relationship to optimum moisture was determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 -00 Method A (5 layer method) Expansion The expansive potential was determined in accordance with the U.B.C. 'Expansion Index Test" Standard No. 18 -2. Samples are remolded at 49% to 51% saturation using a specific gravity of 2.7. A total load of 12.63 pounds is applied to the sample and allowed to consolidate for 10 minutes. The sample is then saturated with distilled water and allowed to swell for a minimum of 24 hours. Soluble Sulfate Content The concentration of soluble sulfates in the soils is determined by measuring the optical density of a barium sulfate precipitate. The precipitate results from a reaction of barium chloride with water extractions from the soil samples. The measured optical density is correlated with a calibration curve obtained from readings on precipitates of known sulfate concentrations. Partical Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D 422 -63 - This method covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of partical sizes in soils. The distribution of Partical sizes retained on the No. 200 sieve is determined by sieving while the distrabution of Partical sizes passing the No. 200 sieve is determined by a sedimentation process, using a hydrometer to secure the necessary data. ABSTRACT CONSULTING GROUP APPENDIX A Major Divisions Group S mbols Soil Description COARSE GRAINED GRAVEL Clean GRAVEL (Less than 599 fines) GV ,. " "';: + Well graded mixtures little gravels. gravel -sand or no fines. GP 1.1.1• f'f'f'f ti•�•ti. Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures little or no fines. GRAVEL With Fines (More than 1299 fines) GM VERY STIFF 2 - 4 Silty gravels, gravel- sand -silt I mixtures non-plastic fines. SOIL (More than 5099 material larger than °4 sieve) GC . Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. (More than 50� material larger than the °200 sieve) SAND (More than 50% material smaller than °4 sieve) Clean SAND (Less than 599 fines) SV Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands little or no fines. SAND With Fines (More than 1299 fines) SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non- plastic fines. SC :. Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. FINE SILT & CLAY ML Inorganic silts, sandy or clayey silts Low to no plasticity. CL Inorganic clay , sandy or silty clay. Low to medium plasticity. GRAINED OL Organic silt or organic silty clay. Low to medium plasticity. SOIL (Liquid limit less than 50) (More than 50q material smaller SILT & CLAY MH 1111111 Inorganic silts, diatomaceous or micaceous fine sandy or silty soils. CH r inorganic clays of high plasticity, Fat clays. than the *200 sieve) (Liquid limit more than 50) UH . . . /', . Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat and other highly organic soils. PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS (Sieve ODeninas in mm.) .074 .425 2.00 4.17 19.0 75.0 300.0 SILT OR CLAY SAPID GRAVEL COBBLESI BOULDERS LOOSE FINE IMEDIUMICOARSE1 FINE ICOARSE 10-30 (U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes) 0200 040 010 °4 ?5 in. 3i n. 12 in. Relative Density Consistency SANDS, GRAVELS AND NON- PLASTIC SILTS BLOWS /F00T* VERY LOOSE 0- 4 LOOSE 4-10 MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 DENSE 30- 50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS STRENGTH+ BLOWS /FOOT VERY SOFT 0- 1/4 0- 2 SOFT 1/4-1/2 2 - 4 FIRM 1/2- 1 4- 8 STIFF 1 -2 8-16 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16-32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 *Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D, (1 3/8 inch I.D.) split spoon (ASTM D- 1586). +Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test ( ASTM D- 1586), pocket penetrometer, torvane, or visual observation. ABSTRACT CONSULTING GROUP I APPENDIX 8 a I SURFACE ELEV.: 10.0 } z z o BORING DIAMETER: 8 in. > z^ Lu z c w w p v a p (n < BORING DEPTH: 40 ft. g a o g o �- a wa ¢ F^ w� w LL GROUNDWATER: 8.5 ft. Lu CL ¢ < D° w p co o ai H g DATE: 4/09/01 o o < DESCRIPTION v a m U SILTY SAND, FINE GRAINED, TAN, 4.6 BULK 2 SM MOIST, DENSE 4 97.5 2.8 RING 8 6 SAND, COARSE GRAINED, TAN, 13 MOIST, DENSE 17 g 7 10 14 12 SP 21 14 100.6 3.7 RING 14 18 16 24 18 SAND SILT, FINE GRAINED, GRAY, 4 20 MOIST, DENSE 9 14 22 ML 24 6 26 SAND SILTY CLAY, FINE GRAINED, 11 18 28 GRAY, MOIST, DENSE 9 30 12 32 19 CL 34 7 36 14 14 38 40 END OF BORING @ 40 FEET 42 GROUND WATER @ 8.5 FEET 44 46 48 50 Comments: INSTALLED 4" PERFORATED PIPE TO MONITER Logged by: Nikki Yu GROUND WATER DEPTH BORING LOG #1 ABSTRACT CONSULTING Job No.: 01 -011 1 Appendix C I SURFACE ELEV.: 9.5 } z z g BORING DIAMETER: 4 in. Lu z- z W g F ¢ o o< BORING DEPTH: 10 ft. V Lu ° ° c o o. Z) 0- w ¢ , = W m o LL GROUNDWATER: 7.5 ft. `n DATE: 4 /09/01 ct p o w 0 2 Q DESCRIPTION 0 n. m SILTY SAND, FINE GRAINED, TAN, 2 MOIST, DENSE 96.8 3.6 RING SM 4 95.2 3.4 RING 6 SAND, COARSE GRAINED, TAN, 8 ... SP MOIST, DENSE 10 END OF BORING @ 10 FEET 12 GROUND WATER @ 7.5 FEET 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Comments: Logged by: Nikki Yu BORING LOG #2 ABSTRACT CONSULTING Job No.: 01 -011 1 Appendix C I by: Nikki Yu BORING LOG #3 ' ABSTRACT CONSULTING I IJob No.: 01 -011 1 Appendix C L SURFACE ELEV.: 10.0 o z o° BORING DIAMETER: 4 in. w z > t Z c cn w ~ J a o w o BORING DEPTH: 10 ft. P: v °° c o a w W F- m I = w co °w_ LL GROUND WATER: 8.5 ft. W d m X } ~o �} t- cn W 30 d Q� cn LLln DATE: 4/09/01 o o cn w 0" ? g DESCRIPTION CO ° SILTY SAND, FINE GRAINED, TAN, 2 MOIST, DENSE 95.7 3.1 RING SM 4 6 SAND, COARSE GRAINED, TAN, 8 SP MOIST, DENSE 10 END OF BORING @ 10 FEET 12 GROUND WATER @ 8.5 FEET 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 by: Nikki Yu BORING LOG #3 ' ABSTRACT CONSULTING I IJob No.: 01 -011 1 Appendix C L I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I SURFACE ELEV.: 9.5 p L BORING DIAMETER: 4 in. w z > g v~i z _^ ~ co w o? g -J a) v BORING DEPTH: 10 ft. g a ° c o a w a s �^ w LL GROUND WATER: 8.0 ft. z w co z 10 DATE: 4/09/01 OU ° am ° =U DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND, FINE GRAINED, TAN, 2 MOIST, DENSE SM 95.7 3.1 RING 4 6 SAND, COARSE GRAINED, TAN, 8 SP MOIST, DENSE 10 END OF BORING @ 10 FEET 12 GROUND WATER @ 8.0 FEET 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Comments: Logged by: Nikki Yu BORING LOG #4 ABSTRACT CONSULTING Job No.: 01 -011 Appendix C SURFACE ELEV.: 8.0 Z } ~ o z Z o BORING DIAMETER: 8 in. w >g 20 w e z= 1u ~ J ¢ o m y BORING DEPTH: 40 ft. ° o a w a a 1 P w °w `—` GROUND WATER: 6.5 ft. ¢2 a ¢ �° O a� co z� w ° ¢c}n zg DATE: 4/09/01 O U ° w _j a CO ° DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND, FINE GRAINED, TAN, 3.0 BULK 2 MOIST, DENSE 4 SM 5 6 14 SAND, COARSE GRAINED, TAN, 16 8 2.8 BULK MOIST, DENSE 8 10 17 25 12 SP 14 10 1 6 17 28 18 SAND SILT, FINE GRAINED, GRAY, 14.5 BULK 6 20 MOIST, DENSE 11 19 22 ML 24 5 2s SAND SILTY CLAY, FINE GFIAINED, 9 15 28 GRAY, MOIST, DENSE 7 30 11 32 20 CL 18.3 BULK 34 11 36 r 15 13 38 40 END OF BORING @ 40 FEET 42 GROUND WATER @ 6.5 FEET 44 ' 46 48 ' so ,Comments: Logged by: Nikki Yu BORING LOG #5 ' ABSTRACT CONSULTING Job No.: 01 -011 Appendix C w U i a a1 N C dr D T i 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture 99 ACG Date: 9/05/01 Job No. 01 -011 Appendix D ' PRESSURE - Kips per ft2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 10.0 0 1 2 c 3 L N a z 4 f°- a r Cl J (f] Z 5 U 6 7 8 9 10 B -2 @ 5' - RING SAMPLE ACG Date: 9/05/01 1 Job No.: 01 -011 Appendix E 0 1 R E C T 2.5 -- .:........... - - -- - -- i . 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 X ......... - -- ............................... -- - -- - -- -------- - -- € - -- - -- -- .:........... - - -- - -- i . .. .............j........5........ ....... ........ ;........ 5........f............ ........... i .... ... ... .... 3 ....5........ ....... ! )j _tT_ 1111 ___ ___ ____ ____ _ ____ _________ ____ ___ _ ____ ___ ___ - ___;____ ____ ___.�_.,__;____ ___ ____ __.._____ ___ ____ _ _ - t _________ ___ .. 4 --- ---- --------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- . E - - - - - -;1� , -3 -- -- ` - iE ............... ........e........ .. .....................o........ .... ........:.... ......... o........((....... ..0 —' — — — E � 3 • € € a........ ..... ... ....:.... >....(........ >....:...... i -- --- -- ---4----a ---- ---- ---4 --- — — — — --- --- -------- ' 1 I E I r = --- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - -`` - € C °........o...... i ....... ........ ..... ......... o. .......( ................ a 3 ) 3140 t 0.5 1.0 1.5 NORMAL LOAD, K_S.F- 2.0 2.51 PEAK ULTIMATE RESIDUAL ❑ B -1 @ 2' REMOLDED SAMPLE SATURATED ACG Date: 9/05/12 Job No.: 01 -011 Appendix F 40 m 30 a 0 20 m m y 10 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Values of Nc and Nq 5 9= 44° N.y= 260 A'= 480 Ny= 780 1 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 Values of My qo = 'YBNy + cNc + -yDNq width + cohesion + surcharge B =1 D= 1 c =20 H =34° -Y =105 F.S.= 3 Nq= 37 N.y= 34 Nc= 50 ( 125 x 34) + ( 20 x 50 ) + (105 x 37) = 6670 3 = 2223 Use: 1800 1 b /ft2 BORING NUMBER: 1 DEPTH: 3' SOIL TYPE: SILTY SAND UNDISTURBED: ❑ REMOLDED: ® (TO 90% MAXIMUM DENSITY) ACG ' Date: 9/05/01 1 Job No.: 03 -011 1 Appendix G ' I I i aQ � z F- LU o Z d OJ o Q a 0 a U O O 2 tt O m W Q O K h a a m w r a U O 2 rjl lA IL Q x d Rzi W HI Z Q Ow ^ ti N O V y C N m 4�Et Z 3 wat i � a o o a m az,� CL Ln t d a"'4b a Zp m y A 4 m A ' {L � L D is � A m y Z O 0 N 0 (� t� $ z 1 Ld a � N U I I ® hl U ktZ b F ca I Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR I `1 I I I Appendix C: Drainage Technical Study 1 I 1 I I I Michael Brsandman Associates H.Vient(PN- M)W064 \00640020\ EIA \00640020 Appc ix UividersAm DRAINAGE TECHNICAL STUDY Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations Water Quality Management Plan for REGENT NEWPORT W. Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Environmental Impact Report Prepared for City of Newport Beach Prepared by MetroPointe Engineers, Inc. 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite J -1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 February 2004 I TABLE OF CONTENTS IREPORT Page No. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... ..............................1 HYDROLOGY.......................................................................................... ..............................2 Location............................................................................................... ............................... 2 Topography......................................................................................... ............................... 2 Soils..................................................................................................... ............................... 2 jRainfall ................................................................................................. ..............................2 Methodology........................................................................................ ............................... 2 Existing Drainage Conditions ............................................................... ............................... 3 Proposed Drainage Conditions ............................................................ ............................... 4 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................... ............................... 5 HYDRAULICS......................................................................................... ............................... 7 Off -site Drainage ................................................................................... ..............................7 On -site Drainage .................................................................................. ............................... 7 t100 -Year Storm ..................................................................................... ..............................7 Conclusions......................................................................................... ............................... 8 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................. ............................... 9 Introduction.......................................................................................... ............................... 9 City of Newport Beach Water Quality Protection Policy ....................... ............................... 9 Orange County Stormwater Program ................................................... ............................... 9 Construction Best Management Practices ( BMPs) ............................. ............................... 10 Proposed Permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) ................. .............................11 Post Construction Best Management Practices BMPs) ( ....................... .............................12 BASISOF STUDY .................................................................................. .............................13 REFERENCES...................................................................................... ............................... 13 i 1 I APPENDICES Appendix A: Hydrology Calculations and Soils Map. I I' 1 t . i I I 1 i I EXHIBITS Figure 1 — Off -site Hydrology Figure 2 — Existing Conditions Hydrology Figure 3 — Proposed Conditions Hydrology Figure 4 —Water Quality management Plan APPENDICES Appendix A: Hydrology Calculations and Soils Map. I I' 1 t . i I I 1 i INTRODUCTION This report is prepared for the proposed "Regent Newport Beach" project in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed improvements include replacing an existing mobile home park with a new hotel complex north of W. Balboa Boulevard, between 18th Street and 15th Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The report is prepared to address the drainage and storm water quality tasks in support of the EIR prepared by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) for the project. The report includes hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, water quality review and proposes water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the storm water runoff. Existing and proposed post project conditions are reviewed to assess the project impacts. The project location is shown on the vicinity map below. q @: 4 1H0 p vu , Vtq ....... 1100 6' t�Tr1@ 24�' C it iVlgi 01? OS� ;y Q%,,qf L �LS�e �� b 6E a i < `�e� "-14�G[� ti tifil Project s rn� � f�� ~ LIDO ISLE n�a x r ? Y ' V F �ACHr ccua - �,AV 1kOaT A�RfCAMLE670N �rt reenz ct L VIA D 2 $ 94 CrEPAP ear ti��� asr�y Haar r _..pi s zuRi ac LO 1 �RQNT x tiz NEWPLd?T PIER W ~ N I noµaa Bpoa. Man Vicinity Map Drainage Technical Study Page 1 Soils According to the geotechnical investigation report (Ref. 6), the soils encountered on the project site are typical of the beach type terrain along the coastline. The soils include mainly fine to coarse sandy material with some silty material in the top two feet. This soil type has high permeability and is classified in the Orange County Hydrology Manual (Ref. 1) as Group LA with low runoff potential. Rainfall The rainfall is typical of Orange County, with winter storms and dry summers. The average yearly rainfall totals approximately 12 inches with precipitation occurring during the months of October to April. The official rainy season is October 15'h to April 15'h during which construction activities will have to meet the State Water Quality Control Board and other local agencies' requirements discussed further in the report. During the dry weather months, runoff will be generated mainly by landscape irrigation flows. Methodology HYDROLOGY Hydrology Manual, 1986, with the latest addendum and revisions, as incorporated in RMH Location The project is located on the Balboa peninsula between W. Balboa Boulevard and the Newport Bay, between 18th Street and 15th Street. The area within the above limits is approximately 10 acres. The peninsula is crossed by a system of streets with flat grades that do not exceed a few tenths of one percent. The majority of the peninsula, in the vicinity of the project, drains towards the bay. The storm runoff is conveyed by the streets and some small diameter storm drain systems. Topography The topography of the site is relatively flat and generally sloping towards W. Balboa Boulevard. The existing topography is included on the Existing Conditions Hydrology map, Figure 2, showing an average slope that does not exceed 1 percent. There is no substantial ' longitudinal slope along W. Balboa Boulevard other than local sumps created at storm drain inlets for drainage purposes. Soils According to the geotechnical investigation report (Ref. 6), the soils encountered on the project site are typical of the beach type terrain along the coastline. The soils include mainly fine to coarse sandy material with some silty material in the top two feet. This soil type has high permeability and is classified in the Orange County Hydrology Manual (Ref. 1) as Group LA with low runoff potential. Rainfall The rainfall is typical of Orange County, with winter storms and dry summers. The average yearly rainfall totals approximately 12 inches with precipitation occurring during the months of October to April. The official rainy season is October 15'h to April 15'h during which construction activities will have to meet the State Water Quality Control Board and other local agencies' requirements discussed further in the report. During the dry weather months, runoff will be generated mainly by landscape irrigation flows. Methodology The hydrology for the project area has been prepared in accordance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual, 1986, with the latest addendum and revisions, as incorporated in RMH Rational Method Hydrology Software package, Ref. 1. Hydrology calculations have been prepared for the 10 -year and 100 -year storm events, for both the existing conditions and post project conditions, and are included in Appendix A. The 10 -year rainfall is used to check the capacity of the existing storm drain system and to design proposed improvements. The 100 -year rainfall is used to assess overland flows and potential flooding hazard to building structures. Conveyance for the 100 -year storm runoff is achieved mainly through existing streets. Drainage Technical study Page 2 I A southern system drains an approximately 17 -acre area between 16'h Street and 19'h Street, and is called, for the purpose of this report, the 19'h Street Storm Drain. The topography of this area slopes from W. Ocean Front towards W. Balboa Boulevard and runoff flows to the recently improved facility conveying runoff to 19th Street and then to the bay. A second smaller system, called the 18th Street storm drain, serves a 5 -acre area including a ' portion of the project site. A third system drains an approximately 19 -acre northern area between 12'h Street and 16'h Street, and is called the 15th Street Storm Drain. This area drains from W. Ocean Front towards W. Balboa Boulevard to a facility conveying runoff to 15'h Street and then to the bay. On -site HVdrology The "on- site" drainage area contributing to the project storm runoff is bounded by the bay to the north, 1 8th Street to the west, W. Balboa Boulevard to the south and 15th Street to the ' east. The existing storm drain system consists of relatively small diameter pipe (12 to 18- inch) collecting storm runoff from W. Balboa Boulevard and cross streets, and conveying the runoff to the bay. Verification of existing conditions and drainage patterns was accomplished by field reconnaissance. Figure 2, the Existing Conditions Hydrology map, shows the existing storm drain systems and flow patterns. The review of the topography of the site shows that, a strip along the bay excepted (Sub -area A), the majority of the site is sloped to the south. The middle portion of the site (Sub -areas B1 and B2), drains to the south to an existing paved alley collecting and conveying the runoff to the west toward the 18'h Street storm drain. A large portion of the site (Sub -areas C1 and C2) drains toward W. Balboa Boulevard to a recently improved storm drain system conveying runoff to 19'h Street and eventually to the bay. A second storm drain system in W. Balboa Boulevard collects runoff from the eastern portion of the site (Sub -areas D1 through D3) and conveys it east to 15'h Street and then north to the bay. As described above, the storm drain systems are respectively called, for the purpose of the study, the 18'h Street, 19'h Street and 15'h Street storm drains. Approximately 50 percent of the site drains to the 19'h Street and the 15'h Street storm drains. This portion represents less than 10 percent of the storm drain respective total watersheds. Approximately 40 percent of the project site drains to the 18'h Street storm drain. This portion represents approximately 50 percent of the 18'h Street storm drain total watershed. The remainder 10 percent of the site drains directly to the bay. Drainage Technical Study Page 3 An increase in impervious areas due to the proposed improvements is not anticipated. The preliminary estimates for the proposed improvements, from trailer park to hotel complex, actually show a decrease in percentage of impervious areas by maximizing the use of , landscaped common areas. Therefore, improvements should improve percolation into the soil and decrease direct runoff to the bay. Existing Drainage Conditions Off -site Hydrology The review of as -built street improvement plans, Orange County watershed maps, and City storm drain atlases provided information on local drainage patterns and existing storm drain facilities. As shown on the Off -Site Hydrology exhibit, Figure 1, three existing storm drain ' systems drain the site and its vicinity. A southern system drains an approximately 17 -acre area between 16'h Street and 19'h Street, and is called, for the purpose of this report, the 19'h Street Storm Drain. The topography of this area slopes from W. Ocean Front towards W. Balboa Boulevard and runoff flows to the recently improved facility conveying runoff to 19th Street and then to the bay. A second smaller system, called the 18th Street storm drain, serves a 5 -acre area including a ' portion of the project site. A third system drains an approximately 19 -acre northern area between 12'h Street and 16'h Street, and is called the 15th Street Storm Drain. This area drains from W. Ocean Front towards W. Balboa Boulevard to a facility conveying runoff to 15'h Street and then to the bay. On -site HVdrology The "on- site" drainage area contributing to the project storm runoff is bounded by the bay to the north, 1 8th Street to the west, W. Balboa Boulevard to the south and 15th Street to the ' east. The existing storm drain system consists of relatively small diameter pipe (12 to 18- inch) collecting storm runoff from W. Balboa Boulevard and cross streets, and conveying the runoff to the bay. Verification of existing conditions and drainage patterns was accomplished by field reconnaissance. Figure 2, the Existing Conditions Hydrology map, shows the existing storm drain systems and flow patterns. The review of the topography of the site shows that, a strip along the bay excepted (Sub -area A), the majority of the site is sloped to the south. The middle portion of the site (Sub -areas B1 and B2), drains to the south to an existing paved alley collecting and conveying the runoff to the west toward the 18'h Street storm drain. A large portion of the site (Sub -areas C1 and C2) drains toward W. Balboa Boulevard to a recently improved storm drain system conveying runoff to 19'h Street and eventually to the bay. A second storm drain system in W. Balboa Boulevard collects runoff from the eastern portion of the site (Sub -areas D1 through D3) and conveys it east to 15'h Street and then north to the bay. As described above, the storm drain systems are respectively called, for the purpose of the study, the 18'h Street, 19'h Street and 15'h Street storm drains. Approximately 50 percent of the site drains to the 19'h Street and the 15'h Street storm drains. This portion represents less than 10 percent of the storm drain respective total watersheds. Approximately 40 percent of the project site drains to the 18'h Street storm drain. This portion represents approximately 50 percent of the 18'h Street storm drain total watershed. The remainder 10 percent of the site drains directly to the bay. Drainage Technical Study Page 3 I Hydrology calculations, which have been prepared for the 10 -year and 100 -year storm events, are included in Appendix A, and results are incorporated on Figure 2. The portion of the site (Sub -areas B1 and B2) will continue to drain toward W. Balboa Boulevard to the recently improved 19"' Street storm drain system. Sub -areas C4 and C5 are not improved and remain draining east to the 15`h Street storm drain. Sub -area D remains unchanged and is not impacted by the proposed improvements. Hydrology calculations, which have been prepared for the 10 -year and 100 -year storm events, are included in Appendix A, and results are incorporated on Figure 3. I I ,I Drainage Technical Study Page 4 Proposed Drainage Conditions Off -site Drainage As discussed above, the project site represents a small percentage of the 19`h Street and 15`h Street storm drains. The proposed development will not change the overall drainage area contributing to each storm drain. Therefore, impact to the overall hydrology for these storm drains is not anticipated. On -site Hydrology A project conceptual configuration of the on -site drainage area is presented on the Proposed Conditions Hydrology exhibit, Figure 3. The grading of the project proposes to keep the present patterns as much as possible. ' The Proposed Conditions Hydrology map, Figure 3, shows the existing storm drain systems and proposes conceptual drainage systems and flow patterns. The beachfront (Sub -areas Al and Cl), no longer drains directly to the bay. Flows will be directed through landscaped ' areas to allow for water quality management before being collected by an underground system of area drains as shown on Figure 3. The eastern center portion of the site (Sub -areas C2 and C3) will drain to the 15`h Street storm drain again to match, as much as possible, the existing conditions. Flows will also be directed through landscaped areas before being collected by the proposed underground ' system. The western center portion of the site (Sub -areas A2 and A3) will drain to the 1 e Street storm drain to match, as much as possible, the existing conditions. Flows will also be directed through landscaped areas before being collected by the proposed underground system. The portion of the site (Sub -areas B1 and B2) will continue to drain toward W. Balboa Boulevard to the recently improved 19"' Street storm drain system. Sub -areas C4 and C5 are not improved and remain draining east to the 15`h Street storm drain. Sub -area D remains unchanged and is not impacted by the proposed improvements. Hydrology calculations, which have been prepared for the 10 -year and 100 -year storm events, are included in Appendix A, and results are incorporated on Figure 3. I I ,I Drainage Technical Study Page 4 Conclusions and Recommendations The tables included below compare the results of hydrology calculations shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3, and provide an assessment of the project impacts to the existing storm drain system. The peak discharge values shown at existing storm drain nodes represent only the portion of runoff peak due to the site itself. The table below shows the overall impacts: Project Overall Impacts to Drainage Unit Existinq Proposed Differencel Impact Total Project Site drainage area Acres 10.4 10.6 0.2 2% Increase Project Site overall 10- ear Flows cis 21.4 19.2 -2.2 -10% Decrease Project Site overall 10- ear runoff rate cfs /Ac 2.1 1.8 -022 -12% Decrease Project Site overall 100- ear Flows cfs 33.7 30.1 -3.6 -11% Decrease Project Site overall 1 00- ear runoff rate cfS/Ac 3.2 2.8 -0.4 -12% Decrease Project Site area draining directly to the Bay Acres 2.0 0.9 -1.1 -11% Decrease The small increase in the site total drainage area is due to the decrease of area draining directly to the bay. This increase is not an adverse impact but an improvement provided by the project. The above summary shows the project is providing an overall decrease in peak flows and flow rates, and therefore, improvements to the overall drainage of the area. The table below summarizes the same impacts broken down to the different component of the area drainage system: Project Local Impacts to Drainage Unit Existin Proposed Difference impact 18 Street Storm Drain total drainage area Acres 5.0 5.4 0.4 8% Increase Site area draining to 18`" St. Storm Drain Acres 2.8 3.2 0.4 14% Increase Site 10 -year Flows to 18`" St. Storm Drain cfs 4.5 5.7 1.2 15% Increase Site 10 -year runoff rate to 18'" St. Storm Drain cfs /Ac 1.6 1.8 0.2 11% Increase 19` Street Storm Drain total drainage area Acres 17.0 16.7 -0.3 -2% Decrease Site area draining to 19`" St. Storm Drain Acres 2.0 1.7 -0.3 -15% Decrease Site 10 -year Flows to 19" St. Storm Drain cfS 4.3 3.5 -0.8 -19% Decrease Site 10 -year noff rate to 19"' St. Storm Drain cfs /Ac 2.2 2.1 -0.1 -4% Decrease 15 Street Storurm Drain total drainage area Acres 19.0 20.2 1.2 6% Increase Site area draining to 15" St. Storm Drain Acres 3.6 4.8 1.2 33% Increase Site 10 -year Flows to 15'" St. Storm Drain cfs 6.3 7.5 1.2 19% Increase Site 1 0-year runoff rate to 15'" St. Storm Drain cfs /Ac 1.8 1.6 -0.2 -11% Decrease The above table shows thefollowing: The proposed improvements, and related conceptual drainage plan, decrease the 10 -year storm peaks for the runoff directed to the 19`h Street storm drain. A small increase in 10 -year peak discharge is shown for 18`h Street and 15`h Street storm drains. This increase is local and due to changes in the hydrology model parameters. An increase in area is due to the addition of land previously draining directly to the bay and to the 19`h Street storm drain. The collection of runoff into an on -site storm drain decreases the travel time and, therefore, also increases the peak discharge. Both parameters contribute to the increase in peak runoff. The analysis of the overall existing storm drains adequacy is not included in the scope of this study. However, the increases in peak runoff for such small areas are believed minor impacts to the overall storm drain system. Furthermore, the increase in peak flow can be easily Drainage Technical Study Page 5 I mitigated by providing relatively small size on -site temporary detention. On -site detention ' can be provided by a flow- through reservoir or a more efficient flow -by system. Preliminary calculations show that storage required for a flow- through detention would be 1,500 and 2,300 cubic feet for the 18th Street and 15th Street storm drains respectively. The more efficient flow -by system would require only 1,100 and 1,300 cubic feet for the 18th Street and 15th Street storm drains respectively. A proposed on -site detention location is shown on Figure 3. On -site detention is commonly achieved by underground storage provided by piping or other system sized to provide the required volume. On -site storage can also be achieved by allowing ponding in landscaped areas and /or oversizing on -site storm drain pipes. The final configuration will be determined during the design phase. 1 In conclusion, the analysis shows that impact mitigation is easily achieved and will be incorporated in the design to eliminate any negative impact to the existing drainage conditions. F] J 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 Drainage Technical Study Page 6 I Drainage Technical Study Page 7 HYDRAULICS Off Drainage -site As discussed above, the project site represents a small percentage of the overall 19th Street and 15th Street storm drains drainage area. The increase in 10 -year peak flow for the 15th Street and 18th Street storm drains can easily be mitigated by providing on -site temporary retention of relatively small size; therefore, impact to the overall performance of the existing ' storm drains is not anticipated. The existing storm drain system was designed to convey a 10 -year storm to the bay. Review of historical information shows that this storm drain system is influenced by the tide level, and that its capacity is reduced below the 10 -year design parameter in the event of concurrence of rainstorm with high tide conditions. However, ' during such an event, the required additional capacity is provided by surface flow in the street system. On -site Drainage The conceptual configuration of the on -site drainage area is presented on the Proposed Conditions Hydrology exhibit, Figure 3. The proposed grading for the project generally maintains the present patterns as much as possible. The proposed layout is conceptual and will be refined during design. As discussed in the hydrology section of this report, the on -site drainage system will be sized for a 10 -year storm event and include special considerations for on -site detention so that existing drainage conditions remain unchanged. This system will also include components required to meet water quality issues discussed in the Water Quality Management Plan section of the report. 100 -year Storm Existing drainage studies for the area are not available; however, as discussed above, storm drains are customarily designed for a 10 -year storm. The City of Newport Beach requires one traffic lane open during a 10 -year event and the street right of way will provides conveyance capacity for the 100 -year storm. The existing topography has been reviewed to assess 100 -year storm potential impact to existing buildings and to provide minimum pad elevation to proposed buildings. During a 100 -year storm event, the existing storm drain system would be surcharged and most likely inefficient. As indicated by the review of historical information, a large portion of the 100 -year storm runoff will drain to W. Balboa Boulevard and pond until reaching a relief elevation allowing outlet to the bay. The analysis of the topography, included on Figure 2, shows that two relief points (low points) in the vicinity of the project site are located on 18th Street and 15th Street on the bay side. The relief elevations were determined to be approximately 7.5 and 7.8 feet at 18th and 15th Street respectively. Elevations range from 6.7 to 7.4 on W. Balboa Boulevard and 7.5 to 9.6 on the site itself. Therefore, maximum potential ponding elevations should not exceed approximately 1.1 feet. Existing building pads are above that elevation. Proposed buildings will have to be a minimum of one foot Drainage Technical Study Page 7 above the 100 -year maximum water level to meet the Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements. FEMA flood maps were not available for this location. The results of the hydrology analysis, see hydrology section "Project Overall Drainage Impacts" table on page 4, show an overall 11 percent decrease in peak 100 -year storm discharges from the site, therefore, the proposed project has no negative impacts to the 100- , year flooding hazards. Conclusions The preliminary analysis of the site shows that the proposed improvements have minimal impacts on the existing drainage systems. As discussed in the hydrology section of the ' report, it is believed an on -site drainage system can easily mitigate those impacts with relatively small size on -site detention. The review of the historical information shows that a 100 -year storm runoff exceeds the capacity of the existing underground storm drain system and will use the street system to be safely conveyed to the bay. The analysis also shows ' that the project has no negative impact on the existing behavior of a 100 -year storm runoff. LJI I I I I 1 I 1 I I Drainage Technical Study Page 8 1 1 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Introduction The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requires to implement the Clean Water Act by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements governing storm water runoff for the County of Orange. These permits are referred to as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit or "NPDES Permits ". The City of Newport Beach is participating as a "Co- permittee" under the NPDES Permits in the development and adoption of an ordinance to accomplish the requirements of the Clean Water Act. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is prepared for this project to meet the State Water Quality Control Board, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the City of Newport Beach adopted policies. The project site, in its existing conditions, drains directly to the bay or the City storm drain system without incorporation of best management practices. The incorporation of the measures proposed by this WQMP for the project will greatly reduce existing pollutant discharge to the bay. This WQMP will be revised as the project progresses from planning phase to design, construction and operation phases. City of Newport Beach Water Quality Protection Policy 1 Policy L -18 (Drainage Public Right of Way Purpose), along with Policy L -22 (Water Quality Management Plans), has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach to minimize dry- weather runoff and runoff from small rain events in an effort to improve water quality of Newport Bay. The policies were adopted by the City of Newport Beach to adhere to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 1 I I 1 Runoff from irrigation overspray, overwatering, roof drains, patio and deck drains, and washdowns of hardscape areas contribute flow to the street drainage systems and natural watercourses which then convey pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, pet waste, oil, engine coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons, brake dust, tire residue, and other pollutants into surface waters. Whenever possible, runoff should be retained on private property to prevent the transport of these pollutants in the manner described in these policies. New development or redevelopment presents the opportunity to reduce the impacts of runoff that would otherwise drain to the City's street drainage system and the bay. The submittal of an application for a new development or redevelopment project requires submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff and runoff from small storms (less than 3/4" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) during construction and post- construction from the property. Orange County Stormwater Program Priority Protect Category: According to Orange County Stormwater Program, Model Water Quality Management Plan of September 26, 2003, the Regent Newport is classified in the Priority Project Category as it falls in the following categories: Drainage Technical Study Page 9 I The SWPPP will be prepared for the project and include a description of the project and ' associated known potential pollution sources, a plan showing the proposed grading of the site, drainage patterns, and location of proposed construction BMP's and guidelines for staff training, maintenance and reporting. This report will be revised before each rainy season and in accordance with the progress of the construction activities. Construction activities BMPs should include the following: • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed in newly graded areas to prevent grading activities dust to be blown to adjacent areas. • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage material and , equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. ' Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and /or road stabilization. Street cleaning will be done if tracking occurs. Drainage Technical Study Page 10 ' • It is a commercial development of more than 100,000 square feet including the parking area. • It includes more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Area. • And includes parking areas of more than 5,000 square feet exposed to storm water ' runoff. Anticipated and Potential Pollutants: Anticipated pollutants for similar project include trash and debris for both landscaped areas and parking lots; and heavy metals, organic compounds, oil and grease for parking lots. Potential pollutants for similar land use include heavy metals; oxygen demanding ' substances, nutrients, organic compounds, sediments and pesticides from landscaped areas; and bacteria /virus from parking lots. Newport Bay Pollutant of Concern: ' Newport Bay is included on the 2002 303(d) Listed Water Bodies and Associated Pollutants of Concern. The lower Newport Bay is specifically listed for metals and pesticides. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) The construction documents will include an erosion control plan specifying measures for insuring water quality of potential storm water runoff and eliminate serious impacts from potential spills. This plan will include location of sand bags or silt fences to either contain the potential runoff generated in the construction area or divert runoff away from the disturbed ' area. Similar methods will be used for the construction staging and storage areas. The proposed improvements will take place over an area exceeding 8 acres and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) will be prepared and included in the construction bid ' package. The SW PPP will include requirements related to erosion control, hazardous material handling, equipment maintenance and washing, routine inspection check lists and schedule for the rainy season. A Notice of Intent (NOI) will be filed with the WQCB before ' start of construction. The SWPPP will be prepared for the project and include a description of the project and ' associated known potential pollution sources, a plan showing the proposed grading of the site, drainage patterns, and location of proposed construction BMP's and guidelines for staff training, maintenance and reporting. This report will be revised before each rainy season and in accordance with the progress of the construction activities. Construction activities BMPs should include the following: • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed in newly graded areas to prevent grading activities dust to be blown to adjacent areas. • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage material and , equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. ' Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and /or road stabilization. Street cleaning will be done if tracking occurs. Drainage Technical Study Page 10 I tWaste Disposal: Specific area and /or methods will be selected for waste disposal. ' Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in contained area allowing proper cleanup. Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering will require approved permits by the California Regional Water ' Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. ' • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. ' Proposed Permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) As shown on Figure 4, BMPs have been selected for this project. This exhibit shows proposed drainage patterns, proposed improvements and BMPs, and their respective location in relation with the existing City inlets and storm drain systems. Land use is also indicated as "landscaped" (pervious) or "paved" (impervious). Below are descriptions of the ' selected BMPs: Percolation: The project will decrease the amount of existing impervious areas and increase pervious landscaped areas. During the design of the project, special consideration will be ' given to maximize the use of the landscaped areas as infiltration areas. Percolation of runoff into the ground through permeable areas will be maximized with such means as biofilters, green strips, landscaped swales, planters, and other retention/ percolation devices. Roof ' drains will be oriented towards permeable surfaces, grading of the site will take into consideration diverting runoff to permeable areas. The site will be graded so that the runoff flows through grassy swales before being collected in an underground system. ' Consequently, the surface flow travel time will be lengthened and peak discharges reduced. At inlets to underground drains, pollutants will be removed through installation of inlet baskettfilters inserts to remove trash and organic material. These BMPs will be used for the ' landscaped areas shown on Figure 4. Water Quality Units: Two water quality systems are proposed for the project. The proposed units will be located towards the end of the proposed on -site storm drain system, as shown ' on Figure 4, and designed to treat runoff water from paved parking areas that cannot be directed to pervious landscape. Typical systems consist of diverting the storm drain low flows, the "first flush" or dry weather flows, to an off -line unit where treatment occurs. ' Treatment can be provided by filtration or settlement of pollutants, or a combination of both. Following the "first flush ", for storm event with peaks exceeding the capacity of the diversion structure, clean runoff will bypass the water quality system and flow to the bay. Common systems are off -line CDS Technology® units, on -line VortechSTA9 units, on -line CSR t Stormceptor® units or equivalent. The two proposed systems will remove pollutants flowing to the 18`" Street and 15'" Street storm drains, respectively. Pollutants removed by these ' units include trash, sediment, heavy metals, organic compounds and oil and grease. Catch Basin Filter Inserts: The City of Newport Beach has been implementing the installation of catch basin filter inserts in W. Balboa Boulevard. The Ultra- Urban® Filter with Smart ' Sponge®, developed and manufactured by AbTech Industries, has been used for effective ' Drainage Technical Study Page 11 I 1 filtration, efficient application, and moderate maintenance. The Ultra- Urbane Filter captures oil, grease, trash, and sediment from stormwater runoff before it enters the storm drain system. Trash and sediment accumulate in the internal basket while oil and grease are captured in the filtration media. Filter inserts are or will be installed in I Street and 15`h ' Street existing inlets. The City of Newport Beach will provide maintenance of the filters within the street right -of -way. ' Curb Drains: Curb drains, as a means of draining sump areas and roof drains via subsurface piping systems directly to the street gutter, will not be used for this project. Areas immediately adjacent to Balboa Boulevard, such as the Girl Scout site, Park and entrance ' driveway to the project, will be designed to direct runoff to landscaped areas. Small portions may use curb drains directing runoff to the City inlets and filter inserts. The curb drains, if used, will have a French drain system of perforated pipe and gravel to increase percolation. ' Sump Pump: In case the proposed Tennis /Parking Structure needs installation of a sump pump, direct discharge to the public right of way will not be permitted. Rather, discharge from the sump pump will be directed to the proposed water quality unit. ' Storage and Maintenance Areas: Design will insure that runoff does not come into contact with loading and unloading dock areas, and repair and maintenance areas. Storage of material that may contribute pollutants to the storm water will be placed in an enclosure such ' as a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system. These areas will also protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. Outdoor material storage is not anticipated for this ' project. Trash receptacles will be protected from drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement and covered with roof or awning. ' Irrigation System: A moisture- detecting or weather -based irrigation system will be used to eliminate overwatering and dry weather flow. The landscaped areas will be graded to maximize percolation and avoid direct drainage to the local storm drain system. , Post Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) Post construction BMPs are used to control pollutants during regular operations of the ' proposed hotel complex. These BMPs include mainly basic good housekeeping. Some of the areas needing special attention are listed below. Beach boat dock BMPs , and should: • Prohibit boat in -water maintenance and discharge of waste. ' • Provide easily accessible restrooms and trash receptacles. • Provide fire fighting and spill containment equipment. , Other common good housekeeping BMPs include: • Keep litter, pet waste, leaves, and debris out of street gutters and storm drains. • Apply lawn and garden chemicals sparingly and according to directions. t • Dispose of used oil, antifreeze, paints, and other household chemicals properly. , • Avoid spills of hazardous or polluting material and prepare guidelines for remediation of such occurrences. ' Drainage Technical study Page 12 I ' Control soil erosion by planting ground cover and stabilizing erosion -prone areas. ' • Affix signs educating user of the property about BMPs. • Street sweeping of the grounds and trash collection. • Scheduled inspections. • Long -Term Maintenance: As design progresses, the owner's plan for the long -term and continuous maintenance of all on -site BMP's requiring ongoing maintenance will be developped. This plan will include his acceptance of the responsibility for the on -site maintenance of all structural and treatment control BMPs. Finally, part of the post construction tasks is the maintenance of this Water Quality Management Plan report, its distribution to the hotel staff and assignment of specific responsibilities by the owner. t BASIS OF STUDY 1. Orange County Rational Method Hydrology 2. Design N = 0.013 for RCP, 0.015 for Asphalt and 0.024 for CMP 3. Hydrologic Soil Group "A" 4. 10 -Year Frequency Storm for Storm Drain Design 5. 100 -Year Frequency Storm for Street Capacity and Building Pad Elevation REFERENCES 1. Orange County Hydrology Manual, 1986, as incorporated in RMH Rational Method Hydrology Software package, 2000 2. Orange County Flood Control Design Manual, July 1972 3. Orange County Local Drainage Manual, 1996, Rev. 1999 4. Drainage of Highway Pavement, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 12 (HEC 12), Department of Transportation, FHWA, 1984 5. Geotechnical Investigation, North Side of W. Balboa Blvd. To the Bay, Between 15th Street and 18th Street, Newport Beach, California, Project No.: 01 -011, Abstract Consulting Group, September 5, 2001. 6. Orange County Stormwater Program, Model Water Quality Management Plan, September 26, 2003. 7. City Code Title 14 Water And Sewers -Chapter 14.36 Water Duality B. City of Newport Beach, Council Policy Manual, Policies L -18 and L -22 Drainage Technical Study Page 13 X14 j ilr ers "L Q3 Cv PROJECT 44tL Cr �-15TH STREE' STORM DRAT DRAINAGE .A (19 AC) 19TH STREET STORM DRAIN DRAINAGE AREA 117 AC) I I SCALE, 1`500' PROJECT BOUNDARY DRAINAGE BOUNDARY Figure 1 OFF-SITE HYDROLOGY Regent Newport Beach MetroPointe ilr ers "L Q3 SCALE, 1`500' PROJECT BOUNDARY DRAINAGE BOUNDARY Figure 1 OFF-SITE HYDROLOGY Regent Newport Beach ,s:s, _lZo /z bnm =1 :� Z o�o� no /io /e s.o�eo,e o: pei��niyp����o' fv -0l APPENDIX A: HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Hydrology Calculations - Orange County Rational Method Orange Count, R M H ver 1 by Jack Norm Node (Area(¢ # I Sub 100 1 101 1 1.10 200 1 201 1 0.90 202 1 1.50 203 0.40 300__1_____ 301 1 0.80 302 1 1.20 400 401 1 1.20 402 1 1.90 403 1 0.50 I Regent Newport Beach .5c I Hydrology Study s (C)'99 Existing Conditions (10 -year) cres)180illDev.1 Tt I Tc I I I Fm I Fm TotallTypelTypelmin.l min.1 " /hr1 " /hrlavg. 1.101 A 1 12 1 - - - -1 5.3713.901.1001.100 0.901 A 1 12 1---- 111.6812.501.1001.100 ----- I ---- I ---- 16.901 ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- 2.401 A 1 12 1---- 118.5811.911.1001.100 ----- I ---- I ---- 10.611 ----- i ---- I ---- I ---- 2.801 A 1 14 1---- 119.2011.881.0401.091 0.801 A 1 12 1 - - - -1 8.3013.041.1001.100 ----- 1 ---- 1 ---- 13.801 ----- 1 ---- 1____1____ 2.001 A 1 14 1---- 112.1112.451.0401.064 _____ I____ I____ 1 I_____ I____ I____ I____ 1.201 A 1 12 1---- 110.1312.711.1001.100 ----- 1 ---- 1 ---- 16.341 ----- I ---- I ---- I---- 3.101 A 1 15 1---- 116.4712.051.0801.088 ---- 1 ---- 10.431 ----- I ---- I ---- I---- 3.601 A 1 15 1---- 116.9012.021.0001.076 ----- I ---- I ---- i ---- I ----- I ---- I ---- I---- Calc'ed by FZ Date 01 -31 -2004 1 Checked by Date 1 10 - yr storm Page 1 of Q PathIslopel =V I Hydraulics and Notes totallLn 'I P Ifps I ------------------------------ I __________________________ ____I - - - -- 150.01.002010.161 Initial subarea 1 3. 761 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ I ______________________________I ------------ - - - - -- New stream: # 2 1 ______________________________I - - - - -1 3801.002410.541 Initial subarea 1 1.941 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ I - - - - -1 4101.003410.991 V -Chan. Dn- 0.1' Q= 1.9 3. 921 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ I - - - -- 140.01.002511.081 V -Chan. Dn= 0.2' Q= 3.9 4. 501 ---- 1 ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ I ______________________________I ------------ - - - - -- New stream: # 3 - _____________________________!� - - - - -1 2301.004810.461 Initial subarea 2. 111 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ i - - - - -1 4301.000911.881 18" pipe, Dn =0.91' Q= 2.1 4. 291 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ -----I----I-----I----I------------------------------ ------------- - - - - -I New stream: # 4 ______________________________ - - - - -1 3301.003610.541 Initial subarea 2. 821 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ - - - - -1 7501.000911.971 18" pipe, Dn =1.13' Q= 2.8 5. 471 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ - - - -- 180.01.001213.101 18" pipe, Dn =1.50' Q= 5.5 6. 301 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ------- 1_____1__ ___1____1____1____1_____1____1_ ___1____1_____1____1_____1____1 New stream: # 5 500 I I____I I I____ 1_____ 1____ 1______________________________ ------- I------------- - - - - -I I----------------- I - - - - -1 2601.005810.551 Initial subarea 501 1 0.901 0.901 A 1 14 1 - - - -1 7.6813.131.0401.0401 2. 501 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ______________________________ --------------- ______ Dev.Type: 12= Mobilhome park 14= Commercial 15= User's fraction / mix I 1 4/14/2004 Page 1 of 4 Hydrology Calculations - Orange County Rational Method Orange County I Regent Newport Beach I Calc'ed by FZ Date 01 -31 -2004 R M H ver 6.5c Hydrology Study Checked by _ Date by Jack Norris (C)'99 Existing Conditions (100 -year) 100 - yr storm Page T of _ 1 Node IArea(acres)ISOillDev.I Tt I Tc I I I Fm I Fm I Q PathlSlopel V I Hydraulics and Notes # I Sub ITOtallTypelTypelmin.I min.l " /hrl " /hrlavg.ItotallLn 'I '/' lfps I ------- I ----- I ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I----- I ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ 100 1 ------------------------------ __ -- I-----I-------- -I - --- I------- - - ---- - --I - - - -- 150.01.002010.161 Initial subarea 101 1 1.101 1.101 A 1 12 1 - - - -1 5.3715.941.1001.1001 5.781 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ ____- _________________________ New stream: # 2 200 1 1 1 1 1 ____I I____ 1_________ I____________ _____________ _____ ------- I ----- I ----- I ---- I ---- I I----- I---- I---- I---- I - - - - -1 3801.002410.541 Initial subarea 201 1 0.901 0.901 A 1 12 1---- 111.6813.801.1001.1001 3.001 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ ------- I ----- I ----- I ---- I ---- 15 .831 ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I ----- 1 4101.003411.171 V -Chan. Dn= 0.2' Q= 3.0 202 1 1.501 2.401 A 1 12 1---- 117.5113.021.1001.1001 6. 301 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ----- -- I ----- I -- --- I---- I---- 10. 561 ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I----- 140.01.002511.191 V -Chan. Dn= 0.2' Q= 6.3 203 1 0.401 2.801 A 114 1---- 118.0712.961.0401.0911 7.241 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ _- _____ 1_____ 1_____ 1____ 1____ I____ I_____ I____ I____ I____ I_____ I-___ I_____ I____ I________ ______________________ ------- 1_____1__ ___1____1____1____1_____1____1_ ___1____1_____1____1_____1____1 New stream: # 3 300 I____I I I I I____ I_________ I________ ________________ ______ -- ----- 1- -- -- 1----1____1____1 ----- 1 2301.004810.461 Initial subarea 301 1 0.801 0.801 A 1 12 1 - - - -1 8.3014.63.1001.1001 3.261 ---- I ----- I- - -I —_ ____ _______________________ -- ----- I----- I-----I----I - - - -13 .891---- -I----I---- I---- I -- - --1 4301.000911.841 18" pipe, Dn =1.50' Q- 3.3 302 1 1.201 2.001 A 1 14 1---- 112.1913.711.0401.0641 6. 571 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ------- I ----- I ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I ----- I ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ------- 1_____ j__ ___j____1____1____1_____1____1_ ___1____1_____1____1_____1____1 New stream: # 4 400 I_____________ I____ I________________________ ______ -- --- _____I -- ---1----1----1 -------- --------- - - - - -1 3301.003610.541 Initial subarea 401 1 1.201 1.201 A 1 12 1---- 110.1314.131.1001.1001 4.351 ---- I_____ I ---- I------------------------------ ------- 1 ----- 1 ----- 1 ---- 1 ---- 15 .081 ----- 1 ---- 1 ---- 1 ---- 1 ----- 1 7501.000912.461 18" pipe, Dn =1.50' Q= 4.3 402 1 1.901 3.101 A 1 15 1---- 115.2113.271.0801.0881 8. 881 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ ------- 1 ----- 1 ----- 1 ---- 1 ---- 10.271 ----- 1 ---- 1 ---- 1 ---- 1 ----- 180.01.001215.021 18" pipe, Dn =1.50' Q= 8.9 403 1 0.501 3.601 A 1 15 1 ---- 115. 4813. 241.0001.07 6110.251 ---- I ----- I---- I ------------------------------ _- _____ I_____ I_____ I____ I____ I____ I___-_ I____ I____ I____ I_____ I____ i_____ I____ I________________________ ______ ------- 1_____1__ ___1____1____1____1_____1____1_ ___1____1_____1____1_____1____1 New stream: # 5 Soo------------------------------- - - - - - -- 1-----1-----1-- -- - --- (----- --------- --'I-- --- 2601.005810.551 Initial subarea 501 1 0.901 0.901 A 1 14 1 - - - -1 7.8814.771.0401.0401 3. 831 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------- _- _____ I_____ I_____ I__-_ I-___ I____ I_____ I____ I____ I____ I_____ I____ I_____ I____ I _______- __._ _________________ __ _________________ ________ _____ ___ _____ ____ _ _ ____ Dev.Type: 12= Mobilhome park 14= Commercial 15= User's fraction / mix 4/14/2004 Page 2 of 4 1 1 Hydrology Calculations - Orange County Rational Method Orange R M H by Sac] Node # 100 1 101 1 102 1 103 1 104 1 200 1 201 1 202 1 300 1 301 1 302 i 303 1 304 305 400 401 County Regei ver 6.5c Hydri Norris (C)'99 Prop Area(acres)ISOillDev. Sub ITOtallTypelType r I r 0.701 0.701 A 1 11 ----- I ----- I ---- I---- 0.801 1.501 A 1 11 ----- I ----- i ---- I---- 1.501 3.001 A 1 14 ----- I ----- I ---- I---- 0.201 3.201 A 1 14 I I I 0.501 0.501 A 1 9 1.20 1.701 A 1 15 0.40 0.60 1.80 1.50 0.50 0.90 0.401 A 1 11 1.001 A 1 11 _1____1____ 2.801 A 1 11 4.301 A 1 15 ----- I ---- I---- 4.801 A ( 14 it Newport Beach ,logy Study ,sed Conditions (10 -y, Tt I Tc I I I Fm min.1 min.1 "/hrl "/hr - - -- 114.5912.201.140 0.561 ----- I ---- I---- - - -- 115.1512.151.140 1.151 ----- I ---- I---- - - -- 116.3012.061.040 0.131 ----- I ---- I---- - - -- 116.4312.051.040 - - - -1 7.4213.241.160 4.261 ----- 1 ---- 1---- - - -- 111.6812.501.280 I ----- I---- - - -- 111.9712.46 0.491 ----- I____ - - -- 112.4512.41 2.761 ----- I____ - - -- 115.2112.15 4.201 ----- I ---- - - -- 119.4111.87 0.491 ----- I____ - - -- 119.9011.84 ____ I_____ I____ .140 .140 .140 .080 .040 0.901 A 1 14 1 - - - -1 7.8813.131.040 ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I ----- I ---- I---- Calc'ed by Checked by !ar) 1 10 - yr at, Fm I Q= PathlSlopelsV 2 avg.ItotallLn 'I '/' Ifps ---- -- - --I 3201.000910.37 .1401 1.301 ---- I ----- i---- ---- I - - - -- 190.01.003312.66 .1401 2.711 ---- I ----- I---- ---- I - - - - -1 2901.006614.21 .0901 5.331 - - -- I ----- I ---- ---- I ----- 130.01.003313.73 .0871 5.661 ---- 1 ----- I---- ---- I - - - - -1 1501.007310.34 .1601 1.391 ---- I ----- I---- ---- i - - - - -1 4301.000911.68 .2451 3.451 ---- 1 ----- 1---- ---- I - - - -- F2-3-0- I ----- ) ---- 1.001310.32 .1401 0.841 ---- I ----- I---- ---- I - - - -- 175.01.004012.56 .1401 2.041 ---- I ----- I---- ---- I - - - - -1 4101.002012.48 .1401 5.051 ---- I ----- I---- ---- I - - - - -1 6001.001012.38 .1191 6.761 ---- I ----- I ---- ---- I ----- 180.01.001212.73 .1111 7.471 ---- I ----- I---- 1 - -- - -1 2601.005810.55 .0401 2.501 ---- I ----- I---- ---- I ----- I ---- I ----- I---- FZ Date 01 -31 -2004 1 Date ,rm Page 1 of 1 Hydraulics and Notes 1 Initial subarea 1 18" pipe, Dn =0.48' Q= 1.3 18" pipe, Dn =0.59' Q= 2.7 18" pipe, Dn =1.13' Q= 5.3 1 ________ ______________________1 New stream: # 2 1 Initial subarea _18" pipe, Dn =0.71' Q= 1.4 1 ____ ______________1 New stream: # 3 1 ______ ________________________1 Initial subarea 18" pipe, Dn =0.36' Q= 0.8 18" pipe, Dn =0.71' Q= 2.0 1 24" pipe, Dn =1.28 Q= 5.1 1 ________________ ______________1 24" pipe, Dn =1.47' Q= 6.8 1 New stream: # 4 Initial subarea ______ _____ __________ ____________ ____ Dev.Type: 9= a -10 dwellings /acre 11= Condominiums 14= Commercial 15= User's fraction / mix 1 4/14/2004 Page 3 of 4 Hydrology Calculations - Orange County Rational Method 1 Orange County Regent Newport Beach I Calc'ed by FZ Date 01 -31 -2004 1 R M H ver 6.5c Hydrology Study I Checked by _ Date 1 by Sack Norris (C)'99 Proposed Conditions (100 -year) 1 100 - yr storm Page T of I 1________ -------------------- __________________°°°°°__°°°°°°°_____--------------- ____ --------- ____ ----------- 1 I Node 1 Area(aeres)ISoillDev.1 Tt I Tc I I I Fm I Fm I Q 1PathlSlopel V I Hydraulics and Notes I I # I Sub ITotallTYpelTYpelmin.l min.1 " /hr1 " /hrlavg.ItotallLn 'I '/' Ifps I I -------------------------------------- I-------- I----- I---- I----- 1---- I------------------------- - - - - -I 1 100 1 - - - -I I i -- - 1----- I---- I------------------------- - - - - -I I ------- I ----- I ----- I--- -I---- 1 1 3201.000910.371 Initial subarea I 1 101 1 0.701 0.701 A 111 1 - - -- 114.5913.351.1401.1401 2. 021 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ 1 ------- I ----- I ----- I ---- I ---- 10. 501 ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I ----- 190.01.003313.001 18" pipe, Dn =0.61' Q= 2.0 I 1 102 1 0.801 1.501 A 111 1 - - -- 115.0913.291.1401.1401 4. 251 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ I 1 ------- 1 ----- 1 ----- 1 ---- 1 ---- 11 .041 ----- 1 ---- 1 ---- 1 ---- 1 ----- 1 2901.006614.651 18" pipe, Dn =0.77' Q= 4.2 I 1 103 1 1.501 3.001 A 114 1 - - -- 116.1313.161.0401.0901 8. 301 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ I I------- I ----- I ----- 1 ---- I ---- 10.121 ----- I ---- I ---- I ---- I ----- 130.01.003314.141 21" pipe, Dn =1.36' Q= 8.3 1 1 104 1 0.201 3.201 A 114 1 - - -- 116.2513.151.0401.0871 8. 821 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ I I ------- I ----- I ----- I ---- I ---- ---- I ----- i ---- I ---- I ---- I ----- I ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ I I ------- I ----- I ----- I ---- I ---- I---- I----- ---- I ---- I____ 1_____ 1____ 1_____ 1____ 1 New stream: # 2 I 200 1 201 1 0.50 202 1 1.20 300__1_____ 301 1 0.40 302 1 0.60 303 1 1.80 304 1 1.50 305 1 0.50 400 1 401 1 0.90 Dev.Type: 9 4/14/2004 0.50 1.70 0.40 1.00 2.80 4.30 4.80 0.90 I A 9 A 15 A 11 A 11 A 111 A 15 A 14 I A 14 dwellings - - -- 7.42 3.841 ----- ---- 111.26 - - -- 111.97 0.441 ----- ---- 112.41 2.501 ----- ---- 114.91 3.791 ----- ---- 118.70 0.431 ----- ---- 119.13 - - -- 7.88 nacre 11= 4.94 3.89 3.75 3.68 3.31 2.91 12.87 14.77 rondo .160 .280 .140 .140 .140 .080 .040 .040 niniu II ____1_____1____1_______________ _______I ---- I - - - - -1 1501.007310.341 Initial subarea .1601 2. 151 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ---- I - - - - -1 4301.000911.871 18" pipe, Dn =0.93' Q= 2.1 .2451 5. 571 ---- 1 ----- 1 ---- I------------------------------ ---- I----- I---- I--- - -1 - -- I------------------------- - - - - -! ---- I - - - -- 1____1-----1___ I New stream: # 3 II_ ______________________________ ---- I- - - - -1 2301.001310.321 Initial subarea .1401 1. 301 ---- I ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ---- I----- 175.01.004012.831 18" pipe, Dn =0.46' Q= 1.3 .1401 3. 181 ---- 1 ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ---- I - - - -- 4101.002012.731 18" pipe, Dn =0.94' Q= 3.2 .1401 7. 981 ---- 1 ----- I ---- I------------------------------ ---- I - - - - -1 6001.001012.641 27" pipe, Dn =1.60' Q= 8.0 .119110.791____ I_____ I____ I_____ _________________ ---- I - - - -- 180.01.001213.121 30" pipe, Dn =1.66' Q= 10.8 .111111. 911 ---- I ----- I ---- I ------------------------------ __________ ____________________ New stream: # 4 I_________ _____________ ---- I - - - - -1 2601.005810.551 Initial subarea .0401 3. 83i ---- 1 ----- 1 ---- 1------------------------------ _________- .____________________ ns 14= Commercial 15= User's fraction / mix Page 4 of 4 ' Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Appendix D: Marine Biological Resources Impact Assessment Michael Brandman Associates HdClien[(MJN) \006 v\ O0200EIRV0 0020_ Appendix Dividers dov MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Contact: Jason Brandman, Principal (714) 508 -4100 Prepared by: Coastal Resources Management 1569 Via Monserate Fallbrook, CA 92028 Contact: Rick Ware, Principal (760) 451 -1830 April 14, 2004 0 i� IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................ .............................22 3.1 ! TABLE OF CONTENTS Relevant California Environmental Policies and Acts ...................... .............................22 3.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................. .............................23 ' Section Page Short-term Hotel Construction Impacts ............................................. .............................25 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................1 12 -Slip Marina Construction Impacts ................................................ .............................29 ' 1.1 Project Location and Current Uses ....................................................... ..............................1 3.8 1.2 Proposed Project and Proposed Uses .............................. ..............................3 2.0 MARINE RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......... ..............................6 2.1 Sediments .............................................................................................. ..............................6 2.2 Habitats and Marine Biological Communities in the Project Area .... .............................12 I�L 11 1 i J 1 3.0 2.3 Endangered, Threatened, Raze or Sensitive Marine Species and Sensitive Habitats ..... 19 4.0 MITIGATION TO REDUCE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY AND MARINE LIFE .................................................... .............................41 4.1 Hotel Construction and Operation ............................... .............................41 4.2 Marina Construction and Operation ............................. .............................42 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .................... .............................46 5.1 Alternative 1 -No Project/No Development Al ternative .................... .............................46 5.2 Alternative 2- Reduced Intensity Alternative ...................................... .............................46 5.3 Alternative 3 -No Project/Development Pursuant to the Existing General Plan Designation......................................................................................... .............................46 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 7.0 LITERATURE CITED. .................................................... .............................47 Coastal Resources Management i Marine Resources IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................ .............................22 3.1 Thresholds for Significance ............................................................... .............................22 3.2 Relevant California Environmental Policies and Acts ...................... .............................22 3.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................. .............................23 3.4 Project - Related Issues that Could Adversely Affect Marine Biological Resources ......24 3.5 Short-term Hotel Construction Impacts ............................................. .............................25 3.6 12 -Slip Marina Construction Impacts ................................................ .............................29 3.7 Long -term Impacts of Hotel Operations ............................................ .............................35 3.8 Long -term Impacts of the 12 -Slip Marina .......................................... .............................37 4.0 MITIGATION TO REDUCE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY AND MARINE LIFE .................................................... .............................41 4.1 Hotel Construction and Operation ............................... .............................41 4.2 Marina Construction and Operation ............................. .............................42 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .................... .............................46 5.1 Alternative 1 -No Project/No Development Al ternative .................... .............................46 5.2 Alternative 2- Reduced Intensity Alternative ...................................... .............................46 5.3 Alternative 3 -No Project/Development Pursuant to the Existing General Plan Designation......................................................................................... .............................46 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 7.0 LITERATURE CITED. .................................................... .............................47 Coastal Resources Management i Marine Resources LIST OF TABLES Table Page I EPA Total Maximum Daily Load Target Values for Newport Bay ........... .............................12 2 Comparison of Benthic Species Richness, Abundance, and Density Per Square Meter in the Rhine Channel, Newport Bay. 1954- 1994 ...................................... .............................16 3 Common Invertebrates Observed on the Bulkheads and Docks in Newport Bay ...................17 4 Potential Soft Bottom Habitat Losses Associated with the 12 -Slip Marina ............................39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page IProject Area Location ................................................................................. ............................... 2 2 Project Plans ............................................................................................... ............................... 4 3 Proposed design of 12 -slip marina at east end of project area .................. ............................... 5 4 1994 State Regional Water Resources Control Board sampling stations .. .............................11 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph I Location of project site and other areas of Newport Bay .............................. ..............................3 2 Marine habitat fronting the proposed Marinapark project ............................ ..............................7 3 View looking west towards 18th Street ......................................................... ..............................7 4 South - facing view of sand beach in the area proposed as a 12 -slip marina ..............................8 5 North- facing view of shoreline and waters proposed as a 12 -slip marina .... ..............................8 APPENDICES A Marine Biological Reconnaissance Survey at the Marinapark Hotel Project Site B State Water Resources Control Board Contaminant and Benthic Biological Study Coastal Resources Management ii Marine Resources MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results and findings of a marine biological impact assessment for the Newport Beach Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. The purposes ofthis investigation are to identify the existing marine resources in the vicinity of the project site, analyze project impacts on marine resources, and identify mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for potential adverse project impacts on marine resources. As part of the project, Coastal Resources Management (CRM) conducted a marine biological reconnaissance survey at the site of the proposed hotel development on 21 October, 2003. The marine biological survey was conducted to (1) assess the project depths, sediment types of marine fife on the bayfloor in the vicinity of the property proposed for redeveloped and (2) to provide the basis for a marine biological resources impact assessment of the proposed project on intertidal and subtidal marine resources in the project area. Field survey results are integrated into Section 2, Environmental Setting and presented in full in Appendix 1. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND CURRENT USES The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula in southwest Newport Beach (Figure 1, Photograph 1). Current uses of the proposed hotel site include a mobile home park, a public park (Las Areas), and a public beach. The shoreline consists of a wide, City- maintained sand beach between 16"' and 18'h Streets. A cement groin separates the sand beach from the American Legion Marina on the east. Residential docks border the west end of the public beach at 19'h Street. The Marinapark mobile home park and a public parking lot are located south of the public beach. The shoreline and waters at the project site are located southeast of the Rhine Channel section of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor) and south of Lido Isle. Several shipyards are active in the Rhine Channel, and private and commercial vessels are kept in boat slips that lute the Rhine Channel, Lido Peninsula, and Balboa Peninsula perimeter. Private vessels are moored throughout the waters in the general vicinity of the project area. The waters along the shoreline between 15" and 18'h Street are currently used for public recreation, including swimming, kayaking, sailing, and power boating. Coastal Resources Management 1 Marine Rmurces to 0 Q m� m� Z N ID lO 0 r o GO r o °0 .— J L U m A d L wa o LL U z d� o� IL 3 Coastal Resources Management 2 Marine Resources M O i' 42 ` I .14 at 3 a iic� b �1� la Ice _ d• IN rr'O In . I: ki ,.. to 0 Q m� m� Z N ID lO 0 r o GO r o °0 .— J L U m A d L wa o LL U z d� o� IL 3 Coastal Resources Management 2 Marine Resources I I I I I I I I 11 I U I I I I I '.J Photograph 1. Location of Project Site and other areas of West Newport Bay 1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROPOSED USES 1.2.1 Hotel Resort, Shoreline, and Marina The Hotel design plans are presented in Figures 2 and 3. The proposed project is the development of the 110 -room luxury resort Marinapark Newport Beach hotel consisting of one and two -story villas in sixteen buildings with ancillary hotel structures including an administration building, a two -story hotel lobby building, a spa villa, and a 100- space, partly subterranean parking structure that will support four roof -top public tennis courts at approximately five (5) feet above the grade of Balboa Boulevard (Michael Brandman Associates 2003). The project also includes the displacement of the 56 -space mobile home park, and the removal of the existing onsite uses associated with Las Arenas Park (e.g., Balboa Community Center, Girl Scouts House, children's play area, four public tennis courts, and a metered 21 -space parking lot), and their replacement with a 6,191 square foot Community Center /Girls Scouts House, a 3000 square -foot tot lot, and a new 41- space, shared parking lot. In all, the proposed project will include approximately 360,000 square feet of development on 8.10 acres. Primary access to the project will be via West Balboa Boulevard and secondary access will be via a contrglled exit /entrance off of 18 Street. Additional fire and delivery access will occur from 15 Street. Figure 3 illustrates proposed beach enhancements including a marina consisting of 12 new yacht slips (including four slips for public use) within Newport Harbor and a public beachfront Coastal Resources Manag=ent 3 Marine Resources I I u I 11 I I I I i 11 Figure 3. Proposed design of 12 -slip marina at east end of the project area Coastal Resources Managetnerd 5 Marine Resources I s It aS/ ' I p V91 III o I.i �i r I.. I RI li9 �1 - r� i f0 z _ U yqyq7!! � 3 gg� 3� a a mh" .4. 1� a i N11'i i m `r24. l 13 Figure 3. Proposed design of 12 -slip marina at east end of the project area Coastal Resources Managetnerd 5 Marine Resources I I 1 th walkway that will extend from the project's eastern property line to 18 Street. Public access to the walkway will be provided via four access points, twogilong West Balboa Boulevard, one along the project's eastern boundary, and one along 18 Street. I I I I 11 I 7 I I 1 2.0 MARINE RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The marine environment area investigated for this project extends between 15`h Street and 19rh Street, between the shoreline and a depth of -11 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). In addition, sediment, chemical, and biological information collected between 1952 and 2003 from 10" Street to and including the Rhine Channel was included where it pertained to potential project impacts. The local project area is shown in Photographs 2 through 5. Channel depths vary between 0 to approximately 11 feet (Mean Lower Low Water). At the site of the proposed docks at the east end of the swimming beach, the water depths range from 0 to approximately 10 It MLLW. The marine environment in this section of Newport Harbor is subject to reductions in sediment and water quality as a result of restricted tidal circulation, industrial activities, dry weather runoff, and storm water runoff to the bay (California Department of Fish and Game 1952; County of Orange 1978; California Water Resources Control Board 1998; Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 2003). Newport Bay is currently included on the U.S. EPA 303(d) Listed Water Bodies and Associated Pollutants of Concern (EPA 2002). Newport Harbor (Lower Newport Bay) is specifically listed as impaired as a result of significant concentrations of metals and pesticides in the sediments. Water - related industries and uses at various times in the past have included private and military vessel construction and boat repair facilities, cannery processing facilities for the Newport Bay fishing fleet, boat marinas and commercial businesses (i.e., restaurants). 2.1 SEDIMENTS Identifying sediment types and concentration of chemicals in Newport bay sediments is important for several reasons: (1) chemical contaminants are primarily bound to finer grain sizes (2) contaminants in the sediments can be assimilated into the food chain (3) alterations to the seafloor through dredging or other activities that disrupt the seafloor may result in the release of contaminants to the water column and (4) sediment characteristics and sediment contamination will affect the distribution and abundances of marine organisms. Coastal Resources Management 6 Marine Resources I :I RII I C- wo 2.1.1 Intertidal Sand Beach Sediments and Levels of Contaminants Petra (2004a) conducted sediment grain size and sediment chemistry testing from beach sediments in the area proposed as a 12 -slip marina for a Limited Phase II Soils Assessment. These sediments were collected at the low tide line. Photograph 2 shows the general area where the samples were collected from. No tidal level data relative to Mean Lower Low Water information was provided. The upper three feet of sediment cores taken at the swimming beach sediments consisted of fine to medium sands; at a depth of four feet, the sediments included finer silts. No detectable concentrations of semi- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organo - chloride pesticides (OCPs), or polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs) were detected. Metals were not detected at elevated ranges. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected at 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in soil from Boring 2. TPH concentration of 10 mg/kg is insignificant and does not represent an environmental condition at these boring locations (Petra 2004a). 2.1.2 Subtidal Bayfloor Sediments and Levels of Contaminants Beyond the tide line, Newport Harbor sediments consist of sand, mud, or combinations of sand/shell hash sediments depending on tidal exchange rates, current velocities, channel depths, the configurationofthe bay, and proximity to sources of sediment inputs. The residence time ofocean water in this section ofNewport Bay is about 7 days (RMA 2001 in Harbor Resources Division, unpublished data). This is in comparison to areas near the harbor entrance channel where the residence time is less than one day. The long residence time required to flush the bay through tidal action appears to be an important factor that affects both water and sediment quality. Observations made during a site reconnaissance survey at the Marinapark proposed mariiaproject site (CRM 2004, Appendix 1) indicated that sediments at depths shallower than -2 ft MLLW were predominantly sands, a combination of silts and sands at depths up to -6 ft MLLW, and primarily silts at depths up to 11 ft MLLW (Coastal Resources Management unpublished data). Comparatively, the bayfloor in the vicinity of 18"' Street at the entrance to the Rhine Channel consists of between 90% and 95% fine - grained sediments at depths of -5 to -10 ft MLLW (Harbor Resources Department unpublished data). Petra (2004b) conducted environmental site assessment work at the proposed Regent Marina site, Newport Beach, California on March 17`h, 2004. The work consisted of drilling and sampling three borings at a depth of 0.5, 2.5 foot and 5 feet below the mud line in the Rhine Channel to assess the environmental condition of submarine sediments on site. The five foot samples were archived. The soil samples were analyzed by dry weight in a State approved laboratory. In addition, representative samples of the subsurface sediments were collected for grain size analysis. Coastal Resources Managemem 9 Marine Resources The geologic and chemical information obtained indicates the following: The Rhine Channel in the vicinity of the site is underlain by one to three feet of bay mud consisting of organic silty and clayey sand. Beneath the bay mud is medium and coarse sand with shell fragments. Trace amounts of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected in the one -half foot samples in all three borings and in the two and one half foot sample in Boring BP -2. The detected concentrations were less than 40 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The likely source of this contamination is storm water runoff. Semi- volatile organic compounds (SVOCS) were not detected in any of the collected samples. The organo - chlorine pesticide 4,4' -DDE was detected at a concentration of 13 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) in the one half foot sample in boring BP -3. The source of this material is likely. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not detected in any of the collected samples. . Metals concentrations were within the anticipated background range for soils in Southern California. Based on these findings, the Limited Phase Two Sampling Program of submarine sediments at the proposed Marinapark marina site indicates that sediments are >80% sand material, and classified as medium to coarse sands. These materials are suitable for beach disposal. Slight chemical degradation of the sediments have occurred (Petra 2004b). Very low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the upper one -half foot of the bay mud. The hydrocarbons are not present at levels which require regulatory involvement or remediation. A single sample contained a very low concentration of a organo - chlorine pesticide (13 ug/kg 4,4 -DDE). This concentration is well below action levels for soils on land. Between 1992 and 1997, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB and other State and Federal agencies conducted investigations of sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic community conditions in Newport Bay and other selected water bodies in the Santa Ana Region (SWRCB et al. 1998). Lower and Upper Newport Bay sediments were surveyed in 1994 at 23 locations (Figure 2). Three stations were located in west Newport Bay region, in the region surrounding the proposed hotel and marina site Coastal Resources Management 10 Marine Resources 1 86003 86004 / 86002— 86001 I us i 65017 C �(I`.r ..__ —. j 85018 85007 f 85001 ��''++�-- �1 `,3�, 65006 8501$ 85014 85009 35002 — �----- --C�'g •`� ����\�`/ 85(110 (/� —� '• l �' \ /,, 85003 85011 • ././/7 ""'•.__..,``. 85016 35006 -�,_ �\/� x 1� Figure 4. 1994 SWRCB Sampling Stations in Newport Bay for sediment contaminants and sediment biology. These station included 85006, offthe east tip of Lido Peninsula; 85012, mid - channel between the Balboa Peninsula and Lido Isle near the I Oh Street Beach, and 85013, in the Rhine Channel. Based on the results of the sampling, Newport Bay sediments contained elevated concentrations of several contaminants at levels known to be toxic to marine organisms. Rhine Channel sediments (85013) contained elevated concentrations of mercury, copper, p,p; DDD, Total PCBs, and tri-butyl tin (TBT). Sediments around Lido Peninsula and Lido Isle (including 85006 and 85012), Harbor Island, Dover Shores, and De Anza (Bayside) Coastal Resources Management 1I Marine Resources I IJ Peninsula were elevated for either lead, p'p, DDE, or Total Chlordane, or a combination of these compounds. Potential biotoxicity on marine organisms was also addressed. These results are summarized in Section 2.2. The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) recently investigated site - specific sediment contamination in the Rhine Channel and the effects of contaminants on marine organisms at 16 stations in 2002 (SCCWRP 2003). Their study results also found I contamination in the sediments. Concentrations of copper, mercury, lead, zinc, and total PCBs exceeded the sediment TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) targets at all 15 sediment stations in the Rhine Channel. The exceedances varied between 4.3 times the TMDL sediment target for zinc, to 110 times the TMDL sediment target for mercury. Total PCBs exceeded the TMDL sediment target by 13 times. Several other constituents were also elevated. Elevated concentrations of dissolved trace meters (copper, nickel, mercury, selenium, and zinc) indicated that some sediments were being released to the water column. The results of toxicity experiments conducted with these contaminated sediments are ' discussed in Section 2.2. Petra (2003c) conducted sediment contaminant sampling in the Rhine Channel for a proposed shipyard redevelopment project at the South Coast Shipyards. Copper, lead, and mercury exceeded the Title 22 of the California Code of regulations Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) by 10 times in several samples. Elevated concentrations ofPCBs were also found in the sediments. TABLE 1 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Target Values for Newport Bay Source: SCCWRP 2003 I I I I I I II Contaminant TMDL Target Value m Contaminant TMDL Target Value n Copper 18.7 chlordane 2.26 Chromium 52 dieldrin 0.72 Lead 30.4 Total DDTs 3.89 Zinc 124 Total PCBs 21.5 Mercury 0.13 2.2 HABITATS AND MARINE BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES IN THE PROJECT AREA Marine habitat types in the Marinapark project area include a city- maintained sandy beach, intertidal sand/mudflats, subtidal bay bottom (benthos), a cement groin that separates the sand beach from the American Legion marina, and open water bay habitat (Photographs 2 to5). The project area intertidal zone extends from Extreme Low Water ( -2.0 ft. MLLW) to Extreme High Water ( +7 ft. MLLW). Subtidally, water depths in the project area range from -2.0 ft to Coastal Resources Management 12 Marine Resources approximately -11 ft MLLW. Depths at the offshore edges ofthe boat docks located to the east of the project area are approximately -8 ft to -10 ft MLLW (Coastal Resources Management, 2004). 2.2.1 Saud Beach While most of the shoreline of Newport Harbor is dredged for boat slips and lined with bulkheads, open sand beaches are scattered throughout the harbor. Most ofthe sandy beaches are located around Balboa Island, and secondarily, on the north side of Lido Isle and Balboa Peninsula. On the Balboa Peninsula, public swimming beaches in Newport Harbor are located between 15'" and 19'" Street, and 9" and 10" streets. These beaches provide the public with recreational opportunities and also serve as an important marine wildlife habitat. The high intertidal portion ofthe city- maintained public beach support few ifany marine organisms in the sediments because ofthe infrequent tidal exposure and periodic cleaning and grooming. This higher elevation however, provides resting habitat for seabirds (gulls and pelicans). The middle and low intertidal zones provide more consistent tidal inundation and therefore supports burrowing species of invertebrates (primarily clams, crustaceans, and polychaete worms). These organisms attract shorebirds to the beach, that utilize the invertebrates as their food source (Quammen 1980). 2.2.2 Subtidal Soft Bottom Beuthos Beyond the shoreline, the sediments support algae and bottom- dwelling organisms (benthic invertebrates), some of which crawl over the surface of Newport Bay sediments, while others lead a sessile existence and protrude above the sediments from within a tube. While the majority of benthic invertebrates of bays and estuaries obtain their nutrition by consuming organic detritus, some graze on diatoms and algae or actively prey on other invertebrates. In turn, bottom feeding fishes and resident soft bottom - dwelling fishes (gobies, juvenile flatfish, and sand bass) rely upon these benthic organisms as food sources ( ACOE 2000, MBC and SCCWRP 1980). The shallow subtidal zone along the sand beach shoreline of the project area is vegetated with a cover of green algae (Enteromorpha sp). At deeper depths, red algae is more common. During site surveys conducted in October 2003 and in March 2004, no eelgrass (Zostera marina) was found along the shoreline at depths between 0.0 and -11 ft MLLW. Eelgrass is a sensitive marine resource because of its value as a nursery habitat and protective cover that it provides for invertebrates and fish. Eelgrass also attracts juvenile baitfish, which are foraged on by the endangered California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni). While it is prolific throughout most of Newport Harbor from the Pavilion east to the Harbor Entrance Channel (CRM 2002, CRM in preparation) its western -most occurrence along the Balboa Peninsula is at the Newport Harbor Yacht Club (CRM in preparation). Coastal Resources Management 13 Marine Resources I I-1 Over 300 species of benthic invertebrates that live in the sediments (benthic infauna) have been identified from Newport Bay mudflats and subtidal channel sediments (Barnard and Reish 1959, Dawson 1963, Daugherty 1978, MBC and SCCWRP 1980, Seapy 1981, Ware 1985. SWRCB et al. 1998). The dominant types are annelid worms (polychaetes and oligochaetes), arthropods (gammarid and caprellid amphipods, isopods, ostracods, and cumaceans), and mollusks (gastropods and pelecypods). Most are not endemic to Newport Bay or necessarily reflect polluted bottom conditions. Rather, they are widely distributed and highly adaptable (they survive well under stress conditions which occur naturally in many California coastal bays and estuaries). The numbers of benthic infaunal species decrease between the harbor entrance and the regions where water circulation is restricted in Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay (MBC and SCCWRP 1980, Daugherty 1978). These community changes occur because of increasing environmental stresses due to extremes in salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen, as well as decreasing grain sizes within the sediments they inhabit. Other influences, related to the concentrations of contaminants in the sediments will also affect the types and abundances of organisms inhabiting Newport Bay sediments ( SWRCB et al. 1998). Common benthic invertebrates identified in the fore - mentioned studies include polychaete worms (Capitella capitata, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, Streblospio benedicti, Haploscoloplos elongates, Tharyx sp. Neanthes arenaceodentata, Polydora socialis, P. ligni, P. nuchalis, Prionospio heterobranchia newportensis), oligochaete worms, amphipods (Grandidierella japonica, Corophium acherusicum, C. insidiosum, Ampithoe spp.), caprellid amphipods (Mayerella banksia), snails (Tryonia imitator and Assiminea californica), and clams (Theora lubrica, Chione fructii laga, Macoma spp., Tagelus subteres and T. californianus) Many larger types of benthic invertebrates live on the sediment surface (epifauna). Several species of epifauna were observed at the site of the proposed Marinapark marina in October j 2003 (CRM 2003, Appendix 1). These included the hydroid Corymorpha palma, tube anemone Pachycerianthus f:mbriatus, tube- dwelling polychaete annelid worms, tube- dwelling amphipods (Grandidierella japonica), and the predatory sea slug (Chelidonera [Navanax] inermis. I Coastal Rewunc Management 14 Marine Resources 11 Historically, the benthic infaunal community in the general vicinity of the proposed Marinapark marina is characterized by low numbers of species and high abundances of a few species of invertebrates that reproduce well and out compete other species under stressed environmental conditions (California Department ofFish and Game 1953, County of Orange 1978, SWRCB et al. 1998). The number ofbenthic species identified at stations between 10`h Street and the Rhine Channel during the SWRCB et al. 1994 survey varied between 14 (10h Street) to 32 (Lido ' Peninsula). Comparatively, cleaner sediments near the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel support as many as 207 species (MBC and SCCWRP 1980). I Coastal Rewunc Management 14 Marine Resources 11 The Rhine Channel and Lido Peninsula sites were classified as a "Transitional" by the S WRCB which indicates that the sediments have elevated chemical contamination and some toxicity to marine organisms is present. However, the benthic community is not "Degraded" compared to other areas of Newport Bay and other water bodies within the region. In Newport Harbor, "Degraded" benthic conditions were noted in the channel near 10'" Street beach, on the north side of Lido Island, the south side of Harbor Island, and the north side of Balboa Island. Benthic Contaminants and Toxicity to Marine Organisms in Newport Harbor. The State study (SWQCB et al. 1998) employed the Long and Morgan's Effects Range Low (ER -L) and Effects Range - Medium (ER -M) analysis (Long and Morgan 1990) to rate the potential for biological effects based upon the concentrations of contaminants found in the sediments that are associated with toxic responses on marine organisms. Biological effects are most probable at or above the ER -M (Long and Morgan 1990). Some Newport Bay sediments, including the Rhine Channel had the highest ERM Quotient of any regional water body. The Rhine Channel had the highest number of ERM exceedances; these were for copper, mercury, zinc, and total PCBs. The highest overall exceedances in Newport Bay were for mercury in the Rhine Channel (12.3x the ERM). Toxicity studies were conducted using Rhine Channel Sediments during the SCCWRP 2002 investigation ( SCCWRP 2003). Sediments were toxic to amphipod crustaceans and sea urchin larvae at a majority of the 15 stations sampled. However, the cause of the sediment or seawater - interface toxicity (SWI) reported in this study could not be determined with the available data. There were no statistically significant negative correlations among metals or organic contaminants and toxicity. It is possible that unmeasured contaminants or differences in contaminant bioavailability among stations may be responsible for the observed toxicity ( SCCWRP 2003). Based on the results of the 1998 S WRCB et al. benthic studies in Newport Harbor, the benthic community in the Rhine Channel has exhibited some signs ofrecovery compared to earlier studies in Newport Harbor in 1951 -1952 (California Department ofFish and Game 1953) and 1975 -1976 (County of Orange 1978). However, species richness is considerably lower in the sediments between Lido Isle and the Rhine Channel than in sediments nearer the harbor entrance channel. However, these sediments still have significant chemical contamination that may betoxicto benthic invertebrates and fishes. In addition, sediments released into the water column have a potential to release contaminants into the water column (SWRCB 1998 et al., SCCWRP 2003). During the 1951 -1952 Fish and Game study, 16 individuals of C. capitata were found in the Rhine ChanneL In September 1975 , 18 taxa and 184 individuals were collected in three, 0.05 sq. m Ponar Grab samples. Mean density per sample was 1,226 individuals/sq. m, and the mean number of species per sample was 8.6. During March/April 1976, 23 taxa and 483 individuals were collected at the same site. Mean density per sample was 3,220 individuals/sq. m, and the mean number of taxa collected increased to 14.3 per sample. The dominant species encountered in the Rhine Channel during the County study were the polychaetes Capitella capitata, Schistomeringos Coastal Remurces Management 15 Marim Resources i 1 1 I I I I I i I I I 1 I 1 I rudolphi, Polydora ligni, the crustaceans Leptochelia sp., Ampithoe pollex, Corophium acherusicum, and C. insidiosum. During both surveys, 30 species were collected. Table 2. Comparison of Benthic Species Richness, Abundance and Density Per Square Meter. Rhine Channel, Newport Bay. 1952 -1994 * Excludes nematode worms; nematodes were not counted during the County of Orange Survey During September 1994, three, 0.1 sq. m Young - modified Van Veen Grab samples were collected at Station 85013 in the Rhine Channel. Cumulatively, 30 taxa and 1,567 individuals were collected. With nematodes excluded (they were not counted during the County survey but described as "uncommon" in the Rhine Channel) the mean density per sample was 4,816 individuals/sq. m, and the mean number of species was 20.2 per sample. The dominant species included a complex of oligochaete worms, nematode worms, the polychaete worm Streblospio benedict, and the amphipod crustaceans Grandidierella japonica and Ampithoe valida. Based upon this analysis, the health of the benthic community in the Rhine Charnel slowly improved between 1952 and 1994, a span of 42 years. And, since 1975, the number of species in the Channel increased by a factor of 1.8 and infaunal density increased by a factor of 2.2. The stability of the community structure and the types of organisms present however, are likely still affected by levels of sediment contaminants that are known to produce toxicity at levels measured in the Rhine Charnel sediments (SWRCB et al. 1998). 2.23 Hard Substrate Associated Organisms Man -made substrates (bulkheads, seawalls, docks, pilings, jetties) in Newport Harbor are not biologically sensitive. However, hardscape provides surface area for sessile marine animals Coastal Resources Management 16 Marine Resources SAMPLING TOTAL RICHNESS RICHNESS MEAN METHOD AND AND ABUNDANCE PER DENSITY SAMPING AREA SAMPLE PER SURVEY SAMPLE AND YEAR OF (SQ M) STUDY Cal Fish & Game 16 individuals 1951 -1952 1 species County of Orange Three, 0.05 sq. in 184 individuals 8.6 1,226 September 1975 Ponar Grab samples 18 taxa n =3 n =3 County of Orange Three, 0.05 sq. in 483 individuals 14.3 3,220 March/April 1976 Ponar Grab samples 23 taxa n =3 n =3 Combined Survey Six, 0.05 sq. in 667 individuals 11.5 2,223 County of Orange Ponar Grab samples 30 taxa n =6 n =6 1975 -1976 Regional Board Three, 0.1 sq. in 1,567 individuals 20.3* 4,816* September 1994 Modified Van Veen 30 taxa n =3 n =3 Samples * Excludes nematode worms; nematodes were not counted during the County of Orange Survey During September 1994, three, 0.1 sq. m Young - modified Van Veen Grab samples were collected at Station 85013 in the Rhine Channel. Cumulatively, 30 taxa and 1,567 individuals were collected. With nematodes excluded (they were not counted during the County survey but described as "uncommon" in the Rhine Channel) the mean density per sample was 4,816 individuals/sq. m, and the mean number of species was 20.2 per sample. The dominant species included a complex of oligochaete worms, nematode worms, the polychaete worm Streblospio benedict, and the amphipod crustaceans Grandidierella japonica and Ampithoe valida. Based upon this analysis, the health of the benthic community in the Rhine Charnel slowly improved between 1952 and 1994, a span of 42 years. And, since 1975, the number of species in the Channel increased by a factor of 1.8 and infaunal density increased by a factor of 2.2. The stability of the community structure and the types of organisms present however, are likely still affected by levels of sediment contaminants that are known to produce toxicity at levels measured in the Rhine Charnel sediments (SWRCB et al. 1998). 2.23 Hard Substrate Associated Organisms Man -made substrates (bulkheads, seawalls, docks, pilings, jetties) in Newport Harbor are not biologically sensitive. However, hardscape provides surface area for sessile marine animals Coastal Resources Management 16 Marine Resources i and plants that would not be present in the Harbor in the absence of development. Common types of organisms found on bulkheads and docks in Newport Bay are listed in Table 3. The , hardscape of these structures support mussels, barnacles, and sponges, and other types of invertebrates, and plants that constitute the "biofouling community ". The undersides ofboat floats and docks are commonly colonized by green algae, barnacles, mussels, limpets, polychaete worms, moss animals (ectoprocts), and sea squirts (tunicates). Bay fishes are attracted to the biofouling habitat because it a constant source of food. The cement groin separating the American Legion marina from the sand beach at 16th Street is colonized by few species on the beach side of the groin, primarily because most of its length is buried by sand. Where exposed, it supports a limited population of barnacles (Balanus glandula) in the high tide zone and mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) in the mid to low tide zone. ' Table 3. Common Invertebrates Observed on the Bulkheads and Docks in Newport Bay Source: Coastal Resources Management (1998; unpublished observations) Scientific Name Common Name Intertidal Zone Relative Abundance Porifera- Sponges sponges Haliclona sp. sponge low present Cnidaria hydroids & anemones Aglaophenia dispar hydroid low present A. elegantissima anemone- solitary form low to mid uncommon Polychaeta segmented worms Arthropoda crustaceans Balanusglandula barnacle high common Chthamalus fissus/dalh barnacle high to splash common Pachygrapsus crassipes lined shore crab high to low uncommon. Mollusca- Gastropoda snails Collisella limatula finger limpet middle common Mopalia mucosa chiton middle to low uncommon Mollusca- Pelecypoda bivalves Chamaidae, unid rock jingle low to mid present Ostrea conchilcola oyster low to mid present Mytilus galloprovi ncialis bay mussel low to mid common Urochordata tunicates Styela montereyensis sea squirt low common Ciona intestinalis tunicate low common Styela plicata sea squirt low common Coastal Resources Management 17 Manse Resources 2.2.4 Bay Fishes Over 75 species offish are known from Newport Bay (Allen 1976; Bane 1968; Marine Biological Consultants and SCC WRP 1980). Along the Peninsula between 9" St and 13"' St, Allen (1976) recorded 19 species of fish during 18 months of sampling between 1974 and 1975 This sampling was conducted midchannel by otter trawl net methods. The numerically dominant species were white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), shiner surf perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), white surf perch (Phanerodon furcatus), slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatissima), deepbody anchovy (Anchoa compressa), black surf perch (Embiotoca jackrom), and queen fish (Seriphus politus). Bat ray (Myliobatis californica), white croaker, and queen fish contributed the most biomass. Other species, such as halibut (Paralichthys californicus), diamond turbot (Hypsopsetta guttulata), and various bottom- dwelling blennies and gobies are also found in Newport Harbor environments. Marinas, docks, bulkheads, and groins provide habitat that attract a variety of fishes and these environments may exhibit a greater diversity of fishes than channel and mudflat habitats alone because both soft bottom channel fishes and rock- associated fishes inhabit these environments (Coastal Resources Management 1993). Hard substrate offers cover, protection, or new sources of food for fishes such as pile perch (Damalichthvs vacca), pipefish (Sy0athus spp.), kelpfish (Heterostichus spp.), opaleye (Girella nigricans), halfinoon (Medialuna californiensis), sargo (Anisotremus davidsonr , and kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus . During two reconnaissance surveys conducted in depths between 0 and -12 ft MLLW, four species were observed by SCUBA diving biologists at the site of the proposed marina. These included topsmelt (Atherinops affnis), spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatus), bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus) and round stingray (Urolophus halleri) (Coastal Resources Management 2004). Other species of fish that are known from Newport Harbor include the arrow goby (Clevelandia ios)„ California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), black surfperch (Embiotoca jackrom), white surfperch (Phanerodon furcatus) shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), and walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum). Several ofthese species may be present at the site, but were not observed during the underwater surveys. i *4103 p '.M1 131*11 Water - oriented birds may use the beach at the project site as resting or foraging habitat, primarily when there is limited human activity. Connnon species expected to be seen in this stretch of shoreline include mallards (Arras platyrhynchos), gulls (Larus spp.), and California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis). Coastal Resources Management 18 Marine Resources 23 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, RARE, OR SENSITIVE MARINE SPECIES AND SENSITIVE HABITATS 23.1 Plants Eelgrass, Zostera marina. Eelgrass is a marine angiosperm that forms meadows in mud -and- sand substrates of bays and wetlands channels. Although it is not a listed species, it is considered sensitive by resource agencies because it is an important biological habitat for invertebrates and fishes. In Newport Bay, eelgrass grows in the lower intertidal and the shallow subtidal substrates at depths between 0.0 and -28 ft. MLLW, although more commonly, at depths shallower than -8 ft. MLLW. Recent surveys using GPS surveying methods ofeelgrass in Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay indicate prolific growth of this seagrass along Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Collins Isle, Beacon Bay, Harbor Island, Linda Isle, DeAnza Bayside Peninsula, Castaways, Bayshores Community, and Mariner's Mile extending between Bayshores and the Orange Coast College Rowing Facilities. Along the Balboa Peninsula, it is common between the Harbor Entrance Channel and the Pavilion. West of the Pavilion, it grows sporadically to the Newport Harbor Yacht Club. No eelgrass was located west of the Newport Harbor Yacht Club (Coastal Resources Management in preparation). There are no natural eelgrass beds along the shoreline between 15th St and 19th St. However, eelgrass transplants will be conducted along the 15" St to 19`h St shoreline in late Spring, 2004 as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Newport Harbor Eelgrass Restoration Project, in coordination with the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. These transplants will be conducted west of the proposed 12 -slip marina at depths between -2 and -8 ft MLLW. 23.2 Invertebrates There are no sensitive species of marine invertebrates located in the project area. 2.33 Fishes California halibut. Although the California halibut does not have a formal special species status, it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. California halibut spawn at sea and the larval stages are planktonic. After several months, the larval fish settle to the bottom, and migrate into shallow coastal waters, including Newport Bay. Halibut are distributed throughout the waters of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay, primarily as juveniles, although larger individuals are caught near the ocean entrance and in offshore waters. Young -Of -The -Year (YOTY) prefer shallow waters between about — 0.45 meter (1.5 ft) and —1.0 meter (3.5 ft) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), whereas juveniles prefer deeper channel bottoms to a maximum depth of approximately 4.5 meters Coastal Resources Management 19 Marine Resources I (15 ft) MLL W. After spending nearly nine months in Newport Bay, juveniles will move out ' into the open coastal environment. This species has a low to moderate potential to occur in the shallow waters of the project area because of the nature of the sand shoreline and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. 2.3.4 Birds The State and Federally- listed California least tern (Sterna antillarum brown) is a spring -and- summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting season. The least tern does not breed or nest near the project site but will forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during their March tbrough September breeding season. The nearest least tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 mi 1 northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Bridge. The California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is found in Newport Bay year- around but does not breed locally. The brown pelican utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish, and the shoreline as resting ' habitat. 2.3.5 Marine Mammals ' The California sea lion (Zalophus californicus) is occasionally seen in Newport Harbor. Individuals are found primarily between the Pavilion and the harbor entrance channel, but may occasionally wander back in the harbor to the 15" St. to 18th St project area. 23.6 Sensitive Habitats Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay shorelines and waters are defined as wetland habitats under both the California Coastal Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Consequently ' this water body is considered sensitive habitat and is afforded protection to conserve and protect the resource. 2.3.7 Invasive Species Caulerpa taxifolia. Caulerpa taxifolia has a characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy tern- like fronds (branches), and a below- ground root system This noxious algae was found within shallow, enclosed lagoons located at the northeast section of Huntington Harbour and in Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County in 2001. Although efforts are believed to have eradicated this species over the last two years, this tropical marine algae can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades, out - competes, and eliminates ' native algae, seagrasses, kelp forests and reef systems by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces (National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board unpub. brochure) . It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper ocean waters, and up to nine feet in length. I Coastal Resources Management 20 Marine Resources 1 Caulerpa has not been found within Newport Bay despite intensive underwater searches ' (Coast Keeper 2000; Coastal Resources Management, in preparation). Newport Bay has ' been designated as a Caulerpa free system (National Marine Fisheries Service 2001 revised 2003). This species was not observed at the project site either in October 2003 or March 2004 (R. Ware, CRM pers. observation). I Coastal Resources Management 21 Marine Resources I I I k E LJ 1 ' 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 3.1 THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNIFICANCE The threshold for significance of impacts to marine biological resources is determined by scientific judgment, and considers the relative importance of the habitat and/or species affected by project implementation. For the purposes of this analysis, the project's effects on biological resources are considered to be significant if it would: • Substantially affect a rare, threatened, endangered, or candidate plant or animal species, or the habitat of any such species; Substantially diminish or degrade the habitat of any marine plant or animal; ' Result in notable net loss of a biotic community that is subject to local, state, and/or federal regulations or that is otherwise of very limited occurrence in the region. • Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish and ' wildlife species; or • Conflict with adopted environmental policies, general plans, or regulatory policies of the community and State of California. 3.2 RELEVANT CALIFORNIA ENVIROMENTAL POLICIES AND ACTS The California Coastal Act (State of California 1976, amended 1999) provides the basis for protection of land and marine resources within the California coastal zone. The following relevant sections of the Coastal Act apply to protection of local marine resources in the vicinity of the proposed Marinapark Resort. Section 30231 of the California Coastal Act: ' "The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored ' through among other means, minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with groundwater flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, ' maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. I Coastal Resources Management 1 Marine Resources 1 Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act. Environmentally sensitive areas are "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily be degraded by human activities and developments" Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act: (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade these areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitats and recreational areas. Section 30230 of the California Coastal Act: Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economical significance. Use of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long -term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION The Hotel design plans are presented in Figures 2 and 3. The proposed project is the development of the 110 -room luxury resort Marinapark Newport Beach hotel consisting of one and two -story villas in sixteen buildings with ancillary hotel structures including an administration building, a two -story hotel lobby building, a spa villa, and a 100 - space, partly subterranean parking structure that will support four roof -top public tennis courts at approximately five (5) feet above the grade of Balboa Boulevard (Michael Brandman Associates 2003). The project also includes the displacement of the 56 -space mobile home park, and the removal of the existing onsite uses associated with Las Arenas Park (e.g., Balboa Community Center, Girl Scouts House, children's play area, four public tennis courts, and a metered 21 -space parking lot), and their replacement with a 6,191 square foot Community Center /Girls Scouts House, a 3000 square -foot tot lot, and a new 41- space, shared parking lot. In all, the proposed project will include approximately 360,000 square feet of development on 8.10 acres. Primary access to the project will be via West Balboa Boulevard and secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance th th off of 18 Street. Additional fire and delivery access will occur from 15 Street. Coastal Resources Management 2 Marine Resources I ' Figure 3 illustrates proposed beach enhancements including a marina consisting of 12 ' new yacht slips (including four slips for public use) within Newport Bay and a public m beachfront walkway that will extend from the project's eastern property line to 18 Street. Public access to the walkway will be provided via four access points, two along ' West Balboa Boulevard, one along the project's eastern boundary, and one along 18 Street. ' 3.4 PROJECT- RELATED ISSUES THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Construction of the Marinapark resort contains aspects that could potentially affect Newport Harbor marine resources. Particular aspects of this project that have a potential ' to degrade water quality and the quality of local marine resources include hydrology, water quality, visitor use, and construction and operation of a 12 -slip marina. This project incorporates upfront Best Management Practices that ensure there will be no ' adverse and significant short-term or long -term effects on local water quality and subsequent adverse effects on marine biological resources. These items include: ' 3.4.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Land -side resort construction impacts on water quality and marine resources will be ' reduced to less than significant with the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that incorporates specific Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to water quality for both onshore and water -side construction operations. An Erosion ' Control Plan will be part of this document. This plan will reduce the potential impacts of airborne dust deposition and waterborne soil erosion during storm events on the marine environment. ' 3.4.2 Post - Construction (Operational) Project Water Quality Management Plan ' A Water Quality Management Plan was prepared by Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. (2004) to avoid potentially significant effects of the operation of the hotel and hotel amenities on water quality and marine resources. The plan addresses the current drainage systems, ' improvements to the drainage system to manage storm water and dry weather runoff, hydrology, and mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant project - related effects to less than significant. The Water Quality Management Program consists of ' strategies and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will provide source control for pollutants as well as treatment of runoff constituents. See Section 4 for a listing of construction BMPs. Additional construction and post - construction water quality BMPs will be developed for the construction and operation of the 12 -slip marina. 1 Coastal Resources Management 3 Marine Resources In addition, a comprehensive water quality monitoring program should be conducted at several locations along the shoreline and storm drain system. If it is determined that the proposed mitigation measures are not sufficient to reduce the concentrations of pollutants, then additional measures will be added to the plan by the applicant to ensure compliance with all water quality criteria. Implementation of the Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. Water Quality Plan and conducting runoff monitoring programs during construction and operation of the Marinapark Resort will reduce potentially significant water quality and hydrological impacts associated with storm water and dry weather runoff to less than significant impacts. Consequently, hydrological and water quality effects originating from the construction of the resort will have less than significant impacts on marine resources with the inclusion of these measures. 3.5 SHORT -TERM HOTEL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 3.5.1 Demolition and Construction Grading 3.5.1.1 Hydrology and Water Quality A storm water conveyance system will be employed that will manage storm water flowing onto the site, as well as flows generated onsite. The system will manage the pr 5o ect site's runoff and will discharge to the bay through existing main outlets between 15 and 19'" Street (Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. 2004). The project will provide an overall decrease in peak flows and flow rates, and therefore, improvements to the overall drainage of the area. The project site, in its existing conditions, drains directly to the bay or the City storm drain system without incorporation of best management practices. The incorporation of the measures proposed by the project's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will greatly reduce existing pollutant discharge to the bay. This is considered a beneficial impact on Newport Harbor water quality. The proposed system is described in Metro Pointe, Engineers Inc. 2004 (Figures 1 -3). The beachfront (Sub -areas Al and C1), will no longer drain directly to the bay. Flows will be directed through landscaped areas to allow for water quality management before being collected by an underground system of area drains. The eastern center portion of the site (Sub -areas C2 and C3) will drain to the 15th Street storm drain again to match, as much as possible, the existing conditions. Flows will also be directed through landscaped areas before being collected by the proposed underground system. The western center portion of the site (Sub -areas A2 and A3) will drain to the 18th Street storm drain to match, as much as possible, the existing conditions. Flows will also be directed through landscaped areas before being collected by the proposed underground system. The southern portion of the site (Sub -areas B1 and 132) will continue to drain toward W. Balboa Boulevard to the recently improved 19th Street storm drain system. Sub -areas C4 and C5 are not improved and remain draining east to the 15th Street storm Coastal Resources Management 4 Marine Resources I drain. Sub -area D remains unchanged and is not impacted by the proposed ' improvements. The on -site drainage system will be sized for a 10 -year storm event and include special ' considerations for on -site detention so that existing drainage conditions remain unchanged. This system will also include components required to meet water quality issues identified in the Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. Water Quality Management Plan. ' The increase in 10 -year peak flow for the 15a' Street and 18a' Street storm drains will be mitigated by providing on -site temporary retention of relatively small size; therefore, impact to the overall performance of the existing storm drains is not anticipated. Hydrological analysis suggest that the project will have no negative impact on the existing behavior of a 100 -year storm runoff. ' In summary, storm water runoff associated with the project will not result in localized adverse hydraulic effects. Rather, with the overall decrease in peak flows and flow rates associated with the project design, there will be a beneficial impact to the overall ' drainage of the area (Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc 2004) The improved drainage system along the bayfront will reduce storm drain flows to the beach area and will improve water quality compared to conditions that currently exist, resulting in a beneficial impact to ' water quality. Improvements to the storm drain system, mitigation for a possible increase in the 10 -year flow peak rates, and implementing the Water Quality Management Plan BMP provisions will result in no significant impacts to water quality in Newport Bay. ' 3.5.1.2 Shoreline Habitats and Resources No direct loss of sand beach habitat will occur from the demolishing of existing structures or from the grading of the hotel pad. There will be no loss of sand- dwelling benthic organisms resulting from grading activities from the hotel resort. The public beach will not be used as a staging area for equipment or personnel. However, noise and dust generated from the project may result in a temporary reduction ' in the quality of the sand beach as a resting habitat for seabirds along the backshore environment. This would result in a temporary, less than significant impact to seabirds. Implementation of construction BMPs including the installation of screening around the ' site will assist in lessening potential impacts on seabird and shorebirds. No seabird nesting or breeding activity occurs on this local stretch of shoreline. I 3.5.1.3 Demolition, Grading, and Construction Impacts on Open Water and Subtidal Benthic Environments Pollutant Generation. Typical pollutants generated during grading activities for the hotel and other construction activities could include heavy metals, toxic chemicals related to construction and cleaning, waste materials and debris, fuel, lubricants and other toxins related to construction equipment and its maintenance. If these pollutants enter the bay through airborne or water -borne transport methods, then water quality degradation and Coastal Resources Management 5 Marine Resources potential adverse impacts to water quality and marine life could occur, including reduced viability, tissue contamination, and a loss of plankton, fish, and benthic resources. However, the generation of these pollutants from the construction site will be mitigated by the inclusion and implementation the Water Quality Management Plan (Metro Point Engineers Inc., 2004) and the preparation of both a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and an erosion control plan. Strict adherence to identified source controls and project BMPs in these documents will result in short-term, and less than significant impacts on Newport Harbor water quality and marine resources. Dust generation. Grading and construction will produce dust from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles on the site. During high velocity, windy conditions, this dust might be transported into Newport Harbor with prevailing northwest winds, or to the offshore to the ocean environment during Santa Ana wind conditions. The addition of dust would result in a short-term, less - than- significant impact that would form a light coating of sediment on the water depending on the velocity and duration of the wind event. The deposition of fine dust in the project area could potentially result in a short- term increase of water turbidity and a reduction in photosynthetic processes. Such a reduction would result in a slight decrease in photosynthetic activity of bay and ocean phytoplankton. No impacts to benthic resources would occur as a result of dust generation. Because of the expected short duration of any wind events that might generate dust the expected effect will be less -than significant on water quality and marine resources. The generation of dust from the construction site will also be mitigated by the inclusion of project water quality management BMPs . Storm water runoff. Any sediments generated from the project and transported to the Bay in the storm water would result in a localized short-term impact on both water quality and bay marine resources. This effect would result in localized sedimentation and higher water turbidity between 15a' and 19th Street. Water column habitat would be temporarily affected from the suspension of fine sediments, resulting in more turbid waters. Coarse sediments carried off the construction site would bury benthic invertebrates, resulting in a short-term significant impact. Short-term reductions in submarine light intensity, slight reductions in primary productivity, and reduced subsurface visibility for sight- foraging fishes and seabirds would be expected. These impacts will be mitigated to less than significant with the implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and the Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan. Project Water Quality Control Plan BMPs will insure that Newport Harbor marine biological resources will be protected from short-term construction effects. In summary, the significant impacts of grading and construction activities will be less than significant on Newport Harbor and marine resources with the implementation of the (1) Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. Water Quality Control Plan, and (2) the preparation of a Coastal Resources Management 6 Marine Resources Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to site construction. These plans and documents will identify dry season and wet season runoff control measures, source control, and or treatment controls that will avoid and/or mitigate potential soil erosion, runoff pollutants, and other storm water constituents. 3.5.1.4 Endangered or Sensitive Species See Section 3.5.1.6 for a discussion of impacts to eelgrass habitat. No impacts to the California halibut will occur as a consequence of demolition, grading, and construction of the new resort. The federal and state listed endangered species California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) and California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis occidentalis) may be present at the project site. These species would be subjected to potential short-term impacts from grading activities, storm water turbidity plumes or construction- related noise. California brown pelicans could occur year round, foraging in the waters and resting along the shoreline. There are no brown pelican nesting sites in the project vicinity. However, the nearest least tern nesting sites are located 2.5 miles upcoast at the Santa Ana River and 4.2 miles northeast in Newport Bay near the Jamboree Bridge. Least terns generally forage close to their nesting sites, but will search for their baitfish prey items (juvenile smelt) within 15 miles of their sites if they cannot locate food closer to the nest site (Kathy Keane, Keane Biological Consulting, pers. com). Least terns would be present in Newport Bay between March and September during their annual breeding season when they forage in the harbor waters for baitfish. Because the California brown pelican and California least tern use their visual- acuity as a foraging mechanism, they could potentially be displaced to other areas of the Harbor if a plume turbidity prevented them from keying in on schools of baitfish. In all likelihood, these individuals would move to nearby foraging areas should their visual senses for foraging be affected by a turbidity plume, or noise activity from the construction is too loud. This would result in a short-term, significant impact resulting in changes in their foraging behavior but would be mitigated to less than significant with the implementation of the project's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the Erosion Control Plan. 3.5.1.5 Grading and Construction Impacts on Marine Mammals All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Manurial Protection Act (1972). The only marine manurial likely to occur near the project area would be the California sea lion (Zalophus californicus). However, they are found closer to the harbor entrance channel. The likelihood of sea lions occurring in the project area on a regular basis is Coastal Resources Management 7 Marine Resources extremely low. Therefore, any construction related impacts related to turbidity, noise, and storm water associated impacts are not likely to affect this species. 3.5.1.6 Sensitive Habitats Newport Harbor shorelines and waters are defined as wetlands under both 'State and Federal guidelines. Consequently, any adverse impacts to Newport Harbor would be classed as a significant biological impact on a sensitive resource. Specific sensitive habitats that may be affected within Newport Harbor are discussed below. Eelgrass. No eelgrass beds currently occur along the shoreline between 15`h St and 19th St (CRM 2004, in preparation). However, a 10,000 square foot eelgrass transplant project will be conducted along the 15th St to 19th St shoreline in late Spring/early Summer 2004 as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Newport Harbor Eelgrass Restoration Project, in coordination with the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach (ACOE 1999). These transplants will be conducted at depths between -2 and -8 ft MLLW, with a buffer distance (150 feet) from the western end of the proposed marina 12 -slip marina. Potential significant impact to the transplanted eelgrass can occur through storm water and turbidity- related impacts from the construction site. With the inclusion and implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and the Storm Water Prevention Plan, these potential impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant impact. 3.5.1.7 Invasive Species Invasive marine algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) is not present at the project site, and the construction of the hotel will not result in the spread of this noxious species. 3.6 12 -SLIP MARINA CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS A 12 -slip marina is proposed for the eastern shoreline next to the American Legion Marina (Figure 3). The marina will consist of a walkway to the dock, a gangway that connects the walkway to the docks, and 12 slips for boats that do not exceed 30 feet in length (Cash & Associates Engineers, Figure 3). Four of the slips will be for public use. Nine, 14 inch diameter support pilings will have to be installed to stabilize the docks. The dredging process will involve a single tug and a dredge scow. The estimated time required for dredging is approximately two to three weeks (Randy Mason, Cash & Associates, Inc). The proposed marina basin will cover an area 261 ft long by 71.25 ft wide (0.23 acres). Photographs 1 -4 illustrate the area were the marina is proposed. The maximum depth required for the marina is -10 MLLW from the pierhead line into the channel, and the landside seawall is at approximately 0.0 MLLW contour line (Randy Mason, Cash & Coastal Resources Management 8 Marine Resources ' Associates Engineers pers. com. with R. Ware, CRM). The tidal mudline slope is 1:3 and the subtidal slopes are 1:5 to 1:6. Based on these calculations, dredging is required for the project (Randy Mason, Cash & ' Associates Engineers 2003). The estimated dredging quantity is between 1,250 to 1,750 cy of dredge material. Clean sand will be placed on the backside of the wall, to the top of seawall elevation. This would support the walkways, gangways, boardwalk, etc, behind ' the seawall. A cutoff or groin wall at either end of the basin may be necessary to contain this fill material. Based on similar logic as above, this would relate to between 2,500 and 3,000 cy of clean fill sand. Depending on if an alternative is selected to narrow this ' landside fill and just support the walkways and gangway landings, a balanced cut - and -fill project could be attainted. If a full -width fill is desired, result would be a net import, assuming clean material, of between 750 to 1,750 cy of material (Randy Mason, Cash & ' Associates, pers. corn with R. Ware, CRM 2004. A sheet -pile bulkhead will be construction around the south and west perimeter (Figure ' 3) and a 7 foot -wide by 70 ft -long cement walkway will be constructed from the hotel grounds to the marina. ' 3.6.1 Dredging and Pile Driving Impacts Dredging will involve the removal of bayfloor sediments by either a clam shell dredge or ' by hydraulic dredge for the purpose of providing necessary depths to accommodate the 16 to 30 ft vessels in the 12 slips. In addition, nine, 14 -inch diameter cement piles will be driven into the sediments to secure the docks. 3.6.1.1 Water Quality ' Dredging and marina construction activities will cause a short-term increase in turbidity from the discharging of the suspended fine sediments with the liquefied portion of the dredge material. However, this should be minimized using the hydraulic dredge. ' Localized increases in turbidity can also occur as a result of vessel prop wash from tug boats. Increased turbidity will reduce the amount of available light at submarine depths and could potentially lead to short-term adverse biological impacts (see above). The ' extent and orientation of the dredge plume will depend on the prevailing tidal cycle. With ebbing tides, the plume will dissipate into the main channel, and out towards the harbor entrance channel. Incoming flood tides will cause the turbidity plume to disperse ' farther up towards the Rhine Channel. However, an increase in turbidity is likely be a localized effect and not significant. L! 11 Coastal Resources Management 9 Marine Resources Cl The sediment -bound particulates resuspended during dredging could potentially affect water quality by releasing detectable levels of trace metals and organic contaminants in the water column. Organically enriched sediments resuspended into the water column during dredging will cause a slight decrease in dissolved oxygen levels. Tidal currents will dissipate the oxygen -poor water mass and replenish ambient oxygen levels. These impacts are expected to be short-term and less than significant, with a return to ambient water quality conditions upon the completion of the dredging project. Dredge material will have to be tested to determine its suitability for ocean disposal, if this option for disposal is pursued. However, preliminary analysis indicate that the sediments are greater than 80% sands, and would qualify for beach fill. Contaminant levels are relatively low (Petra 2004c). In addition, water discharged from the dredging operations or during dewatering of sediments will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Accidental oil or fuel spills that could potentially occur during the proposed dredging operation or marina construction could result in significant effects on the fish and wildlife of the Harbor depending on the severity of the spill. Such events are likely to be localized spills of lighter, refined diesel fuels, gasoline, and lubricating oils that are highly toxic to marine life. The potential for the occurrence of petroleum - product leaks or spills would be low but the potential for significant, long -term effect on marine resources would be moderate to high. The inclusion and implementation of the Marina Dredging Management Plan will assist in preventing accidental spills and providing the necessary guidelines to follow in case of an oil or fuel spill and reduce the potential for a significant long term impact to be mitigated to less than significant. 3.6.1.2 Benthic Invertebrates Dredging and installation of the nine support piles for the dock will remove all infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates that cannot escape from the active excavation area. Approximately 30 to 40 species of benthic infauna and epifaunal invertebrates would be temporarily removed from the 0.23 acre site at depths between 0.0 and -12 ft MLLW. The species in this region of Newport Bay are typical of other bay and estuarine environments in southern California and are dominated by species adapted to constant environmental stresses. The loss of benthic infauna and epifauna due to dredging will be a short-term insignificant impact. Organisms would begin to recolonize the sediments soon after dredging is completed. Within 1 to 3 years, the benthic community in these areas is expected to recover to pre- dredging levels of species diversity and abundance, assuming successful recruitment and recolonization, and water quality and adequate flushing is maintained. Coastal Resources Management 10 Marine Resources 3.6.1.3 Fishes The project area fish community is composed of 19 species (Allen 1976). The most common species are white croaker, shiner surf perch, white surfperch, slough anchovy, and black perch. There will be no direct mortality of open water (schooling) fishes during dredging. Some mortality of bottom - dwelling species such as gobies may occur. However, these losses will be short-term as other individuals migrate into the area and colonize the newly exposed sediments. Allen (1988) studied the initial colonization of the Unit I and Unit II basins following the 1985 dredging project. At the end of one -year after dredging was completed, the most common Upper Bay fishes were re- established. Secondary impacts of increased water turbidity on fishes will be less than significant. A greater -than ambient suspended sediment load related to higher turbidity may reduce the ability of both visual foraging fishes to feed (i.e., surfperch and halibut) and planktivores (i.e., topsmelt, anchovy, juvenile surfperch, and juvenile sciaenid). In addition, water column dissolved oxygen concentrations would decrease due to the resuspension of organically- enriched sediments. These impacts would physiologically stress the fish, and result in their temporarily movement out of the area to feed. Turbidity will return to ambient levels upon cessation of dredging through tidal flushing and circulation and fishes would return to the area. 3.6.1.4 Birds The most common species of non - endangered species of water birds to be present within the location of the marina construction are gulls, cormorants, mallards, and various species of shorebirds. These species would avoid the construction zone due to noise, interruption of resting areas, and foraging sites, resulting in a short-term, less than ' significant impact on the local water bird population. These species would return to the area following the completion of marina construction. 3.6.1.5 Marine Mammals The infrequent presence of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project site precludes the possibility of significant impacts on this group of marine life. 3.6.1.6 Endangered Species Brown pelicans and California least terns may be in the project area during manna construction. These individuals will respond to disturbances by avoiding the immediate dredge area. Because the marina is located close to the shoreline, the open water foraging areas of these two species would not likely be directly affected by dredging activities. Turbidity plumes that would spread away from the dredge area would affect their foraging habitat and result in a locally significant impact to an endangered species. These species may also move away from the marina construction site because of the Coastal Resources Management 11 Marine Resources presence of the dredge vessel and noise. However, no direct mortality of endangered species will result from the dredging activity. With the implementation of the Marina Construction Management Plan, potentially significant impacts to endangered least terns and brown pelicans would be mitigated to a less than significant impact. To further reduce the potential for impacts to endangered birds, dredging activity should be avoided during the breeding period of the least tern (April and September), the time in which least terns would be locally foraging and bring food back to their nest sites. If this mitigation measure is implemented, the impact will be reduced to a less - than - significant impacts to endangered birds. 3.6.1.7 Sensitive Habitats Eelgrass will be transplanted to the shallow subtidal waters offshore of the swimming beach between 16`h and 19'h St during the ACOE eelgrass transplant in late Spring /early summer 2004. Transplants will be conducted outside of minimum of 150 feet buffer area from the marina limits. Assuming that the transplants are successful, the construction of the marina could potentially have significant, short-term impacts on eelgrass bed resources related to (1) vessel movement and damage from propellers and (2) increased levels of turbidity. Dredging and construction vessel propellers could accidentally cut through the eelgrass vegetation. Short-term increases in turbidity would lower levels of ambient light, creating less favorable growing conditions. These activities would result in a locally significant impact to eelgrass bed habitat and resources. However, with the implementation of a Marina Construction Management Plan, impacts to eelgrass beds would be reduced to less -than significant. Prior to construction, an eelgrass survey of the proposed marina site will be conducted in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (National Marine Fisheries Service 1991 as amended). Under the policy approved for the ACOE eelgrass restoration project, businesses and homeowners next to the restoration site would not be responsible for eelgrass mitigation around their property if eelgrass growth originating from the ACOE restoration project encroaches on areas outside the designated limits of the eelgrass restoration area (Robert Hoffman, National Marine Fisheries Service per. com with R. Ware 4/7/04). 3.6.1.8 Invasive Species Caulerpa algae is not present at the site of the proposed marina (CRM 2004). However, a Caulerpa algae survey will be conducted according to the National Marine Fisheries Service Control Protocol ( htta:// swr. ucsd. edu/ hcd /CaulemaControlProtocol.htlm—) prior to marina construction. If this species is found, then protocols for the eradication of Caulerpa will be implemented to remove this species from the project area. 3.6.2 Marina Walkway Construction Coastal Resources Management 12 Marine Rcsourccs A 70 ft long by 7 ft wide cement walkway will be constructed from the hotel property to the proposed marina (Figure 3). This walkway will be a solid concrete walkway and will provided access to the marina through a concrete platform leading to the gangway. Heavy equipment will be necessary to pour the concrete, and workers will be present on the beach. 3.6.2.1 Water Quality The cement pouring process will have a potential to increase turbidity and degrade water quality in the immediate area of construction, and result in a significant local impact on water quality. Marina construction BMPs should be employed to direct all wash down and cement cleaning operations away from the shoreline to prevent wash down waters from entering Newport Bay. With the inclusion of these BMPs, there will be a less than significant impact on water quality. 3.6.2.2 Benthic Invertebrates The construction of a cement walkway will result in significant long -term impacts on intertidal benthic invertebrates related to loss of shoreline habitat. By replacing the cement walkway with a wooden pier, this effect would be mitigated to less than significant. Should the cement walkway be included in the final design, the loss of intertidal benthic habitat would be mitigated by conducting a soft bottom benthic habitat mitigation program (see Section 3.8.1.7 for a discussion of habitat losses and Section 4.0 for mitigation of habitat losses). 3.6.2.3 Shorebirds and Seabirds The construction of the marina access walkway will result in less than significant impacts to local seabird and shorebird populations that will avoid the construction area. Cementing over a portion of the sand beach will require the construction crew and equipment to utilize a portion of the beach for an extended period of time. Marina ' construction BMPs in the Marina Management Plan should include limiting heavy equipment use to the backshore portions of the beach, away from the timeline. With the ' inclusion of these BMP, there will be a less than significant short-term construction impacts on seabird and shorebird populations. Upon completion of the walkway, shorebirds and seabirds will return to using this portion of the beach as roosting habitat. 3.6.2.4 Marine Mammals ' There will be no impacts on marine mammals related to the construction of the cement walkway. II Coastal Resources Management 13 Marine Resources 3.6.2.5 Endangered Species The cement pouring process and wash downs of the curing cement walkway could produce turbidity plumes that would spread to the bay. This could result in a locally significant impact on least tern and brown pelican foraging behavior. With the implementation of the Marina Construction Management Plan, potentially significant impacts to endangered least terns and brown pelicans would be mitigated to a less than significant impact. To further reduce the potential for impacts to endangered birds, dredging activity should be avoided during the breeding period of the least tern (April and September), the time in which least terns would be locally foraging and bring food back to their nest sites. 3.6.2.6 Sensitive Habitats Sandy shoreline is a foraging habitat for shorebirds. There will be a long -term loss of shoreline habitat associated with this task. This loss is discussed in Section 3.7. 3.6.2.7 Invasive Species There will be no impacts on invasive species related to the construction of the cement walkway. 3.7 LONG -TERM IMPACTS OF HOTEL OPERATIONS The long -term effects of day -to -day hotel operations on harbor water quality and marine resources are potentially significant, and related to storm water run off, degradation of shoreline shorebird habitat, and degradation of water areas that are foraging habitats for fish, and non - endangered as well as endangered species of birds. Implementation of the Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. Water Quality Plan and conducting operational monitoring of water quality and hydrological conditions at the Marinapark Resort will (1) ensure that water quality is not being degraded and (2) that no significant impacts to Harbor resources are occurring. With the inclusion of these measures, the day -to -day operation of the hotel should have no long -term significant environmental effects on water quality and marine resources. Potential long -term effects of the 12 -slip marina are provided in Section 3.8. A summary of engineering design plans and BMPs (Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. 2004) that will reduce the level of, or prevent significant environmental effects are described below. Percolation: The project will decrease the amount of existing impervious areas and increase pervious landscaped areas. During the design of the project, special consideration will be given to maximize the use of the landscaped areas as infiltration areas. Percolation of runoff into the ground through permeable areas will be maximized with such means as biofilters, green strips, landscaped swales, planters, and other Coastal Resources Management 14 Marine Resources retention/percolation devices. Roof drains will be oriented towards permeable surfaces, grading of the site will take into consideration diverting runoff to permeable areas. The site will be graded so that the runoff flows through grassy swales before being collected in an underground system. Consequently, the surface flow travel time will be lengthened and peak discharges reduced. At inlets to underground drains, pollutants will be removed through installation of inlet basket/filters inserts to remove trash and organic material. Water Quality Units: Two water quality systems are proposed for the project. The proposed units will be located towards the end of the proposed on -site storm drain system and designed to treat runoff water from paved parking areas that cannot be directed to pervious landscape. Typical systems consist of diverting the storm drain low flows, the "first flush" or dry weather flows, to an off -line unit where treatment occurs. Treatment can be provided by filtration or settlement of pollutants, or a combination of both. Following the "first flush ", for storm event with peaks exceeding the capacity of the diversion structure, clean runoff will bypass the water quality system and flow to the bay. Common systems are off -line CDS Technology units, on -line VortechsTm units, on -line CSR Stormceptor® units or equivalent. The two proposed systems will remove pollutants flowing to the 18a' Street and 15`" Street storm drains, respectively. Pollutants removed by these units include trash, sediment, heavy metals, organic compounds and oil and grease. Catch Basin Filter Inserts: The City of Newport Beach has been implementing the ' installation of catch basin filter inserts in W. Balboa Boulevard. The Ultra -Urban® Filter with Smart Sponge ®, developed and manufactured by AbTech Industries, has been used for effective filtration, efficient application, and moderate maintenance. The Ultra- ' Urban Filter captures oil, grease, trash, and sediment from storm water runoff before it enters the storm drain system. Trash and sediment accumulate in the internal basket while oil and lease are captured in the filtration media. Filter inserts are or will be installed in 18 Street and 15th Street existing inlets. The City of Newport Beach will provide maintenance of the filters within the street right -of -way. Curb Drains: Curb drains, as a means of draining sump areas and roof drains via subsurface piping systems directly to the street gutter, will not be used for this project. Areas immediately adjacent to Balboa Boulevard, such as the Girl Scout site, Park and ' entrance driveway to the project, will be designed to direct runoff to landscaped areas. Small portions may use curb drains directing runoff to the City inlets and filter inserts. The curb drains, if used, will have a French drain system of perforated pipe and gravel to increase percolation. Sump Pump: In case the proposed Tennis/Parking Structure needs installation of a sump pump, direct discharge to the public right of way will not be permitted. Rather, discharge from the sump pump will be directed to the proposed water quality unit. Storage and Maintenance Areas: Design will insure that runoff does not come into contact with loading and unloading dock areas, and repair and maintenance areas. Coastal Resources Management 15 Marine Resources Storage of material that may contribute pollutants to the storm water will be placed in an enclosure such as a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the storm water conveyance system. These areas will also protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. Outdoor material storage is not anticipated for this project. Trash receptacles will be protected from drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement and covered with roof or awning. Irrigation System: A moisture- detecting or weather -based irrigation system will be used to eliminate overwatering and dry weather flow. The landscaped areas will be graded to maximize percolation and avoid direct drainage to the local storm drain system. 3.7.1.1 Hydrology and Water Quality With the implementation of the WQMP and SWPP, there will be no significant impacts to hydrology and water quality during long -term hotel operations. 3.7.1.2 Marine Habitats and Resources With the implementation of the WQMP and SWPP, there will be no significant impacts of long -term hotel operations on marine resources resulting from daily operations, site hydrology and runoff water quality. 3.7.1.3 Visitor Use The public beach between 16'h and 19th Streets will be a high- visitor use beach, with increased volumes of trash and debris generated from beach use. This has a potential to degrade water quality, and impact marine life. BMPs developed for the resort should include beach use and beach maintenance guidelines to remind visitors to use trash receptacles and to prevent trash and litter from entering Newport Bay. In addition, informational pamphlets on Newport Bay marine and bird life and fishing guidelines could be distributed to visitors to promote conservation of Newport Bay resources. 3.8 LONG TERM IMPACTS OF THE 12 -SLIP MARINA 3.8.1.1 Impacts on Water Quality Marina Operations. Water quality within the 12 -slip marina will be governed by the practices of the tenants relative to their compliance with ordinances, laws, and guidelines related to discharges, vessel maintenance and marina maintenance. Periodic and/or uncontrolled discharges of various pollutants, oils, greases, and wastes will result in a long -term significant adverse effects on water quality with subsequent adverse impacts on local marine life. Surface runoff from the marina will be regulated by the NPDES permit for storm water discharges. Coastal Resources Management 16 Marine Resources IMaintenance dredging may be periodically required (at an assumed 10 year interval) to ' remove trapped sediments during the long -term operation of the marina. Maintenance dredging programs, conducted under either the City's Army Corps of Engineers blanket maintenance dredging permit or an Army Corps of Engineers individual dredging permit ' would result in the periodic removal of soft bottom benthic organisms, the resuspension of bottom sediments that will increase water column turbidity, and periodic releases of trace metals and organic contaminants into the water column. Dissolved oxygen levels will be reduced slightly because of the resuspension of organic materials in the dredged sediments. The short-term impact on water quality would be potentially significant, and result in significant impacts to marine life. 1 Coastal Resources Management 17 Marine Resources 1 To prevent long -term impacts on local water quality, a Marina Management Plan should be developed to provide tenants and boaters with reasonable BMPs, safety guidelines, ' and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. In addition, two pamphlets The Guide to Clean, Green Boating (California Department of Fish and Game 1999) and Clean Boating (California Department of Boating and Waterways (undated material) should be distributed and ' made available to both hotel management and marina tenants. These are available through the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department. Implementation of the creation and the implementation of a Marina Management Plan will reduce potential long -term water quality impacts to less than significant. Cement Walkway and Water Circulation. The creation of a cement walkway leading down to the proposed marina will fragment the shoreline into two sections -a large section of beach located west of the walkway, and a small section of beach bounded by the walkway and the existing cement groin located to the east of the proposed marina. This fragmentation of the shoreline and interruption of tidal flows and water circulation may create stagnant water conditions on the east side of the walkway, and trash and debris may become trapped. This would result in a potentially significant impact on water quality, and subsequently, marine life. ' To reduce the potential adverse impact on water quality, the cement walkway should be replaced by an elevated wood walkway supported by pilings. This would allow ' unrestricted tidal flow along the entire beach and assist in preventing stagnant water conditions between the new walkway and the existing groin. ' 3.8.1.2 Impacts to Shoreline and Subtidal Benthic Resources Significant, localized long -term impacts to benthic (bottom - dwelling) organisms will ' occur as a result of the long -term loss of soft bottom habitat (See Section 3.8.1.6 for a discussion of impacts) including a long -term loss of benthic invertebrates and food ' sources for fish; shorebirds and seabirds. These will occur as a result of constructing the 9 leading marina retaining wall, emplacement of cement pilings, and a cement walkway 1 Coastal Resources Management 17 Marine Resources 1 to the marina. The walkway also fragments the beach for use as a shorebird foraging habitat. 3.8.1.3 Impacts to Fishes No direct mortality of fishes will occur as a result of the presence of the marina. However, significant, localized long -term impacts to fish resources will occur as a result of the long -term loss of soft bottom fish foraging habitat. See Section 3.8.1.7 for a discussion of impacts). The addition of the retaining wall, the pilings, and docks however, will increase fish diversity in the area, due to the attraction of fish to the hard substrate. 3.8.1.4 Impacts to Shorebirds and Seabirds No direct mortality of shorebirds and seabirds will occur. The long -term presence of the marina will however, reduce shorebird and seabird resting and foraging habitat. See Section 3.8.1.6 for discussion of habitat losses. 3.8.1.5 Impacts to Marine Mammals There will be no long -term impacts on marine mammals resulting from the operation of the 12 -slip marina due to their uncommon occurrence in this part of Newport Bay. 3.8.1.6 Impacts to Endangered Species and Sensitive Species The long -term operation of the marina will not result in the mortality of any endangered species. There will be a small reduction of open water foraging habitat, however, this is considered to be a less- than- significant impact because of the availability of large open water areas throughout Newport Harbor. Eelgrass. The presence of the marina is not expected to adversely affect the proposed ACOE eelgrass restoration area that will be located a minimum of 150 feet west of the marina. However, boating BMPs designed to alert marina boaters to avoid the transplant area will assist in preventing any propeller damage to the eelgrass restoration area, principally during low tides. These BMPs should be included in the Marina Management Plan. Maintenance dredging or other maintenance in the marina would likely result in the loss of eelgrass and may require appropriate mitigation to restore eelgrass habitat according to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). This would only apply if the source of eelgrass that recolonizes the marina basin is not the nearby eelgrass restoration area (Bob Hoffman, National Marine Fisheries Service pers. eom. with R Ware, 4/7/04). Coastal Resources Management 19 Marine Resources 11 ' Halibut Nursery Loss. The long -term loss of the soft bottom habitat in the project area ' will result in a reduction of halibut nursery habitat. This loss is considered a locally significant impact but the impact will be mitigated to below a level of significance by (1) in -kind mitigation in Upper Newport Bay and (2) maintenance of water and sediment ' quality in the new marina basin. See Section 3.8.1.7, below. 3.8.1.7 Impact To Sensitive Habitats rSoft Bottom Habitat. Table 2 summarizes habitat changes associated with the components of the proposed marina. J I 1] Table 2. Potential Soft Bottom Habitat Losses Associated with the 12 -slip Marina Item Number Diameter (ft) Width (ft) Length (ft) Total Soft Bottom Habitat Loss (Sq ft Retaining 1 0.67 317.25 9836.44 Wall Support 9 1.2 9.6 Pilings Cement 1 7 70 490 Walkway Total 10 336.06 The long -term presence of the 317 ft long retaining wall, the addition of 9 support pilings for the docks, and the 70 ft long walkway to the marina will result a significant, ' adverse loss of sand beach and soft bottom, habitat. In addition, there will be a permanent loss of shallow water benthic organisms such as clams, worms, and crustaceans. These organisms are food sources for benthic foraging fish and shorebirds. The retaining wall and the support pilings will impact 9,846.5 square feet (sq ft) of low intertidal and soft bottom benthic habitat at depths between 0.0 and approximately -8 ft ' MLLW, while the walkway will result in the loss of 490 sq ft of intertidal sand beach habitat and associated organisms at elevations between 0.0 and +7 ft MLLW. The cement walkway will also result in a significant fragmentation of sand beach habitat that will lessen the quality of the habitat for shorebirds. The total amount of affected soft bottom habitat is 10,336.06 square feet. Mitigation for loss of this habitat is discussed in Section 4.1.2.2. Hardscape Habitat. Hard substrate of pilings, retaining walls (bulkheads) and docks will be created which will provide attachment surfaces for intertidal and subtidal hard- ' scape associated plants and animals such as algae, barnacles, mussels, limpets, and limpets. Many of these organisms are food for fishes. The increased surface area and additional variety of marine habitat afforded by the presence of hard substrates will Coastal Resources Management 19 Marine Resources increase species diversity of both invertebrates and algae in the project area, which will also attract a greater diversity of fish to the project area because of an increase in diversity of habitat types. 3.8.1.8 Impacts to Invasive Species Caulerpa is not currently present at the proposed marina site. In the event that it colonizes the marina, an eradication program would be implemented immediately under the supervision of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game according to the Caulerpa Eradication Protocol (http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/CaulerpaControlProtocol.htm). Informational and educational pamphlets alerting boaters and visitors of this potentially destructive species should be included in the Marina Management Plan. Coastal Resources Management 20 Marine Resources I 4.0 MITIGATION TO REDUCE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO WATER ' QUALITY AND MARINE LIFE 4.1 HOTEL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ' 4.1.1 Water Quality 4.1.1.1 Planning Documents. With the implementation of the following documents and all required Best Management Practices contained in the plans, all potential water quality impacts on Newport Harbor will be reduced to less than significant: • Post - Construction (Operational) Project Water Quality Management Plan (Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. 2004) • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (to be fully developed) ' Specific BMPs should include: Construction BMPs should include the following: ' • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed in newly graded areas to prevent grading activities dust to be blown to adjacent areas. • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. ' Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific ' locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in contained area allowing proper cleanup. Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering will require approved permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. ' • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. ' • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. 1 Coastal Resources Management 21 Marine Resources • Installation of screening around the site will assist in lessening potential impacts on seabird and shorebirds. These plans shall be completed prior to the initiation of construction and included in construction bid packages to the contractors and be part of the Hotel's long -term , management requirements. Cement Walkway. The construction and presence of a cement walkway leading to the ' marina will have a potential to significantly impact water quality by fragmenting the shoreline and resulting in reduced tidal circulation on the eastern side of the walkway. To reduce these potential impacts, it is recommended that a walkway be designed that ' includes an elevated walkway supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation. Concurrently, this option would significantly reduce the loss of shoreline shorebird ' habitat. 4.1.1.2 Water Quality Monitoring , A water quality monitoring program shall be developed and implemented to ensure that all BMPs and mitigation measures are being used to lessen water quality impacts on , Newport Harbor. This program shall be also include a water quality monitoring program during the "first flush" rainstorms following significant dry weather periods during construction and for a period of 5 years following construction, and monthly water , turbidity sampling along the beachfront. If it is determined that Newport Harbor water quality has been degraded then adaptive management techniques should be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent adverse effects on the bay's water ' quality and marine life. 4.2 MARINA CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ' 4.2.1 Planning Documents. A Marina Management Plan shall be developed by the ' applicant to identify construction and long -term operational BMPs to reduce the level of potential water quality impacts to less than significant. This document shall be developed and included in marine construction bid packages and implemented as a requirement of ' the long term operation of the hotel resort. With the implementation of the Marina Management Plan, and planning documents and , required Best Management Practices contained in Section 4.1.1.1, all potential water quality impacts on Newport Harbor will be reduced to less than significant. This will significantly reduce the potential for adverse impacts to intertidal and subtidal marine ' resources. 1 Coastal Resources Management 22 Muine Resources , ' Source: Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. 2004 Coastal Resources Management 23 Marine Resources Examples of shoreline and boat dock BMPs' include: Limiting heavy equipment use to the backshore portions of the beach. ' Prohibit boat in -water maintenance and discharge of waste. Provide easily accessible restrooms and trash receptacles. Provide fire fighting and spill containment equipment. • Additional BMPs for marina construction and operation will be integrated into the project's Water Quality Management Plan. Dispose of used oil, antifreeze, paints, and other household chemicals properly. ' Avoid spills of hazardous or polluting material and prepare guidelines for remediation of such occurrences. ' Affix signs educating user of the property about BMPs. Scheduled inspections. Alert marina boaters to avoid the transplant area will assist in preventing any propeller damage to the eelgrass restoration area, principally during low tides. Long -Tenn Maintenance: As design progresses, the owner's plan for the long- term and continuous maintenance of all on -site BMP's requiring ongoing maintenance will be developed. This plan will include his acceptance of the responsibility for the on -site maintenance of all structural and treatment control BMPs. • Maintenance of this Water Quality Management Plan report, its distribution to the hotel staff and assignment of specific responsibilities by the owner. ' Source: Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. 2004 Coastal Resources Management 23 Marine Resources Specific BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality and marine resources during dredging operations include: • The dredging contractor shall be required as part of the dredging contract to ensure that dredging activities shall be conducted so as not to disturb sensitive biological habitats and resources in Newport Bay. • No vessel discharges are allowed within Newport Bay. • Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. • Prior 'to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall be provided with evidence that all appropriate permits or clearances have been obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Dredging operations will be surrounded with a dredge screen to reduce turbidity. In addition, Best Management Practices that will further reduce the impact of turbidity include using appropriate machinery when dredging and transporting materials, and employing proper maintenance and operation on equipment (including adequate training, staffing, and working procedures. Turbidity monitoring should be conducted during dredge operations to insure compliance with standards set forth by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Treatment of extracted water, if required, shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach City Engineer and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. • The dredging contractor shall conduct dredging activities in accordance with the approved dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • Conditions imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game will be incorporated into the project. Should ocean disposal be required for the project, project operations will require that the scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. Coastal Resources Management 24 Marine Resources 1 I i II 4.2.2 Mitigation for the Loss of Soft Bottom Habitat Benthic Habitat and Shorebird Foraging Habitat The reduction in the amount of soft bottom habitat resulting from construction of the marina and cement walkway (10,336 square feet) would require in -kind mitigation. The total amount of habitat to be successfully mitigated at a 3:1 mitigation ratio would be 31,008.2 square feet (0.71 acres). In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a ' mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A five -year monitoring program is recommended. ' The location of a suitable replacement site is under study and shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDF &G), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prior to approval of the marina construction permit issued by the ACOE and the California Coastal Commission. If the mitigation program is successful, the soft bottom habitat impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. Loss of benthic habitat resulting from the construction of the cement walkway (490 square feet) could also be mitigated by redesigning the cement walkway, and replacing it with an elevated wooden pier. This would reduce the amount of soft bottom habitat to be successfully mitigated from 31,008.2 square feet to 29,538 square feet. 4.2.3 Marine Biological Resource Monitoring A construction and post - construction biological monitoring program should be implemented for the marina that will include preconstruction, construction, and post - construction monitoring of the health of marine life at the project site. These monitoring programs should be implemented to ensure that Newport Harbor water quality and marine resources are being protected through the implementation of the Marina Management Plan. This monitoring program should include monitoring of the marina basin and the channel waters in front of the sand beach prior to, during, and following marina construction for a period of 5 years. If it is determined that Newport Harbor water quality or marine life have been degraded as a result of the operation of the hotel or marina, then adaptive management techniques should be implemented to protect the bay's water quality and marine resources. Coastal Resources Management 25 Marine Resources 1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ' 5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE iThis alternative would maintain status -quo marine water quality and marine resources conditions. There would be no loss of marine resources or reduction in soft bottom habitat as a consequence of this alternative. 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2. REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Intensity Alternative would include an 80 suite hotel, a 4,500 square foot restaurant, a 12 -slip marina, and a cement walkway leading from the hotel to the marina. This alternative would result in similar levels of impacts and mitigation measures as proposed for the preferred project. 5.3 ALTERNATIVE 3. NO PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ' Under this alternative, the project would consist of a 20 -slip marina, two charter vessel moorings, and a cement -paved public boat launching ramp. Alternative 3 would result in status -quo water quality at the project site related to a no hotel development project. -1 Li I LJ 1 Increased water -side development however, would increase benthic habitat losses compared to the preferred project within the proposed marina footprint as well as along the sandy beach where the cement walkway and the boat launching ramp would be constructed. The loss of soft bottom habitat would be a significant biological impact requiring an increase of in -kind mitigation. A larger marina and the construction of boat launch ramp on the beach would have a greater potential to cause significant adverse impacts to the nearby Army Corps of Engineers eelgrass restoration area. Potential water quality degradation would also occur related to increased amounts of dredging required for the project. Comuil Resources Management 26 Marine Resources I 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project will incrementally increase the potential for water quality degradation in Newport Harbor. However, with the implementation of proposed 1 mitigation measures, these cumulative impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The project will also incrementally reduce the amount of open sand beach and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitat in Newport Harbor, reducing the value of Newport Harbor as a biological habitat for shorebirds. It also reduces shallow water habitat area for eelgrass colonization. These effects are potentially significant. Mitigation for habitat losses, if successful will result in less than significant cumulative impacts to marine resources. 1 1 I I I J 1 I i I 11 1 Coastal Resources Management 27 Marine Resourccs 1 I 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ' Allen, L. A. 1976. Abundance, diversity, seasonality and community structure of the fish ' populations of Newport Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. 108pp. Jose State University. 33 pp. plus appendices Coastal Resources Management ( in preparation). Results of bay -wide eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat mapping surveys in Newport Bay, December 2003 -April 2004. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department. GIS maps of eelgrass habitat and density information. Coastal Resources Management. 1999. Marine biological impact assessment. Voit residence seawall replacement project. Balboa Peninsula, Newport Beach, CA. 20 pp. plus appendices. Coastal Resources Management and Chambers Group, Inc. 2002. City of Newport Beach, California. Local Coastal Plan Biological Appendix. Prepared for the City 1 Coastal Resources Management 28 Marine Resources Allen, L. G. 1988. Final report. Results of a two -year monitoring study on the fish populations in the restored, uppermost portion of Newport Bay, California; with emphasis on the impact of additional estuarine habitat on fisheries- related species. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service in fulfillment of ' Contract #WASC -85- 00216. Barnard, J. L., and D. J. Reish. 1959. Ecology ofAmphipoda and Polychaeta of Newport Bay, California. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications. Occasional Paper No. 21. Pp. 1 -106. ' California Department of Boating and Waterways. (no date). Clean boating habits. Sacramento, CA. 23 pp. California Department of Fish and Game Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response. 1999. Guide to clean, green boating. no publication date. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game. 1953. Biological survey: Lower Newport Bay. Report to the Santa Ana Regional Water Pollution Control Board. Feb 10, ' 1953. Code No. 58 -8 -8. California State Water Resources Control Board. 1998. Sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic community conditions of selected water bodies of the Santa Ana Region. Final report. In association with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, California Department of Fish and Game, University of California, Santa Cruz, and San Jose State University. 33 pp. plus appendices Coastal Resources Management ( in preparation). Results of bay -wide eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat mapping surveys in Newport Bay, December 2003 -April 2004. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department. GIS maps of eelgrass habitat and density information. Coastal Resources Management. 1999. Marine biological impact assessment. Voit residence seawall replacement project. Balboa Peninsula, Newport Beach, CA. 20 pp. plus appendices. Coastal Resources Management and Chambers Group, Inc. 2002. City of Newport Beach, California. Local Coastal Plan Biological Appendix. Prepared for the City 1 Coastal Resources Management 28 Marine Resources of Newport Beach Planning Department. November 2002. 101 pp plus appendices. Coastal Resources Management 2000. Marine biological resources impact assessment (draft) for the Southcoast Shipyard redevelopment project, Newport Bay, CA. Prepared for Shellmaker, Inc. and Southcoast Shipyards. Prepared by R. Ware. 15 pp. Draft Report. May 2000. Coastal Resources Management. 1993. Upper Newport Bay environmental evaluation. Appendix E, Marine and Estuarine Resources in: Upper Newport Bay Reconnaissance Study. Final Report. Prepared by R. Ware for Coastal Frontiers Corporation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 202 pp. Coast Keepers, 2001. Caulerpa taxifolia survey. Map of Caulerpa sampling sites and identification of eelgrass bed locations in areas where surveys were conducted. Map prepared for the City of Newport Beach. July 2001. Computer CD -ROM, GIS format. County of Orange. 1978. Environmental studies in Newport Bay. Orange County Human Services Agency. Various pp. Daugherty, S. J. 1978. Benthic ecology. In: Environmental Studies in Newport Bay. Orange County Human Services Agency, Environmental Health Division. Santa Ana, California. Pp. 129 -192 Dawson, C. M, 1963. Benthic ecology in the entrance channel of Newport Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, University of Southern California. 112 pp Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach. Unpublished PowerPoint presentation on Rhine Channel toxicity. Long, E. R. and L.G, Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment absorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 62. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle Washington. 86pp. Marine Biological Consultants (MBC) and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). 1980 (Dec). Irvine Ranch Water District Upper Newport Bay and Stream Augmentation Program. Final Report. October 1979 - August 1980. Metro Point, Engineers, Inc. 2004. Drainage technical study. Hydrology, hydraulic calculations, and water quality management plan for the Regent Newport. W. Balboa Blvd, Newport Beach, CA Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, January 2004. Revised February 2004. Coastal Resources Management 29 Marine Resources ' Quammen, M. L. 1980. The impact of predation by shorebirds, benthic feeding fishes, and a crab on the shallow living invertebrates in intertidal mudjlats of two southern California lagoons. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine. 132 pp. RMA 2001. Residence time data for Newport Bay waters in: Harbor Resources Department, City ofNewport Beach unpublished PowerPoint presentation. Seapy, R. R. 1981. Structure, distribution, and seasonal dynamics of the benthic community in upper Newport Bay, California. Department of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Technical Report No. 46. 74 pp. Southern Califomia Coastal Water Research Project. 2003. Chemistry and toxicity in Rhine Channel sediments. Final ryo Technical Report #391. Prepared by Stephen Bay and Jeffrey Brown. May 16 , 2003. 14 pp. plus appendices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (ACOE) 2000. Upper Newport Bay ecosystem restoration feasibility study. ACOE Los Angeles District. F4 /AFB Main Report. Coastal Resources Management 30 Muffic Resources Michael Brandman Associates. Regent Newport Beach Hotel Project Initial Study. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. October 2003. 44 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. (no date). Undated brochure on the noxious algae Caulerpa taxifolia. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. (Revised 1999). Southern California eelgrass mitigation policy. 4pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Caulerpa eradication protocol. Revised October 2003. http:// swr. ucsd. edu/ hcd/CaulerpaControlProtocol.htm Petra Geotechnical, hic. 2004a. Limited Phase II Site Assessment; Regent Marina Site. Prepared for Cash & Associates.. 17 February 2004. 6 pp plus tables. Petra Geotechnical, hic. 2004b. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Regent Mariner site, located west of Bay Avenue and north of Newport Boulevard City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California 7 pp. plus appendices. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. 2004c. Sediment chemical data for the Southcoast Shipyard Project in: Harbor Resources Department, City of Newport Beach unpublished PowerPoint presentation. ' Quammen, M. L. 1980. The impact of predation by shorebirds, benthic feeding fishes, and a crab on the shallow living invertebrates in intertidal mudjlats of two southern California lagoons. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine. 132 pp. RMA 2001. Residence time data for Newport Bay waters in: Harbor Resources Department, City ofNewport Beach unpublished PowerPoint presentation. Seapy, R. R. 1981. Structure, distribution, and seasonal dynamics of the benthic community in upper Newport Bay, California. Department of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Technical Report No. 46. 74 pp. Southern Califomia Coastal Water Research Project. 2003. Chemistry and toxicity in Rhine Channel sediments. Final ryo Technical Report #391. Prepared by Stephen Bay and Jeffrey Brown. May 16 , 2003. 14 pp. plus appendices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (ACOE) 2000. Upper Newport Bay ecosystem restoration feasibility study. ACOE Los Angeles District. F4 /AFB Main Report. Coastal Resources Management 30 Muffic Resources Dart Environmental Impact Statement/Report. Los Angeles District. January 2000. Ware, R. R. 1985. Section W. Marine biological assessment of the DeAnza mudflats and marsh peninsula. In: DeAnza Peninsula Marina Feasibility Study. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 28 June, 1985. 38 pp. Coastal Resources Management tL I Marine Resources 5 I i L f APPENDIX A COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT FIELD RECONNAISSANCE REPORT I J I u I D I 11 I I I I I APPENDIX A. COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MARINE BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSNCE FIELD SURVEY RESULTS AT THE PROPOSED MARINA-PARK MARINA SITE October 21st, 2003 and March 15th, 2003 iMarine biological field surveys were conducted at the site of the proposed Marinapark manna on October 21st, 2003 between 1100 and 1400 hours. Coastal Resources Management biologists Rick Ware and Stephen Whitaker conducted the survey along the sand shoreline of Newport Bay between 16th and 181" Streets and subtidally along 300 feet of shoreline at the east end of the project area. Water temperature was 65 degrees F and underwater visibility vaned between 2 and 5 ft. Biologists conducted the survey using SCUBA between the shoreline and a maximum depth of A 0 feet Mean Lower Low Water. CRM biologist Steve Whitaker swam 10 underwater transects perpendicular to the shoreline along the 300 foot baseline. CRM conducted another survey on March 15th, 2004 during a bay -wide eelgrass (Zostera marina) survey. Biologists swam the entire length of the beach between 16th St. to 191" Street. This survey was conducted at depths between 0 ft and -12 ft MLLW. Transects were swam at 45 degree angles between the shallow and offshore depth limits. IUnderwater visibility vaned between 3 and 6 ft. Water temperature was 63 degrees F Sediments on the sand beach were fine to coarse sands. At depths shallower than 2 ft MLLW, the sediments were primarily sands. At depths up to 6 ft, the sediments consisted of both sand and silt. Between -6 and -12 ft, the sediments were primarily silts. Biologists observed algal mats in the shallow subtidal at depths between -2 and 8 ft MLLW. The types of algae present during the survey included green algae (Enteromorpha sp.) and red algae (unidentified spp.). Epibenthic invertebrates observed by CRM biologists during the two field surveys at the project site included the hydroid Corymorpha palma, the cerianthid anemone Pachycerianthus fimbriatus, tube - dwelling polychaete annelid worms, tube - dwelling amphipods (Grandidierella japonica), and the predator sea slug (Chelidonera [Navanwc7 inermis. Fish observed during the surveys included spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatus), round stingray (Urolophus halleri), topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus), and an unidentified flatfish. Biologists also ■ observed several moon jellyfish (Aurelia aurita) during the March 2004 survey. The cement groin at the east end of the sand beach supported a biofouling community dominated primarily by barnacles (Balanus glandula) in the high tide zone, and bay mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) in the mid to low tide zone. iShorebirds and seagulls were present in the low intertidal zone during the October 2003 survey. The shorebirds (willets and sandpipers) were foraging in the low intertidal zone, while the gulls (Larus californicus) were roosting on the sandy shoreline above the tide line. 1 I No sensitive or listed species of plants, invertebrates, fish, or buds were observed at the project site during either survey. Neither eelgrass (Zostera marina) or the highly- invasive ' green algae Caulerpa taxifolia were present at the project site. I I I L 1 C-1 1 i 1 I F1 I I I I f� Cl P APPENDIX B STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONTAMINANT AND BENTHIC STUDY (SWRCB ET AL., 1998) 11 1 L I i [J L� R 1 1 F 1 I i ;U ao Ed W � I � I i2 zi zi >1 (U �5— P6 L) P. (U U C) u z z (U ti lu 0. (U 0 (U 04 r. (U 50 1 O I 2 it a U y O C N O O N 3 0 a v k :b C a d U b a F z z U y O C N O O N 3 0 a v k :b C a d U b a a � H b .O m � U cn O ti k � .b LL o Q U C _U :i T as 0 7J z Y C O Pa c - b aF� c o �On Q 1V� 7 0 �i ri �r1 /y @Y O bD N a O A S r m 0 0 0 0 .. 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 P] upa �a p ,z W Gl t C Np L m C m C m t m C W C [O C m C CO 0 C C m C m W C C 61 C m C O C m L D) L W C o m m¢ a T 0 Z 'Z 7. 7 Z 'Z o � Z o 0 . o 0 S 0 m m m m m m m m as m w m m m m m m m m m m m Nm a F C _U :i T as 0 7J z Y C O Pa c - b aF� c o �On Q 1V� 7 0 �i ri �r1 /y @Y O bD N a O A I Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft E!R I I I I 11 tAppendix E: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis r I I I I 11 I I I I I I Michael Brandman Associates H'.\Qian (PN- M) \0064\00640020\DEIR \00640020 Appendi. DHldert dot I I I MARINA PARK RESORT AND I COMMUNITY PLAN TPO I Traffic Analysis March 2004 1 I j 1 I -AW/r -i_ AUST /N FOUST ASSOC /A TES, /NC. 1 I 1 I i I Ci MARINA PARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS U I I I Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 I April 14, 2004 r I I I MARINA PARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ' This report summarizes an analysis performed for Marina Park Resort and Community Plan ' located on the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach based on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) methodology. In addition, this report summarizes the results of an analysis of cumulative conditions in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Marina Park Resort and Community Plan consists of a 110 -room resort hotel located on the north side of West Balboa Boulevard between 18th Street and 15`h Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach. Figure l illustrates the location of the project. Access to the proposed project will be provided by driveways on Balboa Boulevard as well as a driveway on 18" Street and 15th Street. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The proposed project consists of 110 hotel rooms. The project site is currently developed with a 56 -unit mobile home park, of which 24 units are currently occupied full -time. Traffic generated by the existing uses was subtracted from the trips generated by the proposed project to obtain the net new trips being added to the surrounding circulation system. Trip generation for the existing uses were obtained from mobile home park trip rates, and trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from resort hotel trip rates in Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation, 7" Edition ". Trip generation for the existing uses and proposed project is summarized in Table 1. As this table indicates, the proposed project generates a total of 640 trips daily, of which 520 are new trips. During the AM peak hour the project generates 24 new trips and during the PM peak hour the project generates 32 new trips compared with the trip generation of the existing uses. Trip distribution of project - generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the subject property. The proposed resort hotel will have a large proportion of local trips which do not impact any of the study intersections. The general distribution is I Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc Figure 1 PROJECT LOCATION Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rptfigl.dwg Q Z O O a '6� na scale Q H w V Q ♦STy �G GAP HOSPITAL R a° GJ z oL'i ti COAST HWY �9 A9 CBO C� O 9 'y`tica �e 9 �O .qr ,Pr G A OOFCi,`�C 9ti L " PROJECT SITE W 13AL80A Figure 1 PROJECT LOCATION Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rptfigl.dwg FA y I Ilnri IN � I ' f um �.'' it I 1�► .r+ A�� �IN.�1.�71 11��I71 Ptt ONO 1 11 11111 - -I'� k�11111111111111EW IMIUM111111111111® . ,�•• �, ; }ID111111111 ©1111111. Non PM .. AN�� � --� ����Ot s9�09��9�19 @900909119800�19��r� ,. ��E� @I�'�a � �i�,��� s�l ` �► �1 �901C90��39�� :aa��a�aa�a @�D��:DE�;� . Fuil��. n; �v. r+ ,�a�OC�09a��0���C0g000��4809�C0 `� b000000000eooe000000000 ss000000000�a�§ ��ooaaoelsa 0000eevs ao�sa�osaasao�oeo�ossoeaa:, ©CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC�1� . .Fr U yy0 ¢a os .3 m I a 0 a� ad` m C. V G� �F 1 1 1 1 r t t r t LAND USE UNITS Table I TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN PM PEAK HOUR OUT TOTAL ADT TRIP RATES (ITE) Mobile Home Park DU .09 .35 .44 .37 .22 .59 4.99 Resort Hotel Room .22 .09 .31 .18 .24 .42 5.82 TRIP GENERATION Existing Credits Mobile Home Park 24 DU 2 8 10 9 5 14 120 Proposed Project Resort Hotel 110 Rooms 24 10 34 20 26 46 640 NET NEW TRIPS 22 2 24 Il 21 32 520 Source: Trip Generation, 7ih Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc I ' illustrated in Figure 3. Approximately 50 percent of the proposed hotel traffic is oriented toward the north, 13 percent is oriented toward the west, 12 percent is oriented toward the east, and 25 percent is ' estimated to remain in the Balboa Peninsula area. Project - generated trips were distributed to the circulation system according to these distribution patterns. Figure 4 illustrates AM and PM peak hour ' project trips. ITPO TRAFFIC IMPACTS ' The City of Newport Beach identified seven intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed residential/commercial development. These intersections are: ' Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue and Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Via Lido Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street Existing peak hour intersection volumes for the seven study locations listed above were provided by City Staff. The peak hour count data was collected in March, April, and May 2003. Existing intersection levels of service are based on intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU values are a means of presenting the volume to capacity ratios, with a V/C ratio of .900 representing the upper ' threshold for an acceptable level of service (LOS "D ") in the City of Newport Beach. Existing ICU values for the study intersections assuming existing lane configurations are summarized in Table 2 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in the appendix). As this table shows, the study intersections are currently operating at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hour. These ICU values represent the non -peak- season conditions. Traffic counts on Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of 200' Street collected by the City were used to compare non -peak- season volumes with peak summer volumes on the Peninsula (included in the Appendix). Counts collected in March 1999 indicate a weekday daily volume of 21,000 average daily ' traffic (ADT) (LOS "A ") on Balboa Boulevard. Weekday counts collected in August 2003 average I Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rptdoc 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 j� Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO Traffic Analysis Figure 3 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION 6 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 029030rptligl.dwg ¢ Z o 0 a �o same ¢ Jbly z U a c; lsly 2 O2P 50% HOSPITAL 0 vQO� Q �J w z 0 Q' to 13% COAST HWY 12% �9 B 9leO !i O� 9 tioa � ti 11% oy1 -oRr oar A 00,10&�c 9,1 LOCAL ° PROJECT 5 25% SITE W SALSoA Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO Traffic Analysis Figure 3 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION 6 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 029030rptligl.dwg 1 1 1 1 1 1 v o a .Ep a 0 x a m v� o� w a O a H c� A r 0 A� a A U A A I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J Table 2 EXISTING ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY EXISTING INTERSECTION AM PM 1. Newport & Hospital .603 .853 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy .734 .673 3. Riverside & Coast Hwy .708 .716 4. Tustin & Coast Hwy .701 .597 5. Newport & Via Lido .456 .347 6. Newport & 320° St .632 .524 7. Newport & Coast Hwy .818 .619 Level of service ranges: .000 - .600 A .601 - .700 B .701 - .800 C .801 - .900 D .901 — 1.000 E Above 1.001 F Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc I LJ I i I 1 I 11 28,000 ADT (LOS "C "), approximately 35 percent higher than the non - summer volume. During the AM peak hour, summer volumes are approximately 17 percent lower than the non -peak- season volume, and during the PM peak hour, summer volumes are approximately 23 percent higher than the non -peak- season volume. Background traffic was obtained by adding an ambient growth rate and traffic generated by approved projects in the area to the existing peak hour volumes. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes on Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway. Construction of the project is assumed to be complete in 2005; therefore, the study year is 2006. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area was distributed over the circulation system by City Staff and was added to the existing peak hour volumes to obtain year 2006 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of project - generated traffic. Table 3 summarizes the approved projects included in this analysis. Background- plus - project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project- generated peak hour intersection volumes presented above to the existing- plus - regional growth - plus- approved projects peak hour volumes. The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an ICU analysis at each study intersection. The one percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with projected background peak hour volumes. To meet the one percent analysis criteria, peak hour traffic from the proposed project must be less than one percent of the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection. If the proposed project meets the one percent criteria, then the ICU analysis is not required and no further analysis is necessary. If the proposed project does not meet the one percent criteria, then the ICU analysis must be performed for the intersection which does not meet the one percent criteria. The project has a less than significant impact if it contributes less than one percent of the peak hour volume on each leg of the intersection or if the project contributes one percent or more to the peak hour volume on any leg of the intersection and the intersection operates at LOS "D" or better during the peak hour. Table 4 summarizes the results of the one percent analysis (the one percent analysis sheets are included in the appendix). As this table indicates, the proposed project passes the one percent analysis at all study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour, with the exceptions of two intersections on Newport Boulevard. The proposed project fails the one percent analysis at the intersections of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido and at Newport Boulevard and 32 "d Street and, therefore, an ICU analysis must be performed at these locations. Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc Table 3 APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY LOCATION PERCENT COMPLETE Balboa Bay Club Expansion 0 Fashion Island Expansion 36 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 65 Ford Redevelopment 95 Cannery Lofts Village 0 Hoag Hospital Phase II 0 CIOSA — Irvine Project 91 Newport Dunes 0 Irvine Development 1999 0 1401 Dove Street 0 Newport Auto Center Expansion 0 Olsen Townhome Project 0 Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc INTERSECTION Table 4 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS - -- PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - -- NB SB EB WB LESS THAN I% OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. Newport & Hospital 1 11 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 1 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 1 14 0 0 No 6. Newport & 32" St 1 14 0 0 No 7. Newport & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 Yes - -- PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - -- LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. Newport & Hospital 10 6 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 3 0 1 0 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 1 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 1 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 13 7 0 0 No 6. Newport & 32n° St 13 7 0 0 No 7. Newport & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 1 Yes Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO I l Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc I �1 LJ 1 1 [1 1 11 1 [1 An ICU analysis was performed for the intersections which failed the one percent test. The existing lane configurations were assumed and a capacity of 1,600 vph per lane with no clearance factor was utilized (ICU analysis sheets are included in the appendix). The ICU analysis is summarized in the following table. ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY BACKGROUND+ EXISTING BACKGROUND PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM S. Newport & Via Lido .456 .347 .460 .349 .460 .352 6. Newport & 32n° St .632 .524 .632 .524 .632 .527 Level of service ranges: .000 - .600 A .601 - .700 B .701 - .800 C .801 - .900 D .901 —1.000 E Above 1.000 F As this table shows, the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido will operate at level of service (LOS) "A" without and with the proposed project, and the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32 "d Street will operate at LOS "B" during the AM peak hour and LOS "A" during the PM peak hour without and with the proposed project. The proposed project will have no marginal impact on the intersections of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido and Newport Boulevard and 32 °d Street. CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS City Staff provided a list of six known but not approved projects for use in a cumulative conditions analysis. These cumulative projects are summarized in Table 5. Trip generation and distribution for each cumulative project was also provided by City Staff. The peak hour cumulative intersection volumes were added to the background volumes presented earlier; then project - generated traffic was compared to one percent of the background - plus - cumulative traffic. Table 6 summarizes the results of the cumulative one percent analysis. As this table indicates, the proposed project passes the one percent test at all study intersections with the exceptions of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido and Newport Boulevard and 32 °d Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Tra}Tc Analysis 029030rpt.doc PROJECT Table 5 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SUMMARY LAND USE AMOUNT Saint Mark Presbyterian Church Church 34.80 TSF Day Care 4.72 TSF Saint Andrews Church Church 33.00 TSF Newport Coast TAZ 1 —4 Single Family Detached 950 DO Condominium/Townhouse 390 DU Multi - Family Attached 170 DU Newport Ridge TAZ I — 3 Single Family Detached 630 DU Multi - Family Attached 380 DU Commercial 102.96 TSF Lower Bayview Senior Housing Elderly Residential 150 DU South Coast Shipyard Multi - Family Attached 28 DU Commercial 19.6 TSF Office 10.4 TSF TSF — thousand square feet DU — dwelling units Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 13 Austin Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc Table 6 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION - -- PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - -- NB SB EB WB - -- PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - -- LESS THAN I% OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR VOLUM Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 3 0 1 0 Yes 3. I. Newport & Hospital I 11 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 0 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 1 14 0 0 No 6. Newport & 32" St 1 14 0 0 No T Newport & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 3 Yes INTERSECTION - -- PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - -- NB SB EB WB LESS THAN I% OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. Newport & Hospital 10 6 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 3 0 1 0 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 1 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 1 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 13 7 0 0 No 6. Newport & 32" St 13 7 0 0 No 7. Newport & Coast Hwy 0 0 0 1 Yes Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 14 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030tpt.doc ' Street. An ICU analysis was performed at these locations. The results of the cumulative ICU analysis are summarized in the following table: 1 1 I, L 1 1 1 1 1 LJ 1 This table indicates that the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido will operate at LOS "A" during the AM and PM peak hour and Newport Boulevard and 32 "d Street will operate at LOS `B" during the AM peak hour and LOS "A" during the PM peak hour under background- plus- cumulative- plus - project conditions. The project has no significant impact on the intersection and no mitigation is required. WEEKEND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) examines traffic impacts for the normal commuter periods on weekdays during the non - seasonal (i.e., non - summer) months. It is recognized that the travel patterns of patrons of a resort hotel may not correspond to these usual commuter trip characteristics. Consequently, a worst -case analysis (at least for the overall traffic conditions) was conducted for peak summer Saturdays when the hotel is fully occupied. For the normal off - season commuter period, a typical occupancy for the existing mobile home park was 43 percent (i.e., 24 of the 56 units are occupied by full -time residents who live in the mobile homes year- round). The remaining existing mobile home units (32 units) are used by part -time or seasonal residents. For the peak summer Saturday condition, full occupancy of the existing mobile homes as well as the planned hotel was presumed. ITE does not have a reliable trip generation rate for resort hotels on the weekend. However, examination of conventional hotel trip rates indicates a somewhat higher Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 15 AWR14011St Associates, Inc. ' Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc CUMULATIVE ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY BACKGROUND+ BACKGROUND+ CUMULATIVE+ EXISTING BACKGROUND CUMULATIVE PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 5. Newport & Via Lido .456 .347 .460 .349 .464 357 .464 .360 6. Newport & 32nd St .632 .524 .632 .524 .638 .538 .638 .540 Level of service ranges: .000 - .600 A .601 - .700 B .701 - 800C .801 - .900 D .901 — 1.000 E Above 1.000 F This table indicates that the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido will operate at LOS "A" during the AM and PM peak hour and Newport Boulevard and 32 "d Street will operate at LOS `B" during the AM peak hour and LOS "A" during the PM peak hour under background- plus- cumulative- plus - project conditions. The project has no significant impact on the intersection and no mitigation is required. WEEKEND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) examines traffic impacts for the normal commuter periods on weekdays during the non - seasonal (i.e., non - summer) months. It is recognized that the travel patterns of patrons of a resort hotel may not correspond to these usual commuter trip characteristics. Consequently, a worst -case analysis (at least for the overall traffic conditions) was conducted for peak summer Saturdays when the hotel is fully occupied. For the normal off - season commuter period, a typical occupancy for the existing mobile home park was 43 percent (i.e., 24 of the 56 units are occupied by full -time residents who live in the mobile homes year- round). The remaining existing mobile home units (32 units) are used by part -time or seasonal residents. For the peak summer Saturday condition, full occupancy of the existing mobile homes as well as the planned hotel was presumed. ITE does not have a reliable trip generation rate for resort hotels on the weekend. However, examination of conventional hotel trip rates indicates a somewhat higher Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO 15 AWR14011St Associates, Inc. ' Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc Saturday trip rate than for weekdays, on the order of 10 percent. As a result, a case study of two resort/luxury hotels was conducted to determine if the Saturday trip rate varied significantly from the weekday rate. The two hotels are: • L'Auberge Del Mar Resort —a seaside resort in Del Mar • Hotel Bel Air — a secluded and isolated resort in Bel Air These luxury hotels differ from typical business /vacation hotels in that they are very expensive, offer upscale rooms and suites, and provide a range of luxury personal services such as individual spa treatments and exclusive dining. These luxury hotels are marketed to high -end travelers who are not tied to conventional commuter schedules, rather than the more conventional business travelers and family vacationers whose travel patterns correspond to normal peak hour weekday periods. The result of the case studies indicate that the weekday and weekend trip rates for luxury resort hotels do not vary significantly and, in fact, remain quite consistent. Since the luxury hotel guests are not tied to the typical commuter schedules, their trip patterns are more consistent from weekday to weekend and they have the option of avoiding the typical weekday commuter periods when congestion is at its worst. Consequently, the resort hotel weekday trip rate appears to represent the Saturday rate as well. The increased weekend traffic attributable to the proposed resort hotel compared to the existing 56 mobile homes (both assumed to be fully occupied on a summer weekend) amounts to a net increase of 360 ADT. When compared to the current peak summer traffic volume of 35,000 ADT (LOS "E ") on Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of 20th Street, the increase from the proposed resort hotel is equivalent to one percent. This increase is substantially less than the simple daily fluctuations that can routinely vary as much as 10 percent or more. For example, daily traffic counts (summarized in the appendix) indicate that weekday volumes on Balboa Boulevard vary from 25,600 ADT on a Wednesday to 32,500 ADT on a Friday, a difference of 27 percent. As a result, the effect of the increase in trips from the proposed project will not be discernable from the typical daily volume fluctuations by the average motorist. Further, the increase from the project is expected to occur at times other than the peak traffic periods such as currently happens when the beach -goers leave the Balboa Peninsula area en -masse in the afternoons. During this period, the hotel patrons will, for the most part, be traveling in the direction opposite to the outbound beach traffic. But the reality is that this increase in trips will generally occur during periods other than the peak off - peninsula movement period. Marina Park "Resort and Community Plan TPO 16 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Ttnfrc Analysis 029030rpt.doc ' CONCLUSIONS The proposed project, consisting of 110 resort hotel rooms, will generate 520 more daily trips than is currently being generated by the site, and 24 more AM peak hour trips and 32 more PM peak hour trips than existing uses. Seven intersections in the vicinity were checked to determine the marginal impact of project traffic on the street system. Two of the seven intersections did not pass the City's one percent analysis. An ICU analysis was performed on the two intersections failing the one percent test. Both intersections passed the ICU analysis. Consequently, the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections, and no additional intersection improvements are required. The impact of traffic from known but not approved projects was included in a cumulative conditions analysis. Under cumulative conditions, the project passed the City's one percent test at all study intersections with the exception of two locations. Both intersections operate at an acceptable level of service under cumulative conditions with the addition of project - generated traffic. Therefore, the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections under cumulative conditions, and.no intersection mitigation measures are required. DEFINITIONS Certain terms used throughout this report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ADT Average Daily Traffic. Generally used to measure the total two- directional traffic volumes passing a given point on a roadway. DU Dwelling Unit. Used in quantifying residential land use. ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A measure of the volume to capacity ratio for an intersection. Typically used to determine the peak hour level of service for a given set of intersection volumes. LOS Level of Service. A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on intersection ICU values or volume /capacity ratios of arterial segments. Peak Hour This refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM - 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3 PM - 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway. TSF Thousand Square Feet. Used in quantifying non - residential land uses, and refers to building floor area. Marina Pads Resort and Community Plan TPO 17 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Tic Analysis 029030rpt.doc V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio. This is typically used to describe the percentage of capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of an arterial or intersection. VPH Vehicles Per Hour. Used for roadway volumes (counts or forecasts) and trip generation estimates. Measures the number of vehicles in a one hour period, typically the AM or PM peak hour. Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO IB Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc APPENDIX I' Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO A -I Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc Table A -I BALBOA BLVD TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO A -2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 'Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc AM PEAK PM PEAK HOUR HOUR DATE DAY VOLUME VOLUME ADT Balboa Blvd btwn 151° St & 20m St 3/23/99 Toes 1,600 1,640 21,000 8/14/03 Thum 1,460 2,170 30,400 8/15/03 Fri 1,460 2,190 32,500 8/16/03 Sat 36,900 8/17/03 Sun 33,200 8/18/03 Mon 1,220 1,920 26,400 8/19/03 Toes 1,320 1,870 26,600 8/20/03 Wed 1,210 1,920 25,600 Average Non - Summer Weekday Volume 1,600 1,640 21,000 Average Summer Weekday Volume 1,330 2,010 28,300 Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO A -2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 'Traffic Analysis 029030rpt.doc AM PEAK PERIOD 52 37 0 46 134 0 1825 18 1 1706 17 11 0 82 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 7 0 Northbound 1736 351 Intersection: 1. Newport Blvd & Hospital ' Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Eastbound 616 Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project 350 Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD 52 37 0 46 134 0 1825 18 1 1706 17 11 0 82 0 698 7 0 Northbound 1736 351 4 0 Southbound 1526 Eastbound 616 ' Westbound 350 AM PEAK PERIOD 52 37 0 46 134 0 1825 18 1 1706 17 11 0 82 0 698 7 0 0 1 0 351 4 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 %or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. i ' PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1443 43 40 0 1526 15 10 Southbound 1956 59 89 0 2104 21 6 ' Eastbound 849 ' Westbound 379 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume, Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 PROJECT: Regent Newport Beach 0 130 0 979 10 0 0 0 379 4 1 0 0 FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 1. Newport & Hospital Existing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .603 .853 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LAWS CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 140 .088* 143 .089* NOT 3 4800 1501 .313 1235 .257 NBR 1 1600 95 .059 65 .041 SBL 1 1600 57 .035 43 .027 SBT 3 4800 1083 .306* 1701 .399* SBR 0 0 386 212 EEL 1 1600 194 .121* 471 .294* EBT 1 1600 183 .114 152 .095 EBR 1 1600 239 .149 226 .141 WBL 1 1600 68 .043 151 .094 WET 2 3200 264 .088* 179 .071* WBR 0 0 18 49 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .603 .853 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 2. Coast Hwy & Balboa/Superlor ' Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project ' Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 729 0 2 0 731 7 0 ' Southbound 568 0 3 0 571 6 0 ' Eastbound 3270 98 53 0 3421 34 3 Westbound 859 26 35 0 920 9 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD ' Northbound 618 0 2 0 620 6 3 Southbound 1116 0 5 0 1121 11 0 Eastbound 1572 47 40 0 1659 17 1 Westbound 1930 58 63 0 2051 21 0 _ => Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak t Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Regent Newport Beach FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 1 2. Superior /Balboa & Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 199 293 {.183)* NBT 3 4800 454 .152* 270 .129 NBR 0 0 76 55 SBL 0 0 193 {.121 }* 168 SBT 3 4800 121 .065 330 .104* SBR 2 3200 254 .079 618 .193 EBL 2 3200 993 .310 311 .097* EBT 3 4800 1979 .412* 984 .205 EBR 1 1600 298 .186 277 .173 W81. 1 1600 78 .049* 182 .114 WBT 4 6400 598 .122 1628 .273* WBR 0 0 193 120 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .016* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .734 .673 Int Exi I Traffic Volume Analysis Westbound Existing 15 Approach Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume 2003 Peak i Hour Approved Cumulative Northbound 5 Projected I% of Projected Project Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Southbound 355 tEastbound Volume Volume 0 2364 AM PEAK PERIOD I Traffic Volume Analysis Westbound 1345 40 66 0 1451 15 ersection: 3. Coast Hwy & Riverside Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. sting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak i Hour Approved Cumulative Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak i Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 0 0 AM PEAK PERIOD 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 355 4 0 71 79 0 2514 25 0 PROJECT'. Regent Newport Beach PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 Westbound 1345 40 66 0 1451 15 3 Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 Southbound 384 0 0 0 384 4 0 Eastbound 1776 53 90 0 1919 19 3 Westbound 2342 70 83 0 2495 25 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 q or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume, Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT'. Regent Newport Beach PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 3. Riverside & Coast Hwy Existing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .706 .716 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBA_ 0 0 2 {.001 } - 12 NET 1 1500 1 .003 13 .023* NBR 0 0 2 12 SBL 0 0 79 110 {.069)* SBT 1 1600 6 .053* 5 .072 SBR 1 1601 270 .169 269 .168 EEL 1 1600 294 .184 246 .154* EBT 2 3200 2066 .647* 1511 .478 ERR 0 0 4 19 WBL 1 1600 11 .007* 44 .028 WBT 3 4800 1279 .266 2256 .470* WBR 1 1600 55 .034 42 .026 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .706 .716 �1 I% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 4. Coast Hwy & Tustin 1 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project ' Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIDD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Southbound 54 0 0 0 54 1 0 Eastbound 2177 65 83 0 2325 23 0 Westbound 1349 40 66 0 1455 15 3 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIDD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Southbound 74 0 0 0 74 1 0 Eastbound 1621 49 90 0 1760 18 3 Westbound 2391 72 83 0 2546 25 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume, Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than I % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Regent Newport Beach FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 i 1 4. Tustin & Coast Hwy Existing LANES NBL 0 NOT I NBR 0 S8L 0 SOT 1 SOP 0 EBL i EBT 2 EBR 0 WBL 0 WBT 3 WBR i TOTAL CAPACI CAPACITY 0 1600 0 0 1600 0 1600 3200 0 0 4800 1600 Y UTILIZA AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR VOL V/C VOL V/C 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 0 0 39 55 0 .034* 0 .046* 15 19 44 .028 104 .065* 2132 .667* 1513 .474 1 4 0 0 1307 .272 2332 .486* 42 .026 59 .037 "ION .701 .597 i AM PEAK PERIOD 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Northbound Intersection: 5. Newport Blvd & Via Lido 15 1 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project 1092 0 0 0 1092 Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1538 0 0 0 1538 15 1 Southbound 1092 0 0 0 1092 11 14 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Westbound 328 0 0 0 328 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 926 0 0 0 926 9 13 Southbound 1779 0 0 0 1779 18 7 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Westbound 398 0 0 0 398 4 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. rPROJECT: Regent Newport Beach FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 5. Newport & Via Lido Existing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .456 .347 Existing + Approved + Proposed Hotel AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 V/C 0 0 NBT 3 4800 ;511 .315* 891 .186* NBR f .319* 27 .190* 35 f SBL 2 3200 415 .130* 464 .145* SET 3 4800 677 .14I I316 .274 SBR 0 0 0 .282 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 .187* 0 0 EST 0 0 0 35 0 0 DR 0 0 0 .130* 0 0 081- 1 1600 17 .011* 26 .016* WBT 0 0 0 .016* 0 0 WBR 2 3200 311 .097 372 .116 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .456 .347 Existing + Approved + Proposed Hotel 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 4800 1530 .319* 910 .190* NBR f HOUR 27 HOUR 35 SBL 2 3200 415 .130* 467 .146* SET 3 4800 699 .146 1352 .282 SBR 0 0 0 .319* 0 .187* EBL 0 0 0 27 0 35 EBT 0 0 0 3200 0 .130* EBR 0 0 0 3 0 685 WBL 1 !600 17 .011* 26 .016* WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3200 313 .098 372 .116 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .460 .352 1 Existing + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 r ' NBT 3 4800 1529 .319* 897 .187* NOR f 27 35 SBL 2 3200 415 .130* 467 .146* SET 3 4800 685 .143 1345 .280 SBR 0 0 0 0 ESL 0 0 0 0 I EST 0 0 C 0 EBR 0 0 C. 0 WBL 1 1600 17 .011* 26 .016* I I WBT 0 0 D 0 , WBR 2 3200 31J .098 372 .116 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .460 .349 Existing + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I LANES CAPACITY VO'_ V/r VOL V/C NBL 0 0 3 0 I NBT 3 4800 1549 .323* 936 .195* NBR f 27 35 SBL 2 3200 415 .130* 467 .146* SBT 3 4800 720 .150 13 87 .289 I SBR 0 0 0 0 E8L 0 0 0 0 I� EST 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 I� WBL 1 1600 17 .011* 26 .016* WBT 0 0 0 0 I� WBR 2 3200 313 .098 372 116 � I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .464 .357 r i i i �i i r t 5. Newport & Via Lido Existing + Approved + Cumulative + Hotel AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 4800 1560 .323* 949 .198* NBR f 27 35 S81- 2 3200 415 .130* 467 .146* SET 3 4800 734 .153 1394 .290 SSR 0 0 0 0 EEL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 E8R 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 17 .011* 26 .016* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3200 313 .098 372 .116 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .464 .360 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 6. Newport Blvd & 32nd St Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1111 0 0 0 1111 11 1 ' Southbound 669 0 0 0 669 7 14 Eastbound 0 5 0 467 0 0 467 Westbound 150 0 0 0 150 2 0 , Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. , PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1094 0 0 0 1094 11 13 Southbound 1483 0 0 0 1483 15 7 ' Eastbound 153 0 1 0 154 2 0 ' Westbound 128 0 0 0 128 1 0 ' Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Regent Newport Beach FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 f ! 6. Newport & 32nd Existing 1 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK I HOUR 1 VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 1 1600 37 .023 29 I .018* 1 NBT 2 3200 1044 .336* 1016 .333 1 NBR 0 0 30 SBL 49 1 SBL 1 1600 45 .028* 77 I .048 SBT 2 3200 515 .195 1285 .439* 1 SBR 0 0 109 EEL 121 0 EBL 0 0 398 (.2491* 65 (.041) *1 EST 2 3200 50 .140 46 .035 1 EBR f 42 19 WBL 42 0 WBL 0 0 23 WBT 41 I 1 WBT 2 3200 38 .019* 42 .026* 1 WBR f 45 89 45 45 1 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .632 .524 Existing + Approved + Proposed Hotel 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK I HOUR 1 PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 1 1600 37 .023 29 I .018* 1 NBT 2 3200 1045 .336* 1029 .337 1 NBR 0 0 30 0 49 1 SBL 1 1600 45 .028* 77 I .048 1 SBT 2 3200 529 .199 1292 .442* SBR 0 0 109 0 121 1 EEL 0 0 399 (.249)* 65 I 1.0411 *I EST 2 3200 50 .140 46 .035 1 EBR f EBR 19 42 1 WBL 0 0 23 0 41 I WBT 2 3209 38 .019* 42 .026* WBR f WBR 89 45 1 I Existing + Approved 1 AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK I HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 1 1600 37 .023 29 I .018* 1 NBT 2 3200 1044 .336* 1016 .333 1 NBR 0 0 30 1 49 1 SBL 1 1600 45 .028* 77 I .048 SBT 2 3200 515 .195 1285 .439* 1 SBR 0 0 109 121 0 EEL 0 0 399 (.2491* 65 (.041) *1 EST 2 3200 50 .140 46 .035 1 EBR f 19 1 I 42 1 WBL 0 0 23 41 I 1 WET 2 3200 38 .019* 42 .026* I WBR f 89 I 45 I I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .632 .524 Existing + Approved + Cumulative 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK I HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 1 1600 37 .023 29 I .018* NET 2 3200 1064 .342* 1055 .345 NBR 0 0 30 49 1 S8L 1 1600 45 .028* 77 I .048 1 SBT 2 3200 550 .206 1327 .453* 1 SBR 0 0 109 121 EBL 0 0 399 (.2491* 65 I (.0411 *1 EST 2 3200 50 .140 45 .035 1 EBR f 19 42 1 I WBL 0 0 23 41 W81- 2 3200 38 .019* 42 .026* WBR f 89 45 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .632 .527 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .638 .538 6. Newport & 32nd Existing + Approved + Cumulative + Hotel AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 37 .023 29 .018* NB7 2 3200 1065 .342* 1068 .349 HER 0 0 30 49 SBL 1 1600 45 .028* 77 .048 SET 2 3200 564 .210 1334 .455* SSR 0 0 109 121 EBL 0 0 399 f.249 }* 65 { 1.041 } *l EBT 2 3200 50 .140 46 .035 EBR f 19 42 WBL 0 0 23 41 { WBT 2 3200 38 .019* 42 .026* WBR f 69 45 { TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .638 .540 1 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 7. Coast Hwy & Newport Blvd 1 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peek 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 651 0 0 0 651 7 0 70 50 0 2468 25 0 Eastbound 2348 Westbound 1098 33 30 0 1161 12 3 ' __> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 853 0 0 0 853 9 0 ' Eastbound 1346 40 40 0 1426 14 0 1 Westbound 2244 67 60 0 2371 24 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Regent Newport Beach FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 7. Newport & Coast Hwy Existing LANES CAPACITY NBL 0 0 NBT 0 0 N8R 0 0 S8L 2 3200 SBT 0 0 SBR 1 1600 EEL 0 0 EBT 2 3200 EBR f WBL 0 0 WBT 3 4809 WBR f Right Turn Adjustment TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZA AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL V/C VOL V/C 0 0 0 0 0 0 436 .136* 457 .143* a 0 215 .134 396 .248 0 0 2181 .682* 1222 .382* 167 124 a 0 766 .160 1765 .368 349 479 SBR .094* ION .818 .619 I I r-� [1 I 1 1 I I I 11 j L1 I I I Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft OR Appendix F: Air Quality Impact Analysis Michael Brandman Associates H Tlicni ( PNJK)\0064TO6n0020 \DCIR \00N0020 Appondis Midmxdoc AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS MARINA PARK RESORT (NEWPORT BEACH HOTF,L) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No.: PO4 -014 Prepared for Michael Brandman Associates Attn: Kara Palm 2000 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 415 San Ramon, California 94583 Date: April 15, 2004 IMETEOROLOGICAL SETTING ' fhe project site's climate, as with all Southern California, is dominated by the strength and position of the semi - permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It ' creates cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall. It drives the cool daytime sea breeze, and it maintains comfortable humidities and ample sunshine after the frequent morning clouds dissipate. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric processes that create the desirable living climate combine to restrict the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted in part by the desirable climate. Portions of the Los Angeles Basin therefore experience some of the worst air quality in the nation for certain pollutants. Temperatures in the City of Newport Beach average 61 degrees annually. Daily and seasonal variations of temperature are small because of the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic thermal reservoir. In contrast to the steady temperature regime, rainfall is highly variable. Measurable precipitation occurs mainly from early November to mid - April, but total amounts arc generally small. Newport Beach averages 12 inches of rain annually with January as the wettest month. Winds in the project vicinity display several characteristic regimes. During the day, especially in summer, winds are from the south in the morning, and from the west in the afternoon. Daytime wind speeds are 7 to 9 miles per hour on average. At night, especially in winter, the land becomes cooler than the ocean, and an off -shore wind of 3 to 5 miles per hour develops. Early morning winds are briefly from the south -cast parallel to the coastline before the daytime on- shore flow becomes well established again. One other important wind regime occurs when high pressure occurs over the western United States that creates hot, dry and gusty Santa Ana winds from the north and northeast across Newport Beach. The net effect of the wind pattern on air pollution is that any locally generated emissions will be ' carried offshore at night, and toward inland Orange County by day. Daytime ventilation is much more vigorous. Unless daytime winds rotate far into the north and bring air pollution from developed areas of the air basin into Newport Beach, warm season air quality is much better in the project vicinity than in inland valleys of the air basin. Both summer and winter air quality in the project area is generally good. In addition to winds that control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal, Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine /subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from above. Because of Newport Beach's location relative to the ocean, the ' incoming marine air during warm season onshore flow contains little air pollution. Local air quality is not substantially affected by the regional subsidence inversions. A second inversion type forms on clear, winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the surface while the air aloft remains warm. This process forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their C `DOCL.NE IVWET'IE M.00ALS- 11TENVTO4.014MAKINA RRK RSRT-ADOC I source. During the long nocturnal drainage flow from land to sea, the exhaust pollutants continually accumulate within the shallow, cool air layer of air near the ground. Inland areas of Orange County may experience elevated levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides because of this winter radiation inversion condition. However, the coastal areas of Orange County have not substantially been affected by limited nocturnal mixing effects (no elevated levels of CO) in over 10 years. Both types of inversions occur throughout the year to some extent, but the marine inversions arc very dominant during the day in summer, and radiation inversions are much stronger on winter nights when nights are long and air is cool. The governing role of these inversions in atmospheric dispersion leads to a substantially different air quality environment in summer in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) than in winter. C \DOCC\@ 19%F TE- IUD(.' ALS- I'JENAPTOa0;4 &IARIKA I'RK RSRT -A UDC 2 I AIR QUALITY SETTING Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) ' In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed Marina Park Resort project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In June 2003, EPA proposed a rule which could extend and establish a new attainment deadline for ozone, which could be as late as year 2021. Because California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique I air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Tablc 1. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects. EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM- 2.5 "). New national AAQS Iwere adopted on July 17, 1997 Planning and enforcement of the new federal standards for PM -2.5 and for ozone (8 -hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision published at the end of February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health -based standards did not require preparation of a cost - benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their respective attainment schedules. These attainment planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8 -hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of communities to "non - attainment" for the 8 -hour ozone ' standard. Because the South Coast Air Basin is far from attaining the 1 -hour federal standard, the pending 8 -hour ozone non - attainment designation will not substantially alter the attainment planning process. LI ' (1DOCUNIE IUWE.TTE, I'dLOCALS- I JLMVW04 -014 MARINAPRK RSR'f-ADOC 3 Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards C DOCI:ME,VjwH I' I' 4.-I qOCA LS I 'dRA1PIP04- 014NIARINAPRKRSRT -i DOC 't I Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM -2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted on June 20, 2002, and went into effect in July, 2003. The State PM -2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard. Baseline Air Quality Existing and probable future levels of air quality in Newport Beach can be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at its Costa Mesa and Mission Viejo monitoring stations. These stations measure both regional pollution levels such as dust (particulates) and smog, as well as levels of primary vehicular pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Table 2 summarizes the last seven years of published data from a composite of gaseous species monitored at Costa Mesa and particulates at Mission Viejo (there are no particulate data available from Costa Mesa). The following conclusions can be drawn from these data: 1. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels periodically sometimes exceed standards. The frequency of first -stage smog episodes, as evidence of extremely degraded air quality, is, however, almost non - existent in coastal Orange County with the last first -stage smog alert as far back as 1985. 2. Annual maximum ozone levels tend to reflect some annual variations in dispersion patterns that cause concentrated airflow from more developed areas of the air basin to be carried into the coastal area during some years, while only the fringe of the basin -wide "urban plume" reaches the coastal corridor in others. Since 1993, the federal one hour standard of 0.12 ppm has not been exceeded. 3. Measurements of carbon monoxide at the Costa Mesa station reflect the history of nocturnal air mass that has passed over intensively developed areas in Central Orange County before following the Santa Ana River drainage toward the ocean. The last violation of the 8 -hour CO standard in Costa Mesa was in 1992. The project area has likely been in attainment for CO even longer. The data suggests that baseline CO levels in Newport Beach are generally healthful and can accommodate a reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any adverse air quality effects would be expected. 4. PM -10 levels as measured at Mission Viejo, periodically exceed the state standard, but no measurements in excess of the national particulate standard has been recorded in the last seven years. With more of the air having a marine origin in Newport Beach than in Mission Viejo, the frequency of violations of the PM -10 standard near the proposed project site is likely to be slightly lower than that suggested in 'fable 2. I 1 C\00(UNIE IVWETTE IU.00AIS I \TEMP \Pa4.0I4MARINAPRKRSRI -0.00( 5 Table 2 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary (1997 -2003) (Number of days standards were exceeded, and maximum levels during such violations) Pollutant/Standard 1997 I 1998 1999 2000 ! 2001 I 2002 2003 Ozone 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm 1 5 1 1 1 0 4 1 -Hour> 0.12 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -Hour > 0.08 ppm 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 Max. 1 -I lour Cone. (ppm) 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11 Carbon Monoxide 1 -Hour> 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -Hour > 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. I -Hour Cone. (ppm) 7. 9. 8. 8. 6. XX XX Max. 8 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 5.8 7.0 6.4 6.3 4.6 4.3 5.9 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 -Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.1 1 Inhalable Particulates (PM -10) 24 -Hour > 50 µg/m' 4/56 6/59 6/60 2/60 3/57 5 /XX 1 /XX 24 -Hour> 150}tg/m' 0/56 0/59 0/60 0/60 0/57 0 /XX O /XX Max. 24 -Hour Cone, (Itg/m') 86. 70. Ill. 98. 60. 80. 53. Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM -2.5) 24 -Hour > 65 µg/m' 0/65 1/119 0/102 0 /XX O /XX Max. 24 -Hour Cone. (itg/m') 57. 95. 53. 58.5 37.6 - = No monitoring previous to 1999. XX -No data available. Note: Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standards /samples taken. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Costa Mesa Station for gaseous species, El Toro Station for particulate pollutants to 1999, Mission Viejo for 2000 -2003. C. DOCUM I. NWF I'I'F: !il.00AtS- 1 \'1'tNPW41 -014 MARINA [IRK RSRT -A DOC 6 I AIR QUALITY PLANNING ' The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) could not meet the deadline for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM -10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air -shed with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The currently adopted clean air plan for the basin is the 1999 SIP Amendment, which accelerates the schedule for a number if new SCAQMD rules and regulations, approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2000. The most current regional attainment planning for ozone (VOC and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) is shown in 'Fable 3. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) outlines the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM -10) by 2006. The locally - adopted air plan was forwarded for review by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in September (2003). The plan was approved by CARB and was sent to EPA for its final approval. Components of the 2003 air plan adopted by AQMD include: ' • How the federal standard for CO will be maintained. • Control measures to further reduce emissions from business, industry and paints. • Measure to be adopted by CARB and EPA to further reduce pollution from: Cars Trucks Construction equipment Aircraft Ships Consumer products I I I 1 CDOUNT PJ\\ETTF fLOCAIS 1 \TEMP804- 014NIARINA PM RSNT -A DOC 7 Table 3 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan (Emissions in tons /day) a2002 Base Year. b W ith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. cLevcls at which all federal air quality standards will be met. *Summer ozone precursors "Winter CO "hot spot" precursors. Source: California Air Resources Board. The 2003 California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality, and SCAQMD, Draft Final 1997 AQMP (October 1996). C,D0(VMP MVFTTE-1'.LOCAIS- \THMP \PO4_OIJ MARIKn PHK ILtik'1'- T.uOC' O VOC* NOx* CO ** Current Inventory' Stationary + Areawide 337 147 236 On -Road Mobile 346 659 3,483 Off -Road Mobile 143 300 891 TOTAL 826 1,106 4,610 2010 Forecasts Stationary + Areawide 531 98 337 On -Road Mobile 163 360 1,913 Off -Road Mobile 144 269 1,643 TOTAL 838 727 3,893 Short-term + Intermediate Reductions <221> <120> <1,468> Long -term Reductions <204> <77> <0> 2010 Remaining` 413 530 2,425 a2002 Base Year. b W ith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. cLevcls at which all federal air quality standards will be met. *Summer ozone precursors "Winter CO "hot spot" precursors. Source: California Air Resources Board. The 2003 California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality, and SCAQMD, Draft Final 1997 AQMP (October 1996). C,D0(VMP MVFTTE-1'.LOCAIS- \THMP \PO4_OIJ MARIKn PHK ILtik'1'- T.uOC' O I -, 'J I I LF' i I I I i I I Commercial development, such as the proposed Marina Park Resort project, does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there arc no specific air quality programs or regulations governing recreational or commercial development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land -use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation control measures implementable on a projcct - specific basis, and if the scope and phasing of a project are consistent with adopted forecasts as shown in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then the regional air quality impact of project growth would not be significant because of planning inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth - accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less- than - significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. impact significance was therefore analyzed relative to project - specific significance thresholds. C DOCUNIF NN'G111; \LOCALS �TEMPTW.01n.MARiNA PRK RSR LA DOC 9 I AIR QUALITY IMPACT Standards of Significance Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, i.e., the dominant pollution generators in the basin, often occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have transformed primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally immeasurably small. The SCAQMD has therefore developed suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact ' of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. Projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact: SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds (lb /day) I I l_1 I I 1 I I I L 1 Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 Sox 150 150 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993 Rev. Additional indicators are listed in the SCAQMD Handbook that should be used as screening criteria to evaluate the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. Whenever possible, the project should be evaluated in a quantitative analysis; otherwise a qualitative analysis is appropriate. The additional indicators are as follows: • Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or State ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area that would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP. • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. • Project might have the potential to create or be subjected to objectionable odors. • Project could have hazardous materials on site and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions. • Project could emit an air toxic contaminant regulated by District rules or that is on a federal or State air toxic list. • Project could involve disposal of hazardous waste. (\00('I:AW.. IVPTTTIf -I\ LOCALS -1l I'EMPV'04014MARNAPR RSRT -ADO(* 10 • Project could be occupied by sensitive receptors near a facility that emits air toxics or near CO hot spots. • Project could emit carcinogenic air contaminants that could pose a cancer risk. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Hazardous air contaminants (such as asbestos) may be contained in older structures that may be demolished prior to redevelopment. Any demolition or renovation requires a pre- construction hazards assessment. Ii' such materials arc present, particularly asbestos, a number of strictly regulated remediation procedures must be implemented. Such mandatory measures are required to protect both remcdiation workers and the general public. Remediation impacts are therefore less - than - significant through required compliance with existing SCAQMD hazards control regulations. Secondary significance criteria are rarely triggered by commercial hotel /resort development such as that proposed in the Marina Park Resort project. Potential impact significance thus relates mainly to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook numerical emissions thresholds identified above. Project - Related Sources of Potential Impact Intensification of land uses in Orange County potentially impacts ambient air quality on two scales of motion. As cars drive throughout Southern California, the small incremental contribution to the basin air pollution burden from any single vehicle is added to that from several million other vehicles. The impact from the commercial resort project, even if it generates a significant number of new vehicle trips, is very small on a regional scale. Basin - wide air quality impacts arc, therefore, addressed in terms of project compatibility with regional air quality plans. If any given project or plan has been properly incorporated into basin -wide growth projections, which are the basis for regional air quality/ transportation planning, then there will be no significant basin -wide impact because of unanticipated growth. Locally, changes in the location of any collection of automotive sources, or changes in the number of vehicles or travel speeds may impact the micro -scale air quality around any given development site. Traffic increases not only contribute air pollutants in direct proportion to their cumulative percentage of traffic volume growth, but they may slow all existing traffic to slower. more inefficient travel speeds. The development traffic/air quality impact is thus potentially compounded. Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during project build -out. Such emissions include on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust from demolition, grading, site preparation and construction activities, and off -site emissions from construction employee commuting and. /or trucks delivering building materials. Construction activity emissions are difficult to quantify, since the exact type and amount of equipment that will be used or the acreage that may be disturbed on any given day in the future is not known with any reasonable certainty. The emphasis in environmental documents relative to construction activity emission impacts has therefore been to minimize the emissions as fully as possible through comprehensive mitigation even it' the exact amount of emissions cannot be precisely quantified. C:mOQ: lift 1 OWEiR MOCALS -1 \TEMP \PVG- ObMARIVAPRKRSRT ADO( 11 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 Construction Activity Impacts Dust is normally the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions" Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default" factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into mid- range average values. This assumption may or may not necessarily be applicable to site - specific conditions on the project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project - specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision. In the generic dust emissions factor developed by EPA for grading activities, the PM -10 fraction of fugitive dust emissions are predicted to be around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control measures being applied (SCAQMD Handbook, Table 9 -2). Mandatory measures required by South Coast AQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) are generally assumed to reduce this rate by approximately 50 percent. Average daily PM -10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated in the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26.4 pounds /acre. This estimate is based upon required dust control measures in effect in 1993 when the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was prepared. Rule 403 was subsequently revised to require use of a greater array of fugitive dust control on construction projects. Use of enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil wetting, use of supplemental binders, early paving, etc. can achieve a substantially higher PM -10 control efficiency. The entire project site occupies approximately 8.1 acres. The California Air Resources Board IJRBEMIS2002 computer model has estimated excavation activities that grading and "footprint" will cover 0.6 acres on any given day. Calculated PM -10 emissions with the application of "standard" dust control, and with the application of enhanced dust control measures, are as follows (pounds /day): Use of best available control measures (BACMs) is not required to achieve a less -than- significant dust (PM -10) emission rate, and with the use of BACMs as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, peak daily PM -10 emissions during construction will be 6.0 pounds per day. Demolition of existing structures and the metered parking lot will generate dust as walls are pulled down and concrete foundations are broken up. The PM -10 emission factor for demolition C' 1D000' MF, IVWETTE- I1I .00NES-- IITEMPIK4- 014S1ARIAAPR MRT -A.DOC 12 With Standard Dust With Best Available Disturbance Area Control Control Measures 0.6 acre average 16.16 /day 6.lb /day Use of best available control measures (BACMs) is not required to achieve a less -than- significant dust (PM -10) emission rate, and with the use of BACMs as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, peak daily PM -10 emissions during construction will be 6.0 pounds per day. Demolition of existing structures and the metered parking lot will generate dust as walls are pulled down and concrete foundations are broken up. The PM -10 emission factor for demolition C' 1D000' MF, IVWETTE- I1I .00NES-- IITEMPIK4- 014S1ARIAAPR MRT -A.DOC 12 activities is given by the SCAQMD as 42 pounds per 100,000 cubic feet (cf) of demolition volume. The proposed project will demolish two existing small, one -story structures. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that each structure is approximately 2,000 square feet (sf). or 30,000 cubic feet (floor pad -2,000 sf x height -] 5 feet = 30,000 cf), and that rate of demolition will be both structures in twenty (20) days. The resulting daily PM -10 emission from demolition activities are approximately 1.3 pounds per day (3,000 cf 100,000 cf x 42 lb = 1.26) lb). There will be no significant PM -10 impacts associated with demolition activities. Current research in particulate exposure health effects suggest that the most adverse effect derives from ultra -small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A new national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM -2.5 ") was adopted in 1997. Very little construction activity particulate matter is in the PM -2.5 range. Soil dust is also more chemically benign than typical urban atmospheric PM -2.5. The limited amount of PM -2.5 within the sub- threshold PM -10 burden further reinforces the finding of a less- than - significant air quality impact. In conjunction with fine particulate matter generated from soil disturbance, larger diameter particulates will settle out on parked cars, outdoor fumiture, landscaping and other horizontal surfaces. Although most such dust is redeposited near its origin, the presence of nearby residences and the American Legion may create temporary soiling nuisance. Although PM -10 emissions will not exceed the adopted significance threshold, the limited source - receptor distances around the site to dust - sensitive land uses strongly suggests that enhanced dust control measures be implemented. A menu of suggested enhanced measures is included in the mitigation discussion. Exhaust emissions will result from on- and off -site heavy equipment during demolition, grading, and site preparation. Emissions will also be generated during finish construction, especially during the application of paints or other coatings. The types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that these emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. During demolition, grading and site preparation, the following equipment fleet has been assumed to be utilized as a basis for estimating maximum daily equipment exhaust emissions at an average 40 percent operation of full rated load: Dr emolition 1 Dozer 1 Loader Grading /Site Preparation 2 Scrapers 1 Grader 1 Backhoe 1 Rubber -tired Loader 1 Other Equipment 1 Rubber -tired Dozer I Other Equipment ('1DOCFME'IllWETTF.;U)((ALS 1',TEMP\P04014NURiN.4PRKR50.T -AD0(' 13 IJ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 The ARB's URBEMIS2002 computer model was used to estimate daily emissions during demolition, grading and finish construction with the following results (lb /day): Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 Total PM -10 Exhaust PM -10 Dust Demolition 3.9 35.9 27.1 0.1 2.9 1.6 1.3 Grading 9.0 73.1 66.0 0.0 9.6 3.6 6.0 Finish Work 92.7* 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 - - *Exceeds threshold due to architectural coatings. Mitigable to 30.9 pounds per day (less- than - significant) with recommended measures. Application of paintings and coatings may create ROG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD threshold. Mitigation of this impact will be accomplished as follows: • Use pre - coated building materials. • Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50% efficiency. • Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. Use of the above mitigation measures can reduce emissions from architectural coatings to approximately 1/3 of their unmitigated values. Daily ROG emissions of 31 pounds per day (92.7 + 3 = 30.9) can be achieved. This is less than the identified daily significance threshold. ' Emissions for all other pollutants will not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and the mobile nature of the on -site construction equipment and off -site trucks will prevent any micro - scale violation of standards. There may be localized instances when the characteristic diesel ' exhaust odor is noticeable from passing trucks or nearby heavy equipment. Truck exhaust impacts can be minimized by controlling the construction routes to reduce interference with non - project traffic patterns and to preclude truck queuing or idling near sensitive receptor sites. Although exhaust emissions from diesel - powered equipment will not exceed thresholds, the region is a non - attainment air basin for ozone, and the project may contribute 73+ pounds of NOx (an ozone precursor) per day. The small individual NOx increment is therefore cumulatively significant when considered within the context of numerous simultaneous regional construction projects. Use of reasonably available control measures for NOx reduction is therefore recommended as impact mitigation. Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24 -hour per day, 365 days per year, 70 year lifetime exposure. Public exposure to heavy equipment operating in the distance will be an extremely small fraction of the above dosage assumption. Diesel equipment is also becoming progressively 'cleaner" in response to air quality rules on new off -road equipment. Any public health risk associated with project - related heavy equipment operations exhaust is therefore not quantifiable, but small. ' CiDOCl11F. IJIVETTE IV.00ALS -I lItAINR04 -014 MARNA PRK RSRT -A.DOC 14 Construction activity air quality impacts occur mainly in close proximity to the surface disturbance area. There may, however, be some "spill- over" into the surrounding; community. That spill -over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is washed into public streets. Passing non - project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off -site dust impacts. Spill- over may also occur via congestion effects. Construction could entail roadway encroachment, detours, lane closures and competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan that will maintain such "spill- over" effects at a less- than - significant level. Operational Impacts There are 520 projected new vehicle trips that will be generated at project completion. For typical local commercial trips in Orange County, averaging 5.5 miles one way, additional vehicle travel from project implementation will be about 2,860 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day. The California ARB land use and air pollution emissions computer model URBE.MIS2002 was run for a year 2005 project build -out. The project - related mobile source emissions burden, along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds, is shown in 'fable 4. Thresholds will not be exceeded and all pollutant emissions arc below significance levels by a wide margin of safety. In addition to regional air quality concerns that focus on the photochemical conversion of air pollution emissions to more harmful forms, vehicular exhaust may impact air quality immediately adjacent to the roadway travel lanes. Such impacts occur during periods of maximum traffic congestion and minimum atmospheric dispersion. Maximum traffic congestion occurs in summer near the project site. However, minimum dispersion occurs in winter when traffic congestion is much less. Traffic stagnation in summer afternoons near the project site has limited local air quality consequences. Because operational CO emissions fall well below significance thresholds, the project contribution to any local air quality effects will be minimal. CO standards have not been exceeded near the project site in more than a decade. No micro -scale "hot spot' analysis is therefore necessary. There will be no significant micro -scale air quality impacts associated with the Marina Park Resort commercial project. C DOCLMVikI WIf11;- 1 \IPO\IS, JO EM PTU40.014 MAK1 N A PR6 RSK 1 -A DOC 15 iI II 1 Table 4 Project- Operations Air Pollution Emissions (pounds /day) Source ROG NOx CO PM -10 sox Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 6.8 6.6 70.5 5.6 0.1 Area Source Emission Estimates* 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 Total: Operational + Areas 6.9 7.1 71.3 5.6 0.1 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 Exceeds Threshold (` ?) No No No No No % of Threshold 13 13 13 4 <1 ' *Energy consumption, landscape maintenance, etc. ' Source: URBEMIS2002 Air Quality Model; Output in Appendix. IU- I1 '1 1 [1 ' C\ DMUM E- iJWF.TTE- i \LOCAI.S�1\I'EMP \POA -014, A IRA PRK RSRI' -A DOC 16 MITIGATION Project - related operational emissions will be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds with a wide margin of safety. Construction activity impacts, however, may exceed significance thresholds for ROG due to application of architectural coatings. Therefore, mitigation is required to achieve a less -than- significant impact for ROG. Project activities will generate dust and fumes even though significance thresholds will not be exceeded. If there are any sensitive receptors in close proximity to construction activities, or the basin is in "non - attainment' for a given pollutant, then such impacts are considered potentially adverse, even when significance thresholds are not exceeded. The implementation of best available control measures (BACMs) is therefore recommended to minimize nuisance levels of construction activity emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) requires use of `one or more" dust control measures. Use of more than one measure is recommended because of the proximity of adjacent dust - sensitive land uses in an overall program containing all applicable BACMs. Recommended BACMs includes: Dust Control Use enhanced dust control measures. The menu of enhanced dust control measures includes the following: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. Emissions • Require 90 -day low -NOx tune -ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Architectural Coatings • Use pre- coated building materials as much as possible. • Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a 50% efficiency. • Use lower volatility paint with 100 grams of ROG per liter or less. C \DXINNW IV \VIII(Ii ^11L0CA1S -I 1 LNP 014)1 i NARINA PKK RSK I -A UOC 17 iI Off-Site Impacts Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods. ' Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. ' Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. II II II- I ' C\ 00C CMEIVR' ETTE- I& OCAI .S- 11TEMPP04- 014MARINAPRKRSRT -ADO, 18 I 1 1 I I [l 1 1 I APPENDIX URBEMIS2002 Computer Model Output • Year 2005 — Marina Park Resort Ige : 1 CREEMIS 200' For Windows 7.4.2 'e Name: C:1Program Files \URBEMTS 2002 For Windews,.Projects2Y.2 \marina.uzb eject Name: Marina Par}. Resort ifoject Location: South Coast Air Basin {Los Angeles area) -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds /Day - Summer) ESTIMATES PK10 P1,110 o),0 INSTRUCTION.EMISSION 2003 * * ROG NO% CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST OTALS (lbe,day,unmrtigated) 5.00 73.08 60.03 0.07 9.57 3.5E 6.01 PMi f.' PM10 OHIO *' 2004 * ** ROG NOk CO SO ^_ TOTAL EY.HAUST DUST. OTALS (Ibs /day,unm.itigated) 92.74 0.12 2.90 O.OG 0.09 O.00 0.04 ILEA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOY. co 502 PMio TOTALS (its /day,unmitigated) 0.12 0.54 0.80 0.11 0.00 JERATIONAI: (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx. CO 502 PM10 TOTALS (ibs /day,unmitlgated) 6.30 6.64 70,53 0.06 5.58 IF OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PMi0 TOTALS (lb_= /day,umitigated) 6.92 7.18 71.33 0. ^6 5.58 .1 LJ i �1 [1 '1 '1 'age: LRBE.M.IS 2002 For Windows 7.9.2 ?ile Name: C: \Program Fiies \URBEM.IS 2002 For Windows \Prcject32k2 \marina.urb ?rclect Name: Marina Park. Resort_ ?reject Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) )r. -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds /Day - Summer) -osstruction Star: Month and Year: June, 2003 'onstructiCn Duration: 12 Petal Land Use Area to be Developed: C acres !ax.imum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0.6 acres dingle Family Units: 0 Milti- Family Units -. 0 3etail/ Office /In=- tib�tional /Industrial Square Footage: 55000 70NSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED llbs /day) PM10 PM10 Phi 10 Source R.OG NOx CO 502 TOTAL - EXK7,UST DUST * ** 2003* ** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust_ - - - - 1.26 - 1.2E Off -Road Diesel 3.58 31.06 23.80 - 1.53 1.53 1-1.03 On -Road Diesel 0.25 4.E8 0.9E 0.07 0.14 0.12 O.G2 Worker Trips 0.09 0.13 2.37 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum ibs /day 3.52 35.89 27.13 0.07 2.99 i.65 1.25 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 6.00 - E.GO Off -Road Diesel 8.80 72.85 61.53 - 3.56 3.56 0.00 On -Road Diesel C.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.20 0.24 4.50 0.00 0.01 0.011) 0.01 Maximum lbs /dav 9.00 73.08 66.03 0.00 9.57 3.566 6.0" Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 u.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.14 0.08 1.67 0.00 G.G2 0.00 0.02 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas G.On - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 13.00 0.00 G.UG Asphalt nn -Road Diesel 0.00 0. CO r Qu 0.00 0-00 1.00 0.0'; Asphalt_ Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 Maximum, Ibs /day G.14 0.08 1.67 0.00 0.02 O.00 0.02 Max lbs /day all phases 9.0C 73.08 EE.03 0.07 9.57 .,. -., 6.01 *** 2004, ** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0,00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Or. -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0. CO 0 -00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 C.OG 0.00 0.00 O.JO 0.00 Maximum lbs /day O.CO D. DO 0.00 D.00 0.00 O. DO 0. 140 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.')i_ - O.Gi Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel- 0.00 0,01 0.00 0.00 O.OI 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 11.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum ibs /,Iay 0.00 C.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 Phase 3 - Bui1ding Constrnetion Bldg Const Off -RCad Diesel O.GU 0,00 0.00 - 0.00 0. 00 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.13 0.G 1.55 0.013 C.02 0.00 3.02 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 92.50 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.12 0.0E 1.45 0.0^ 0.02 0.00 O. J2 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - -. Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 D.00 C.00 1).00 Asphalt An -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C.00 r.. DO Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0. (DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum. lbs /day 92.74 0.12 2.90 v.0 C. ).04 0.00 0.0= Max. lbs /day al_ phases 42.74 0.12 2.90 0.00 0.04 O.DO 0.04 Ie: 3 hase 1 - Demolition Assumptions rt Month /Year for Phase 1: Jun '03 se 1 Duration: 0.6 months lding Volume Total (cubic feet): 30000 wilding Volume Daily (cubic feet): 3000 Road Truck. Travel (VMT): 162 Road Equipment o. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day 1 Other Equipment 190 0.400 6.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.200 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.200 6.0 1 Tractor /Loaders /Backhces 79 0.300 8.0 .ase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions ;tart Month /Year for Phase 2: Jun '03 2 Duration: 1.2 months Road Truck Travel (VMT); 0 I fse -Road Egm.pment No. Type Horsepower Load Facto: Hcurs /Day 1 Graders 174 0.400 8.0 1 Other Equipment. 190 0.400 6.0 ' 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0 200 8.C. Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.20 8.0 2 Scrapers 313 0.400 8.0 H e 3 - Building Construction Assumptions t Month /Year for Phase 3: Jul '03 e 3 Duration: 10.2 months Start Monthi Year for SubPhase Building: Jul Sub ?hase Building Duration: 10.2 months Off -Road Equipment No, Type Start Month /Year for Sub Phase Architectural SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt: May 'SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 0 Off -Road Equipment No. Type 1 5 03 Horsepower Load Factor Hours /DaV Coatings: May '04 months '04 Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day age: 4 [J 1 II 1 REA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES !Summer Pounds per Day, Unriitigated? Source ROG NOz CG SG_' PM10 Natural Gas 6.04 0.53 0.21 - 0.00 Food Stoves - No sul'mer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.05 0.01 0.5E 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcta 0.00 - - - - TOTALS (lbs /day, unmaiti gated) 0.12 0.54 0.80 0.00 0.00 , [J 1 II Ie: 5 ' UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL. EMISSIONS ROG NOx Co S02 PM'_C otel 6.80 6.E4 70.53 0.06 5.5E �AL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 6.60 6.64 70.53 0.06 5.58 s not include correction for passby trips. •des not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. IRATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES lysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer r Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) dry of Land Uses. 7nit Type Trip Rate Size Total ?rips Rtel 5.62 trips / rooms -10.00 640.20 hicle Assumptions: �eat Mix: hicle Type ,fight Auto sight Track < 3,750 lbs �ght Truck 3,751- 5,750 d Truck 5,751- 8,500 to -Heavy 8,501- 10,000 Lite -Heavy 10,001 - 14,000 ,led-Heavy 14,001 - 33,000 Tavy -Heavy 33,001 - 60,000 ne Haul > 60,000 lbs ban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Rtor Home avel Coddicrons Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 56.10 2.39 97.10 0.60 Home- 15.10 Home - 4.00 93.40 2.6C work 15.50 Other 1.90 96.80 1.30 11.5 6.80 6.6 i.50 95.60 2.90 11.5 1.00 6.0 0.00 60.00 20.00 35.0 0.30 40.0 0.00 66.70 33.30 20 .0 1.00 43.0 10.00 20. Dig 7n.00 land 0.80 0.00 12.50 87.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 C.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10 11 I I ii Commer -ial Commute Non -Wcrk Customer 10.3 5.5 5.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 5.0 2.5 925 Residential Home- Home- Home - work Shop Other b an trai Trip Length 'miles) 11.5 4.9 6.6 Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.9 40.0 Trips - Residential 20 .0 3,. .. 43.0 lot of Trips - Commercial ;by land use; tel 11 I I ii Commer -ial Commute Non -Wcrk Customer 10.3 5.5 5.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 5.0 2.5 925 Marinapark Resort 8 Community Plan - Draft EIR Appendix G: Noise Impact Analysis ' Michael Brandman Associates H (PNJN)AUW4A 40020(DGIRN00640020Appendix Dividers. do, NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS MARINA PARK RESORT (NEWPORT BEACH HOTEL) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Michael Brandman Associates Attn: Kara Palm 2000 Crow Canyon Place. Suite 415 San Ramon, California 94583 Date: April I, 2004 Project No.: PO4 -014 NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable or interferes with normal hearing processes. Periods of quiet are necessary for human health and welfare. Although the major adverse impact of exposure to an excessively noisy environment is reduced hearing capacity, the psychological impacts of noise exposure at less than hearing loss thresholds are equally important. There are a variety of technical noise rating scales used to measure the impact of noise source. The basic unit of sound pressure level measurement is the decibel (dB) which allows for comparisons of sounds differing in loudness by factors of a million or more through an easily manageable logarithmic scale. Because the human ear does not respond equally to sounds of all frequencies, multi - spectral noise is weighted more heavily in frequencies of greatest human sensitivity to gauge true auditory response in a process called A- weighting. A- weighted sound levels are the standard representation in California for planning purposes and arc reported as dBA. Since cumulative noise exposure is the result of a number of isolated noise events, several additional metrics of the noise environments have been developed to describe ambient noise levels. Statistical descriptions can be used to indicate the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some percent of each hour, but a more common approach for impact assessment purposes is the energy equivalent noise level (Leq). Leq is the steady -state noise level that has the same acoustic energy as a time - varying event. Differences in the perception of noise intrusion as a function of time of day and personal activity level have been incorporated into community noise characterization by applying an artificial penalty to noise levels during evening and nighttime quiet hours. The resulting noise characterization is variously called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the Day - Night Level (Ldn) which are measures of the 24 -hour cumulative noise exposure level at a given location. All communities within the State of California are required, by law, to use the CNEL characterization for land use planning purposes, while federal agencies typically use the Ldn descriptor. In most applications, differences between the Ldn and CNEL metrics are negligibly small. Because CNEL is a 24 -hour weighted average, it is particularly well suited for evaluating roadway noise impacts on residential and other noise sensitive uses because both the noise sources as well as the receiver site are potentially active around the clock. State law (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 6, Section T25 28) requires that indoor noise levels in habitable rooms of multi - family dwelling units be limited to a 45 dBA CNEL. Since the average attenuation factor for structures with closable windows exceeds 20 dB, a 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise exposure level is typically considered to be a desirable maximum exterior noise loading_ Noise /land use compatibility standards for various classes of land uses are generally expressed in the Noise Element of the General Plan to insure that noise exposure is considered in any development decisions. The State of California has developed a noise and land use compatibility matrix for recommended incorporation into local general plan noise elements. The City of Newport Beach has incorporated specific components of these guidelines into city noise exposure standards as shown in the City of Newport Beach land use matrix. Table 1, and the City interior and exterior noise standards, Table 2. S'00610020 - Ne„yort Repcm EIRISCEfR \Giroux Nuise SWdy INcr J -I -09� doe i me 1 LAND USE NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX LAND USE CATEGORIES COMMUN11 -Y NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL CNEL CATEGORIES USES <55 42 � � � &92 Single Family, Two Family, RESIDENTIAL A A B B C D D Multiple Family RESIDENTIAL Mobile Home A A B C C D D COMMERCAL Hotel, Motet Tmasient Lodging A A B B C C D Regional, District COMMERCIAL Regiomvliae Commcial Retail, Bank A A A A B B C Disri Restaurant, Movie Theatre COMMERCIAL Once Building, Research and INDUSTRIAL. Development, Professional A A A B B C D INSTITUTIONAL ORcer, City Office Building COMMERCIAL- Amphitheatre. Concert Hall Recmation' Auditorium, Meeting Han INSTITUTIONAL B B C C D D D Civic Center Amusement P Children ark COMMERCIAL hLnuoae Golf Comm. Gtr Tracy, Rear-' on Equestrian Center, Sports Club A A A B B D D COMMERCIAL Automobile Service Station, Auto General, Special Dealership, Manufacnning, A A A A B B B I14DUSTRIAI.R7STITUTIONAL Wa¢ housing, Wbolesak. Utilities INSTITUTIONAL Hospital, Cbmcb, Library General Schools. Classroom A A B C C D D OPEN SPACE parks A A A B C D D Goff course. Cenetaries, OPEN SPACE Naaue CentmWildlife Reserves, A A A A B C C Wildlife Habitat AGRICULTURE Agriwlaae A A A A A A A INTERPRETATION ZONE A Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any CLEARLY COMPATIBLE builcings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. ZONE B New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed NORMALLY COMPATIBLE analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are detcrminod. Convrntiocal construction, with closed windows and frtsh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. ZONE C New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new NORMALLY INCOMPATIBLE construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. ZONE D New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates NEIN.oORT BEACH NOISE ELEMENT � NY1V i/ ' INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS I [1 1 1 I I I LAND USE CATEGORIES ENERGY AVERAGE CNEL indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. z CATEGORIES USES INTERIORl EXTERIOR Single Family, Two Family, Multi- family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside. ' RESIDENTIAL Multiple Family 453 SSa 65 Park's pic. is area 5 School's playground Mobile Home Hotel and motel recreation area 65 CON DdERCIAL Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 65 6 NDUnIUAL 4 Noise level requirement with open windows, if they ate used to meet o itsaal ventilation requirement 1NSTIIV7lONAL Commercial Retail, Banc 55 — Restaurant Office Building, Research and Developmeut. Professional 50 — Rces City Office Buildin Amphithearte, Coocea Hall 45 — Auditorium. Meeting Hall Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 — sports Club 55 — Manutacbaing, Warehousing, 65 — wholesale, Utilities Movie 7beanres 45 — iNSTTTUIlONAL Hospital, Schools' 45 65 clauroom Church. Library 45 '- 1 OPEN SPACE Parb 65 ISOURCE: Mete Greve Associate ' NEWPORT BEACH NOISE ELEMENT INTERPRETATION 1. indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2. Outdoor euvirou neat limited to: Private yard of single family Multi- family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside. ' Mobile home Park Hospital Fatio Park's pic. is area School's playground Hotel and motel recreation area 3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of t natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of UBC. 4 Noise level requirement with open windows, if they ate used to meet o itsaal ventilation requirement 5. Exterior noise level should be such that interior nurse level will not exceed 45 CNEL. t6. Except those areas around the airport within the 65 CNEL contour. ISOURCE: Mete Greve Associate ' NEWPORT BEACH NOISE ELEMENT In Newport Beach, no new residential development is allowed in areas of 65 dBA CNEL or greater unless sound levels in outdoor living areas can be attenuated to 65 dBA CNEL, or less and interior sound levels (with windows closed) are attenuated to 45dBA CNEL. The corresponding interior sound level standard for commercial uses is 55 dBA CNEL with no exterior standard, since commercial facilities generally do not have exterior uses where quiet is a prerequisite. Land use compatibility standards generally apply to discretionary actions such as development approval. They are designed to protect various land uses from sources of noise pre - empted from local control such as cars, aircraft, ships, trains, etc. Sources of noise within thc.jurisdiction of local government are typically regulated by the noise ordinance as part of the municipal code. The City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code contains the City's Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance identifies Designated Noise Zones for various land uses (Section 10.26.020) with specific numerical noise exposure standards for these different uses (Section 10.26.025 Exterior Noise Standards: Section 10.26.030 Interior Noise Standards). The City of Newport Noise Ordinance Limits are as follows: *If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. Noise ordinance standards apply to on -site noise generation from mechanical equipment, site maintenance. social functions, etc. Hotels must also meet structural intra -unit noise transmission standards in addition to the mandated 45 dBA CNEL interior requirement The Uniform Building Code (UBC) imposes such structural standards that govern noise transmission from one unit to another within the same building of a multi- tenant structure. Horizontal noise transmission through shared ( "party ") walls must be reduced by 50 dB in a parameter called the "sound transmission class," or STC. Vertical sound transmission through the floor /ceiling assembly of stacked units must similarly have an STC = 50 or higher rating. Vertical transmission through floor /ceiling assemblies must also be able to reduce impact noise such as footfalls, dropped objects, etc. by 50 dB. The impact noise reduction is expressed in a parameter called the "impact isolation class." or IIC. If SV00640020 -Jm pon Reym1LiR \S(HRVGiroux Nalne Swdy(Rc1A- FUa)d.o 4 Exterior Noise Standards* Interior Noise Standard 7:00 a.m.- 10:00 p.m: 7:00 a.m.- 10:00 p.m.- 10:00 P.M. 7:00 a.m. 10:00 P.M. Designated Noise Zone (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Noise Zone 1: All single, two- and 55 50 45 40 multiple - family residential properties Noise Zone 2: All commercial 65 60 properties Noise Zone 3: Residential portions of 60 50 45 45 mixed -use properties Noise Zane d: Industrial or 70 70 manufacturing *If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. Noise ordinance standards apply to on -site noise generation from mechanical equipment, site maintenance. social functions, etc. Hotels must also meet structural intra -unit noise transmission standards in addition to the mandated 45 dBA CNEL interior requirement The Uniform Building Code (UBC) imposes such structural standards that govern noise transmission from one unit to another within the same building of a multi- tenant structure. Horizontal noise transmission through shared ( "party ") walls must be reduced by 50 dB in a parameter called the "sound transmission class," or STC. Vertical sound transmission through the floor /ceiling assembly of stacked units must similarly have an STC = 50 or higher rating. Vertical transmission through floor /ceiling assemblies must also be able to reduce impact noise such as footfalls, dropped objects, etc. by 50 dB. The impact noise reduction is expressed in a parameter called the "impact isolation class." or IIC. If SV00640020 -Jm pon Reym1LiR \S(HRVGiroux Nalne Swdy(Rc1A- FUa)d.o 4 structural assemblies are sound rated, the UBC also has standards regarding penetration of such assemblies by piping, ducts, electrical outlets, etc. Baseline Noise Levels Existing noise levels around the project vicinity derive almost exclusively from vehicular sources on the streets throughout the area. In order to better define the existing noise environment in the project vicinity, a 24 -hour noise measurement program was conducted on February 5 -6, 2004. On -site noise measurements were made at two locations. One meter was placed in the play area of Las Arenas Park north of Balboa Boulevard, approximately 186 feet to centerline of Balboa Boulevard. The second meter was placed near the Girl Scout office and tennis courts, north of Balboa Boulevard and approximately 60 feet to its centerline. Table 3 summarizes the measurement results. The City of Newport Beach exterior noise standard for hotels is 65 dBA CNEL. Section 4.2.1.3 of the Newport Beach Noise Element allows special consideration for new projects along Balboa Boulevard. This section states the "Planning Commission may relax exterior noise requirements if no feasible mechanisms are able to meet the exterior standard." However, the noise levels at the project site property line along Balboa Boulevard arc 63 dBA CNEL. The ambient noise level is not a constraint to the proposed site development. S \00640020- Newtnn Regent[IR \SCFIR \Giroux Noise Studv(Rev 4 -1 -04) doc 5 Table 3 On -Site Noise Monitoring Results (dBA) Parameter Property Line Play Area Las Arenas Park Girl Scout Office/ Tennis Courts 24 -Hour CNEL 59 63 Maximum 1 -Hour I.EQ 63 65 When ( ?) 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2nd - Highest Hourly LEQ 60 63 When ( ?) 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Minimum 1 -Hour LRQ 44 45 When ( ?) 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. 1- Second Maximum 89 91 1- Second Minimum 40 30 S X06640010- Neu,,,, Regent HWR VEIR1Uruu. NO, vudv (Rev 4 1 04) due NOISE, IMPACTS Three noise concerns are typically identified with land use intensification such as that proposed for the Marina Park Resort development project. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the project site. Upon completion, project- related traffic will cause an incremental increase in area wide noise levels throughout the Newport Beach area. Some small net changes in traffic levels and in the times of day when traffic is generated may occur. But because increase in traffic noise is logarithmic, that is it takes a doubling of traffic to perceptibly increasc noise, such small changes will hardly be noticeable within the already- elevated traffic noise environment around the project site. On -site noise exposure could be a siting concern for proposed noise - sensitive development or noise generated from the project could impact nearby residential uses. As previously discussed, the noise measurements recently taken at project site indicate on -site noisc exposure is not an environmental issue or siting constraint for the proposed Marina Park Rcsort hotel. Newport Beach Noise Ordinance (Section 10.26.045 HVAC- Special Provisions) regulates the allowable noise exposure and operation of HVAC equipment in residential areas through the issuance of permits. The proposed project's compliance with permits for HVAC equipment will render any potential impacts to nearby residential uses as less- than - significant. Conditions regulating amplified sound from any event at the hotel site are recommended to comply with Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.020 regarding land and raucous noise from amplifying devices Recreational boating activities are unique to sensitive land uses adjacent to the Newport Harbor. Engine noise, loudspeakers and noise from occupants in Charter and Tour boats can create noise impacts upon sensitive receptors. Section 4. L5 of the Newport Beach Noise Element requires permits for such operations. The permits regulate allowable noise impacts at residential /sensitive receptor uscs along the bay according to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Standards of Significance Noise impacts arc considered significant if they expose persons to lcvcls in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances. Impacts may also be significant if they create a substantial permanent or temporary increasc. The term "substantial" is not quantified in CEQA guidelines. In most environmental analyses, "substantial" is taken to mean a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice, this is at least a +3 dB increase. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be +10 dB or more if noise standards are not exceeded by the incrcase. For purposes of this analysis, a +3 dB increase is considered a substantial increase. The following noise impacts would be considered significant: 1. If construction activities were to audibly intrude into adjacent residential areas during periods of heightened noise sensitivity. 2. If traffic noise were to incrcase by a perceptible amount ( +3 dB CNEL) and expose receivers to levels exceeding City of Newport Beach standards. 3. If new on -site outdoor recreational uses were exposed to lcvcls exceeding 65 dBA CNEL, or if existing on -site recreational uscs were to experience increased noise exposures at an even marginally measurable level if the 65 dBA CNEL threshold is currently exceeded. "Measurable" is defined as +I dB CNEL. 900640020 Ney,ou Regent FWSCR[R \Giroux NUae Study (Rev 4- 1 -04). doe CEQA Appendix G Guidelines also identify potential noise impacts associated with aircraft noise. According to the guidelines, any project within a 2 -mile radius of an airport could experience noise impacts, and a noise analysis is required to determine whether or not impacts exist. The nearest airport to the Marina Park Resort site is the John Wayne Airport. This airport is about five miles from the project site, the site is well outside the 65 dBA CNEL contours and FAA - enforced noise abatement modified aircraft take -offs arc already in place. Therefore, there are no airport noise issues associated with proposed project implementation and no further analysis is required. Construction Noise Impacts Construction activities, especially from heavy equipment, may create substantial short -term noise increases near the project site. Such impacts might be important for any nearby noise- sensitive receptors. The most noise - intensive period will be during demolition and grading of the site. Dozers and other heavy equipment will be used. Equipment noise will reach 90 dB at 50 feet from such equipment when it operates under full load. Under normal atmospheric spreading losses, peak levels up to 65 dB may be heard as far as 1,000 feet from the operating equipment. A level of 65 dB is considered intrusive in normal conversation. Construction activity impacts during the noisiest activities could thus extend as far as approximately 1,000 feet from the activity. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on grading activities imposed as conditions on grading permits. The City of Newport Beach has adopted as part of its City Code limits on the hours of noise construction and excavation work. Section 10.28.040. "Noisy Construction and Excavation Work - Hours Permitted ", limits construction to daytime hours. During the week. construction is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. On Saturdays, construction is limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and prohibited on Sundays or any federal holiday. With time limits on construction activities, construction activity noise will occur during periods of lesser sensitivity and within a limited radius. Temporary noise impacts should thus be considered as adverse. but a Icss- than- significant impact. Project - Related Vehicular Noise Impacts Long-term noise concerns from the increased urbanization of the project area center primarily on mobile source activities on streets surrounding the project site. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal highway noise prediction model (FHWA -RD -77 -108) in a computerized version of the model developed by Caltrans. The model calculates the LEQ noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions. and then makes a series of adjustments for site - specific traffic volumes, distances. speeds. or noise barriers. Area build -out traffic volumes and noise levels along area roadways were derived from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report dated February 2004, (Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.). Traffic SM 64020- Kavpon RCUCm MWSCE:R1Gimus Noke Study IR1, 4- 1- 114).dnc 8 study information was used to obtain existing and future traffic noise levels along project site and vicinity roadways. Off -site noise levels were calculated along seven (7) area roadway segments for two different scenarios. Summer traffic conditions: Existing and Existing With Project; Non - Summer Traffic Conditions: Existing and Existing With Project. Table 4 shows the CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline at the various roadways analyzed. The individual and cumulative impacts with and without project have also been analyzed. None of the analyzed roadway segments will experience noise impacts greater than +0.1 dB. Therefore, there are no traffic noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Traffic noise levels at 50 feet from centerline along Balboa Blvd. near the project site are forecast to be slightly above 65 dBA CNEL. Existing recreational uses (tot lot and tennis courts) closest to Balboa Blvd. may be exposed to traffic noise that marginally exceeds 65 dBA CNEL. These uses will continue to be part of the project site after some upgrade /refurbishment. The project- related traffic noise impact to these uses of +0.1 dB (maximum) is imperceptible. Placement of new recreational uses within the 65 dBA CNF,L zone would be considered significant and require mitigation. The lack of any perceptible change in noise levels at the tennis courts or the tot lot for post - project conditions is considered Icss- than - signi fie ant. 'I'he nearest hotel fagade will be 186 feet from the Balboa Blvd. centerline. The roadway noise will diminish from a level of 66.7 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline to 61.0 dBA CNEL at the nearest point of the hotel under theoretical direct line -of -sight conditions. Intervening structures, parking lots, etc. will further diminish the 61.0 dBA level. Any outdoor hotel uses will be well outside the noise constraint zone of 65 dBA CNEL. Most hotel recreational uses will furthermore be oriented toward the water instead of the parking lot. The design and location of buildings between the Balboa Blvd. roadway and outdoor recreational areas will act as a barrier to the direct line -of- sight, thereby additionally reducing any potential traffic noise impacts from Balboa Blvd. The Marina Park Resort will be required to demonstrate that the building structural design is in accordance with Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) to adequately isolate noise between adjacent units (common party walls, common floor /ceilings). UBC compliance will insure that hotel rooms will meet the City of Newport Beach 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. 1 ' 51001 0020- se,.pOn Regeni E[R\5CE1R\G Riu% Nn:se AnA%(Rev 4- I- 0a)doc 9 Table 4 CNEL (dBA) at 50 feet from centerline Summer Traffic Conditions Roadway Segment Existing Existing With Project Balboa Blvd.- S. of Coast Highway 65.6 65.6 32nd St. -28`' St. 63.3 63.3 23rd St. -15" St. 66.7 66.7 Newport Blvd.: S. of Hospital Road - - Finley Ave. -32 "d St. 71.4 71.4 30" St. -26d' St. 70.2 70.2 26`h -21St St. - 26`h -21" St. Winter Traffic Conditions Roadway Segment: Existing Existing With Project Balboa Blvd.: S. of Coast I lighway 32 "d St. -28" St. - 23'd St. -15`h St. 65.4 65.5 Newport Blvd.: S. of Hospital Road 71.5 71.6 Finley Ave, -32 "d St. - - 30`h St. -26`x' St. 26`h -21" St. 68.8 68.8 — No data available. 3•, 00640020- *.p,R1,1,1 IRS.MF.IR \Gmus.Noi,e Smdp(Rw 4- 1 -041A.a 10 INOISE IMPACT MITIGATION The project noise impact study indicated that off -site traffic noise impacts will be individually and cumulatively less -than- significant. Temporary construction activity noise may be intrusive ' at existing area residences near the project perimeter. Recommended measures to reduce construction noise nuisance are: ' 1. All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, should be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and prohibited on Sundays and any federal holiday. 2. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and all construction staging activities shall be performed as far as practical from occupied dwellings. ' 3. F,mergency activities requiring the use of combustion- powered equipment (dewatering pumps, traffic advisory signs; generators, etc.) shall not operate within 500 feet of any ' occupied residence from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. unless a noise protection barrier (wall or berm) is erected within 48 hours after the emergency is discovered. ' Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant will demonstrate a design structure adequate to isolate noise between adjacent units and to ensure compliance with City of Newport Beach interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. 1 1 1 5 II 1 ' S% 06400? 0- NeuTnnR. 9cnlRIMSCF .IR \GroinNoi,eSnid,(Rr4- 1 -04) .doc II EIR - 2 Responses To Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Marinapark Resort and Community Plan State Clearinghouse Number 200311021 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 949.644.3210 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared By: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Jason M. Brandman, Project Manager July 2, 2004 Madnepark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comnrents on the Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1: Introduction ....................................................................... ............................... 1 Purpose..................................................................................... ............................... 1 Section 2: List of Commentors ........................................................... ............................... 2 Comment Letters Received on Draft EIR ................................... ............................... 2 Section 3: Responses To Comments ................................................. ............................... 4 Appendix 1: Hazardous Materials Database Review Michael Brandman Associates u HXHem TN- JN)=69V0064ER20`0064EM -RTC 7 -1 fim1dw Merinapark Resort end Community Plan - Response to Commm b on the Draft EIR Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan project was circulated for public review and comment beginning on April 26, 2004 and ending June 9, 2004. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this addendum responds to comments received on the Draft EIR. As required by Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the final EIR must respond to comments regarding significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. This document provides responses to comments on significant environmental points describing the disposition of the issue, explaining the EIR analysis, supporting EIR conclusions, or providing new information or corrections, as appropriate. This document, however, need not, and should not, attempt to respond to comments about the merits of the project; not should it attempt to resolve citywide planning issues that require full community input and City consideration on their own. This document is organized as follows: • Section 1. This section provides a discussion of the relationship of this document with the Draft EIR. It also4scusses the structure of this document. • Section 2. This section lists the agencies/mdividuals that commented on the contents of the Draft EIR. • Section 3. This section includes the comments and the responses to the comments that were received on the Draft EIR. Michael Brandman Associatea H.Ui m(PN -JN)=6 %0WER20'0064ER20 —RTC 7 -1 fimLdoc Madnaperk Resort and Commonity Plan - Response to Continents on th Draft EIR List of ComnimEws SECTION 2: LIST OF COMMENTORS A list of public agencies and organizations that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment letter has been assigned an alphabetical designation (A through Z). Comment letter W includes verbal comments received during the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission held on June 3, 2004. Each comment within each letter has been assigned a numerical designation so that each comment could be cross - referenced with an individual response. Responses follow each comment letter. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR A. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse B. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), Marinapark Sub - committee C. State of California, Department of Fish and Game D. California Coastal Commission E. California Department of Tonic Substances Control F. Southern California Association of Governments G. City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission H. Central Newport Beach Community Association I. Mr. David Groverman J. Mr. Scott Groh] K. Marinapark Homeowners Association L. Mrs. Carol Martin M. Recreational Advisors International N. Mr. Jon Stearman O. Mr. Seymour Beek P. James, Jan, Toni, and Brook Niemiec Q. Mr. Craig Morissette R. Mr. Charles A. Remley, Jr. S. Girl Scout Council of Orange County Michael Brandmen Associates 2 HX 6em (FN- JN)100641D064ER20NO064ER20 -RTC 7.1 fiml.doe Afarinaparh Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR T. Mr. Don Webb U. Elliott and Elizabeth C. Bonn V. Ms. Jan D. Vandersloot W. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, June 3, 2004 X. California State Lands Commission Y. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Z. Orange County Transportation Agency Michael Bmndman Associates H -. Cbm (PN- 1N)`0064%WMER20W64ER7A_RTC 7 -1 fim1Aa List of commentors 3 r 1 1 1 r r r r r 'r r r r r r r r r btarinapark Resort and Community Plan - Resaonae to Comments on the Draft EAR SECTION 3: SES TO COMMENTS To Comments Following are the responses to the written comments that were received during the public review period on the Draft EIR as well as the verbal comments received during the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission held on June 3, 2004. Where a comment results in a change to the Draft EIIt, the response provides specific page, paragraph, and sentence reference, along with the new EIIt text. Michael Brandman Associates HACHm "- .II)Va )"X00 4ER2G006M1ERW_RTC 7 -1 6nel.dw 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 05 en4t�` STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Offi ce of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit AN Arnold gdtwaraertor Jan Di e1 Qovernor Acting Director June 18, 2004 James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 Subject: Draft Envirotmental Impact Report Marmapark Resort. and Community Plan SCH #: 2003111021 Dear James Campbell: The enclosed comment (s) on your Draft EIR was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on June 9, 2004. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide infommtion or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However; we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at ( 916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the. above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (200311102 1) when contacting this office. Sincerely, L�, ��� �C�„ r, _ � T Rob Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 2 2 2004 7181911 D X11 112111213141516 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3041 SACRAMENTO, CAIHORNIA 95812 -3041 TEL(916)445-0613 PAX(916)323-3019 www.epnm:gw Al 5' 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base PAGE 03 1 SCH# Project Title Lead Agency 2003111021 Draft Environmental Impact Report Madnepark Resort and Community Plan Newport Beach, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Descripffon The proposed project includes the development of a luxury resort hotel with ancillary facilities that Include a business administrative building, spa villa, surface and subterranean parking, and 12 new boat slips. A concrete walkway will extend from the resort hotel to the boat slips. A bulkhead will also be constructed and will separate the beach from the boat slips. Another concrete walkway from 18th Street will be constructed parallel to the public sand beach to provide access for the public. The , project also Includes reconstruction of the existing Community Carter and Gki Scout House Into one structure, a tot park, four public tennis courts, and a shared parking lot for the community facilities and resort visitors. , Lead Agency Contact Name James Campbell Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949- 664 -3210 Fax small Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92859 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets North of West Balboa Boulevard between 18th Street and 15th Street Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways. 1 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Land Use Madnapark Mobile Home Park, Los Arena Park (for public tennis courts, one -half basketball court, and a children's play area), Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, and a public beach. Projoct Issues AesthetleMsuai; Air Quality; Coastal Zone; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologlc/Selsmic; Noise; Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Gradtng; Solid Waste; ToxiciHatardous; Wildlife; We6and/Ripadan; Water Supply; Water Quality, Vegetation; Traf clCirculation; Landuse; Growth Inducing; Cumulative Effects; Other Issues Reviewing Resources Agency: Department of Boating and Waterways; Department of Fish and Game. Region 5; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; CalNomta Highway Patrol; Calbans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission; California Coastal Commission Date Received 04/26/2004 Start of Review 04/2612004 End of Review 0610912004 Note: Blanks in data fields result from Insufficient information provided by lead agency. V Alarinepark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Drell E!R Responses To Comments A. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse Al. This comment is noted and acknowledges the closing of the public review period for the Draft E1R. No specific comments on the Draft E1R were provided, therefore, no further response is necessary. Michaei Brandman Associates H:VCGem ( PN- ll)\0064L0064ER20V0064ER20_R7C 7 -1 fimLdm 1 � ' MEMORANDUM 1 1 To: James Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ( "EQAC') City of Newport Beach ' Subject: The City of Newport Beach's Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR") for the implementation and development of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (the "Project ") 1 Date: May 28, 2004 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the captioned DEIR for the Project. I. A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. We recommend that the City reconsider and revise the DEIR and/or respond to the following concerns during the public review process for the DEIR. Because of the concerns listed below, we believe that the City should revise the document and re- circulate the revised document for public review and comment. We make these recommendations for several reasons: ' (1) The DEIR fails to describe the Project fully and accurately, thereby undercutting the public's and decision maker's ability to understand the Project, determine impacts of ithe Project and evaluate mitigation measures. (2) The DEIR fails to recognize and analyze potentially significant impacts discussed in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the DEIR including impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. 1 8 (3) The DEIR fails to discuss and analyze all Project related impacts including those associated with Transportation/Circulation, Land Use, Hydrology and Water Quality and other issues, as well as cumulative impacts for all issues analyzed. (4) The DEIR fails to analyze fully the growth inducing impacts of the Project and/or provide mitigation for such impacts. (5) The DEIR fails to analyze and discuss fully the Project alternatives and assess objectively the environmentally superior alternative. 1 8 EQAC , Page 2 May 28, 2004 H. Introduction: EIR Standards. , An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document which: ".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision makers.) 1 Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An ' EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." "the Further, EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association (1986) 42 Cal. 3d929 (Emphasis supplied). , In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must provide specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. "By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in government planning.'); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine flexibility remains'. CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant impacts: mitigation I EQAC Page 3 ' May 28, 2004 measures must really minimize an identified impact. III. Section 1: Introduction and Effects Found Not to be Significant (Section 1.6). The Introduction discusses general CEQA issues, formatting of the DEIR, the IS/NOP, the scoping process and effects found not to be significant. The latter— "Effects Found Not to be Significant " — raises substantive concerns. Section 1.6 notes that, during the scoping process, various impacts were found to be potentially significant, whereas others were found not to be significant. These latter include "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," and "Recreation." For various reasons discussed below, these are potentially significant impacts: the DEIR should include a detailed discussion and analysis of such impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. ' A. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Appendix A of the DEIR includes the Initial Study, Environmental Checklist and the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. The Checklist Item No. VII addresses Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Item No. VII b) indicates that it is less than significant that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset t and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. However, Item No. VII c) B indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact by emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely' hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing school. Item No. VII d) indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact unless mitigated in that the Project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and as a result would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Discussion of these Items is helpful. Under Item No. VII b), the Discussion notes that, because of the presence of motorized construction equipment, there is a small risk of gasoline or ga diesel spillage. However, the Discussion concludes that such is less than significant. Under Item No. VII c), the Discussion notes that the Project is within one - quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. It states that an inventory of materials and quantities used in B3 construction and operation of the Project will be created. If necessary, any hazardous materials will be identified and mitigation measures proposed. As for Item No. VII d), the Discussion explains that past or present on -site and off -site uses have the potential to result in the release of toxic substances. "[P]roject implementation will require the removal of onsite structures, which depending on date of construction may contain lead or asbestos materials. A regulatory database review will be conducted for the proposed project, results of the database review will be summarized in the EIR and the review results included in their entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended as appropriate." 10 Z EQAC Page 4 May 28, 2004 The DEIR does not address the IS/NOP analysis. Instead, the DEIR concludes that the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant For gasoline or diesel 6 spillage, the DEIR includes a similar analysis as the IS/NOP: the risk is less than significant. For proximity to schools including Newport Elementary, the DEIR is silent. As discussed I B 7 below, it refers to a (Limited) Phase II Soils Assessment but concludes no significant impact. The Phase II assessment is not attached as an appendix. The DEIR notes that the analysis identified small concentrations of trace petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and organocholorine 8 pesticide in and around portions of the Project site. Submarine sediment samples indicated low concentrations of various but unidentified hydrocarbons. The DEIR fails to keep the promise of the IS/NOP: the DEIR includes no "regulatory database review and summary." Moreover, it fails to include the Phase II study or make such available for public review. Incidentally, the DEIR states that such contaminants are below action r( levels; yet it provides no indication as to what those action levels are. Given the promise of the IS/NOP, the DEIR should be revised to include items discussed above, and the revised DEIR should include a thorough analysis of all such impacts. Moreover, the conclusions of the Phase II study seems implausible. The Project's location is near the mouth of the Rhein Channel which we understand is regarded as highly polluted. Although the IS/NOP appeared to recognize this challenge, the DEIR fails to consider and analyze B 1C) the Project's impacts including destruction and removal of existing docks and structures, construction and installation of new docks and structures, and other Project related activities on submarine sediment in and around this problematic water body. In addition, we understand that Chevron or another company had a storage facility near the , Project site in the past. The DEIR should include an analysis and/or study of any emissions from sit the storage site and any Project related impacts arising from disturbance and/or release of any , hazardous materials from such site or contamination from such site as a result of the construction and operation of the Project. Also, as discussed below, notwithstanding the DEIR's conclusion that the Project will have ' no significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials, the DEIR discusses the Project's hazards and hazardous materials impacts in relation to biological resources. The DEIR's analysis of hazards in relation to biological resources undercuts the DEIR's conclusions that Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. B. Recreation. The DEIR also regards the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities as , insignificant However, Project features and configuration themselves require environmental analysis in order to make such conclusion. The Project "will replace all recreational facilities except the basketball half - court." DEIR, 1 -6. This raises several problems. ' At the outset, the demolition and replacement of existing facilities will have short-term construction impacts on all of these recreational opportunities. Without more analysis and , I� EQAC Page I May 28, 2004 discussion, such impacts appear to be significant, at least in the short term. Further, the replacement of such facilities is problematic: without further analysis and perhaps mitigation, it is unclear that g }3 the replaced facilities will provide access and have features similar to the existing facilities. ' Further, the elimination of the half -court basketball facility requires further analysis and discussion. This resource appears to be unique: it's configuration and alignment may make it more popular than full court facilities in the area., Also, the Project's resort proposes joint use of the recreational facilities. Without more analysis, such use may significantly and adversely affect residents' use of the Project facilities. Finally, Project is In a crucial alternative a recreation alternative. order to assess, analyze and evaluate the alternatives, the DEIR should include an analysis of the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities. C. Conclusion. The DEIR should be revised to include a full environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. IIII. Section 2: Executive Summary. The Executive Summary attempts to summarize the Project Description (discussed below), the areas of controversy /issues to be resolved, and a summary of impacts and mitigation. Section 2.2 addresses areas of controversy /issues to be resolved. It notes: "The area of controversy associated with the proposed project is the intensification of land uses on the project site. The location of the tideland boundary is an issue that is to be resolved." Both of these are problematic. As to the area of controversy, "intensification of land use" improperly simplifies the issues: the area of controversy is the replacement of the current designated use— Recreational and Environmental Open Space — with a commercial use which requires a General Plan Amendment and other approvals. The DEIR's statement about the issue to be resolved — tideland boundary— is surprising. The DEIR should resolve this issue in its analysis of the existing site. The DEIR's failure to resolve this issue undercuts its usefulness. Moreover, Section 3.4 indicates that, among other permits, the Project will require a lease of tidelands. In order for the public and decision makers to understand the Project's impacts on tideland boundaries and the impacts of this lease, the DEIR should include a detailed discussion of the tidelands location, and the nature and extent of such lease. Without resolving this issue in the DEIR, the document cannot fulfill its own requirements. B1 Section 2.5 includes a table which identifies Project impacts and mitigation. For a I discussion of Project impacts, see our discussion below. However, as to mitigation, Table 2 -1 raises B }$ a general problem: deferral of mitigation measures. As indicated above, CEQA requires Ix EQAC Page 6 May 28, 2004 environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. For each mitigation measure identified in Table 2 -1, each measure is deferred to some finure event or permit issuance. In order to understand the nature and extent of mitigation and to assess whether the proposed mitigation fully and adequately addresses the impact, the DEIR should fiilly identify and discuss all mitigation measures, discuss how such measures will lessen impacts to a level of insignficance, and if necessary, provide alternative mitigation measures for any measure which does not fully mitigate identified impacts. IV. Section 3: The Proiect Description. Section 3. 1.1 discusses Site Characteristics. Among other things, the DEIR notes that the Project site is bound by "a public beach and Newport Bay to the north." Although Section 3.1 .1 discusses many of the current site characteristics, it fails to discuss the location and character of the tidelands issue. This issue may affect the Project, the analysis of the Project impacts, the alternatives analysis and related matters. The DEIR should include a full discussion of the tidelands boundary issue, resolve the issue, locate the boundary, and discuss all Project related impacts. 133-9 Among other features, the Project includes twelve (12) new boat slips and replacement of public tennis courts on the deck of the proposed parking structure. As to the boat slips, the DEIR 8 a0 states that this feature will require dredging of approximately 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment to create the boat basin; this "clean sand" will be placed on shore side of a proposed Project related bulkhead. This raises several issues. The Project includes twelve (12) new marina slips with four (4) available for public use and eight (8) available for Project guests. The current forty-six (46) American Legion slips will remain. g pZ L However, the DEIR fails to discuss the relation of the American Legion slips to the Project feature slips. Also, the ISINOP and the DEIR recognize that the Project may affect hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed above, these two documents are inconsistent in their assessment of the Project's impacts on hazards. However, given that the Project requires removal and relocation of 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment, the DEIR should fully address the character of this sediment, analyze any impact to hazards and hazardous materials, and, if necessary, provide mitigation. Further, it is unclear where this excavation will occur especially in relation to the tidelands boundary. As noted above, the DEIR fails to discuss the tidelands location. The DEIR should E32-3 provide a clear description of the location of this excavation in relation to the tidelands, and if necessary, provide adequate mitigation. Regarding the tennis court, the Project description notes their location but fails to address public access to this Project feature. Indeed, the Project description fails to discuss all sorts of public access issues. How does the public gain access to the beach? Does the beach remain a public beach? What are the public access features for all Project related structures including the community center, tot lot, and parking? B;)-ti 1 13 1 EQAC Page 7 May 28, 2004 Also, the Project is entitled the "Marinapark Resort & Community Plan " The Project description includes no reference to the "Community Plan." The revised DEIR should fully explain the Project including the "Community Plan " Incidentally, the Project description includes some internal inconsistencies which require explanation and resolution: First, exhibit 3 -3, Site Plan, shows the Girl Scout House and the Spa Villa to be 4,166 square feet each; however Table 3.2 -1 on the next page states that the Girl Scout House/Community Center and the Spa Villa will be 6,191. Second, the Site Plan shows shared parking at the corner of 18a' Street and Balboa Boulevard, but further in the document, in the Aesthetics section, the computer - generated visual simulations shows two -story villas at this comer. Section 3.3 discusses Project Objectives. These Objectives include several economic/cormnercial objectives: "Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents. Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users." DEIR, 3 -8. The DEIR includes no detailed discussion of these and other objectives. However, it is unclear that such objectives are appropriate for the Project site and the current environmental analysis. The only Project Alternative in the DEIR which meets these economic objectives is the Project. Given these economic objectives, the DEIR should include an economic analysis which shows how and why the Project meets these and other objectives, provides a detailed discussion of City revenues from the Project including lease payments, taxes and other sources of revenue, and other economic considerations appropriate. Section 3.4 addresses "Intended Uses" of the DEIR. The section identifies various discretionary approvals by the City. It notes: "Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified later in the section under `Other Discretionary and Ministerial Actions. "' DEIR, 3 -9. However, the DEIR contains no such section. The DEIR should be revised to include a full list of all discretionary approvals by all agencies. ►. D /1'7 w •1 Finally, the DEIR inadequately covers permitting and approvals: the election requirement. I We understand that the City proposes to submit this Project to the voters. The DEIR should discuss Bal this requirement, and explain its relation to the CEQA process and Project approval. 14 EQAC , Page 8 May 28, 2004 V. Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting. Section 4.1 addresses the environmental setting. As indicated above, nothing in. the DEIR locates the tidelands boundary. These section should be revised to include a discussion and, perhaps, a map of such boundary. Further, we understand that the Marinapark mobile home park is a park on City owned land with a lease. The DEIR recognizes that the park is a 40 -year facility but fails to discuss the lease hold, its term, the landlord and other crucial and important terms. Section 4.2 discusses related projects. It notes that the City provided several related projects; presumably, Table 4-1 is the list provided. However, it is incomplete. First, as indicated in the Project objectives, DEIR recognizes that in the Project vicinity, the City and others are engaged in "efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula." These efforts are related projects and should be included in the cumulative impacts list. B3a. Among other efforts, we understand that several plans to develop live /work projects in and around the Project vicinity are pending. Likewise, these plans should be included in the cumulative B 33 impacts list. VI. Section 5: Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. A. Section 5.1: Geoloav and Soils. Section 5.1 address geotechnical impacts of the Project. The DEIR includes a geotechnical report for the site. Among other things, the DEIR notes that "[liquefaction occurs when shallow, fine to medium - grained sediments saturated with water are subjected to strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction usually occurs when the underlying water table is 50 feet or less below the surface." DEIR, 5.1 -2. Also, the DEIR notes that expansive soils are those which can give up or take on water. Id. The DEIR notes that, although the onsite soils are not expansive, "[t]he potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high." As noted above, liquefaction may depend on depth to groundwater. The DEIR should state depth to groundwater at the site, discuss the soils character, explain why, though the sands will hold water, they are not expansive and related issues. Moreover, Section 5.1.4 considers two mitigation measures. As before, this section fails to discuss depth to groundwater. The two mitigation measures depend upon permit issuance: the fast depends upon issuance of a grading permit and concerns aspects of the grading plans. However, it fails to state the depth if any of such grading. The second depends upon issuance of a building permit and concerns slab alternatives. However, the section fails to determine which slab type will be employed. I B35, is 1 I i EQAC Page 9 May 28, 2004 B. Section 5.2: Hydrology and Water Quality. Section 5.2 concerns hydrology and water quality. This section notes that the Project will have short-term construction impacts on water quality and hydrology, long term operational impacts and cumulative impacts. Construction impacts include soils erosion, trash and debris which may leave the Project site. In addition, construction activities in connection with the marina will include re- introduction of contaminants through construction activities which may 1 "resuspend" bottom sediment as well as increase in turbidity. Long term operational impacts include increased flow concentrations at a majority of Project related storm drains with a decrease in several such drains. In addition, the Project will increase peak flows during 100 -year storm events along 18a' and 156' Streets while flows along Balboa Boulevard would decrease somewhat. Water quality impacts of the Project include trash, debris, oil and grease, and other pollutants including heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, nutrients and organic compounds. ' Further, installation of a cement walkway from the resort to the marina will interrupt tidal flows and water circulation; and may create stagnant water conditions. Finally, the DEIR recognizes that the Project "will substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on existing storm drain systems." It will "also increase urban pollutants that would substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on surface water quality." The DEIR includes five mitigation measures. Most of these mitigation measures defer mitigation measures until issuance of grading permits. This analysis and rriitigation is problematic for several reasons. The impacts analysis fails to ' discuss current drainage and percolation, as well as the proposed drainage and percolation of the IJ B367 Project. ' Also, the DEIR fails to consider several potential mitigation measures. Increasing pervious surfaces may limit surface water run -off. Indeed, Section 7, the Alternatives Analysis, states that E337 the Project is superior to the Marine Alternative due to its increase of pervious surfaces. Yet the ' DEIR fails to discuss this issue, analyze the nature and extent of such surfaces, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. ' In addition, the Project together with other revitalization efforts may significantly affect the storm drain capacity. Yet, the DEIR does not consider whether the Project may require re- sizing of F3 3$ storm drains in the vicinity. rAlso, none of the mitigation measures address the Project's cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. Mitigation of such impacts could include establishment of stormwater g?jq mitigation program for a comprehensive upgrade of the storm drains on the Peninsula. The Project could contribute its fair share to such a mitigation program. 1 1 16 EQAC Page 10 May 28, 2004 ' Further, as indicated above, such deferral of specific mitigation measures does not comply with the requirements of CEQA which requires full discussion of all impacts and mitigation. Deferral of the development of various mitigation measures until some permitting or pursuant to g� Q various regulatory bodies including the City and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board is not informative: precise Project features and mitigation are deferred until after the public and decision makers have had an opportunity to review, comment and in the case of decision makers, decide on the DEIR and the Project. The DEIR should be revised to discuss fully all water quality and hydrology impacts, and provide specific and enforceable mitigation measures to lessen any such I impacts. C. Section 53: Biological Resources. Section 5.3 concerns the Project's potential impacts on biological resources. Section 5.3.1 addresses existing conditions including sediments and habitats and marine biological communities near the Project. As indicated above, the DEIR includes no detailed discussion of hazards and , hazardous materials. Section 5.3. I repeats the earlier discussion regarding low levels of pollutants. ' Further, in discussing sub -tidal bay floor sediments, the DEIR states that environmental site assessment indicates the presence of low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper 1 one -half foot of the bay mud. 1 This is inadequate: as indicated above, the Project will require excavation of between 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of "bay mud." Testing on the upper one -half foot fails to test the full extent of this excavation. ' The DEIR should be revised to include a full analysis of hazards and hazardous materials so that the entire environmental analysis of the Project's impacts including hazards and hazardous biological resources. materials and Also as indicated above, the analysis indicates that contaminates including those in sub -tidal bay sediments are below action levels for soils on land but fails to provide the action levels. The revised DEIR should provide this information, or indicate that they are the same as those for soils on land. ' In addition, in connection with the existing conditions regarding bay fishes, the DEIR relies on a otter trawl net sampling of fish species known to occur in Newport Bay that was conducted for eighteen (18) months between 1974 and 1975. This sampling would seem to be too out -of -date to , be of any value in assessing the number of species in the Bay and the proposed Project's potential By 3 impact on those fish species. The DEIR should be revised to include a more recent sampling or more recent information on the fish species known to occur in Newport Bay and consider the ' Project's impacts on identified species. Also, if for some reason the thirty year old study remains useful, the revised DEIR should explain the utility of this thirty year old study and alternatives. In assessing the Project's impacts on shoreline habitats and resources, the DEIR states that "(t)he proposed cement walkway from the resort hotel to the boat slips will result in the loss of approximately 490 square feet of sandy shoreline which is foraging habitat for shorebirds. This long -term loss is considered significant" Page 5.3 -7 Since the site currently has an existing concrete walkway, it is unclear how the new walkway will have this kind of impact. Based on the , I� 1 18 EQAC Page 11 May 28, 2004 conclusion that there will be this significant impact, it appears that the Project walkway must differ g� from the existing walkway, e.g. project out further into the shoreline. This is not clear from the ' Project Description or anywhere else in the DEIR. Further, the DEIR is inconsistent in discussing this impact. As stated above, on Page 5.3 -7, the DEIR characterizes the loss of foraging habitat for shorebirds as significant. However, on Page "No �y 5 5.3 -9, the DEIR states: direct mortality of shorebirds and seabirds will occur. The long -term presence of the boat slips, bulkhead and concrete walkway will however, reduce shorebird and seabird resting and foraging habitat, however, this is not considered a significant impact." An accurate assessment of the impacts to birds should be provided in the Final "EIR, and this inconsistency should be corrected. The DEIR contains another and important inconsistency. Section 5.3.3 recognizes that Project construction will have an impact on benthic communities in the Project area. However, Section 5.3.3 concludes that "[t]he loss of benthic infauna and epifauna due to dredging will be a short-term less than significant impact." This conclusion is problematic: dredging will continue ' through the life of the Project. Thus, such impact maybe more than short tern. Moreover, Section 5.3.6 states that regarding biological resources, "[w]ith the implementation of the above mitigation measures, only one significant unavoidable adverse impact & 1 would remain." DEIR, 5.3 -13. ' "Ihis impact would occur during the short-term and would be on the benthic resources that would be removed from the bayfloor during project and maintenance dredging activities." Id. However, Section 6.1 concludes that there are no significant and unavoidable impacts. The DEIR should be revised to resolve this inconsistency: either the impact on benthic resources is ' significant or not. Moreover, such impacts will be more than long term: impacts on benthic resources will occur during Project construction as well as maintenance dredging. ' Also, as indicated above, all Biological Resources Mitigation Measures are deferred until the issuance of either a grading permit or a permit from a resource agency. This deferral of mitigation is not permissible under CEQA. 1 In addition, most of the Mitigation Measures list various regulatory plans, e.g. stormwater pollution prevention plan ("S WPPP ") which describes best management practices (`BMPs'). However, the analysis is incomplete and generic; all of these Mitigation Measures appear to be boilerplate, with no direct reference to the impacts to biological resources present at the proposed Project site or the actual mitigation proposed The DEIR should include an appropriate expert analysis to discuss Project specific impacts and mitigation as well as to develop the various regulatory plans. The discussion of mitigation measures in this section seems more appropriate for a program level analysis. The Final EIR should more fully discuss the impacts and mitigation 1 proposed. 1 18 EQAC Page 12 May 28, 2004 D. Section 5.4: Land Use and PI M* , Section 5.4 addresses the proposed Project's consistency with various elements of , the General Plan. Section 5.4.1 describes existing conditions including the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It provides regarding the Project site: "The existing mobile home park use will be allowed to continue until the end of the existing lease. At that time the City will make the decision as to whether the lease should be further extended, or the property converted to public use." E3 4 g , DEIR, 5.4-4. The DEIR then states that this description "indicates that the existing mobile home park is not consistent with the existing land use designation for the site." Id. However, in Section 5.4.3 which addresses Project impacts, the DEIR fails to discuss and analyze the Project's consistency with this requirement of conversion "to public use" at, the end of the existing lease. Also, this section indicates that the Project will not divide the community, because "[a]ccess to and through the project site is maintained." DEIR, 5.4 -8. However, as indicated above, public access to and through the Project is unclear. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.7, Noise, the �f { Project will serve as a sound barrier which will block vehicular noise from Balboa Blvd. to the Project. If the Project serves as such a barrier, it likely will divide the community. The DEIR should be revised to show the access points and routes from Balboa Blvd. through the Project to the Bay. , In addition, Section 5.4.3 discusses the Land Use Element, Policy C which provides: "Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as , maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor." DEIR, 5.4.9. Emphasis added. However, the DEIR's discussion of parking requirements shows 5501 that, although the Project will provide a total of 209 surface and subterranean parking spaces, the Project demand is only 92 spaces under the current Code requirements; the Project will result in a ' total of 117 excess parking spaces. This raises a few problems or questions. First, the code requirements appear at odds with Policy C's requirements. Moreover, the Code requirements seem skimpy: one space for every two rooms; one space for 300 square feet of the proposed Community Center and Girl Scout House; and four spaces for the four tennis courts. Likely, each visitor enjoying a Project/resort room will require one parking space; likely, each individual using the tennis courts will require parking. The DEIR should include a further study regarding the parking demand of the Project to ensure that Policy C of the Land Use Element is met. 11 1 EQAC Page 13 May 28, 2004 In our earlier comments on the NOP for the proposed Project, we noted that the Project Description failed to discuss employee, contractor and supplier parking and access. The DEIR also fails to discuss how parking and access will be provided within the proposed Project for these groups. The Section goes on to say that the proposed Project will provide 117 parking spaces beyond what is required by the code. Perhaps these "excess" parking spaces are intended to accommodate employees, contractors and suppliers, but this issue is not addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR should be revised to address the issue of parking for these groups, because parking on the Peninsula is such an important issue. 1351 1 20 As indicated here and below, Section 5.4 addresses the Project's parking demands and Section 5.5, Transportation/Circulation includes no parking analysis. This confusion creates another problem. Although Section 5.4 discusses the Project's parking requirements, it fails to discuss existing parking including street parking. We believe that the Project will result in a loss of parking spaces from current levels. Based upon our information and calculations, the following is a tabulation of the parking spaces which the Project will cause to be lost: Metered public parking at 18th street curbside 5 B 5 Metered public parking at 18th street lot 23 Community Bldg. Staff 2 Girl Scouts dedicated and gated 10 Public Parking at Tot lot 2 Total Lost Spaces 42 ' Given this loss of 42 spaces as a result of the Project, there is an excess of only 75 spaces That is, the loss of parking spaces as a result of the Project must be counted against the excess parking spaces. The DEIR should be revised to include a thorough parking analysis under Section 5.6 and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Further, the Project is proposed as a Five Star resort hotel with 110 rooms and fifty -eight 135 3 (58) employees. We understand that other Five Star hotles in the area require a much higher ratio. As indicated above, the DEIR has eliminated Recreation from the environmental issues to 1 be addressed, even though Recreation had been included in the NOP. The DEIR states that the half court basketball court doesn't get much use, according to City's recreation staff, and therefore, will B S 4 not be replaced. Page 5.4 -12 However, residents of the Peninsula do, in fact, use the court. Because the court is protected from the wind by its location on the Bay side of the Peninsula and between the tennis courts, it is preferred over the full court located on the ocean side at the elementary school. In fact, the City has recently completed some repairs to the court, presumably ' because it is used. The Final EIR should address this impact and provide necessary mitigation. ' Further, the DEIR states that the proposed Project would replace the four tennis courts with How B55 the same number of courts, but the hotel would offer tennis lessons on the courts. will this impact the current heavy use of the tennis courts? The Final EIR should include a Recreation section, which analyzes these proposed Project's impacts and provide necessary mitigation. Further, Section 5.4.1 and following sections include a discussion of the Recreation and ' Open Space Element of the General Plan stating that it has "been determined to be applicable to the 1 20 EQAC Page 14 May 28, 2004 proposed project ..." In fact, the DEIR states that "(t)he project site is designated Recreation and Environmental Open Space." DEIR, 5.4 -3. The DEIR mentions that Charter Boats and Boat Tours may pass the Project. The Project may accommodate some of these boats. The DEIR should address all impacts associated with such �5 large boats and propose necessary mitigation. In addition, any Project permit should condition such , use so that any and all such impacts are mitigated, or if not, should restrict such use. One of the objectives of the Recreation and Open Space Element is to "[m]aintain and t enhance the scenic character of the City." The policy which supports this objective seeks to "protect and enhance existing view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and B5 upper bay ...." Section 5.4.3 states that the Project would provide view corridors from Balboa Boulevard to the Bay; and therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the objective of the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, the views from Balboa Boulevard through the ' majority of the proposed Project site will be obstructed by 24 -foot, 27 -foot or 34 -foot buildings which will act as a sound barrier. The Final EIR should analyze this impact more realistically and provide necessary mitigation. Finally, the DEIR states that, because the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, the Project will not have any cumulative land use impacts. However, the Project requires discretionary actions, e.g. amendments, regarding the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan as well as a Coastal Development Permit. As discussed above, the Project together with other projects listed in-Table 4 -1 as well as the efforts to revitalize the Peninsula may create significant cumulative impacts in connection with land use. The DEIR should be revised to discuss and address such cumulative impacts. Incidentally, the DEIR offers inconsistent building setback requirements on 18'h Street. In the discussion relating to land use compatibility, the DEIR states that "(t)he structures proposed along the 18th Street will have a setback of 14 to 17 feet. Page 5.4 -8 However, the Aesthetics Section lists a building setback for 18t' Street as 5 feet. This inconsistency should be corrected in the Final EIR. E. Section 5.5: Transuortation/Circulation. Section 5.5 addresses transportation and circulation. This analysis is supported by a special traffic study, Appendix E: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis. This analysis focuses on 7 intersections during weekdays of the "shoulder season," fall and spring when schools are in session. The intersection closest to the proposed project is Newport Blvd. and 32 "d St. Sections 5.5.5 concludes that the Project will have no significant transportation and circulation impacts; Section 5.5.6 concludes that therefore no mitigation measures are needed. However, Table A -1 to Appendix E recognizes what every summer visitor to the Peninsula and full-time resident knows: the summer weekend traffic in the vicinity of Balboa Blvd. and 20th St. is already at LOS E or worse which exceeds the City's standard of acceptable service, LOS D. Although the Project traffic may not exceed the 1 % increase threshold, it likely will contribute to the existing traffic problem. Moreover, as indicated above, the Project together with other projects zI EQAC Page 15 May 28, 2004 identified in Table 4 -1 as well as the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula likely will have r� cumulative impacts which require mitigation. The City may wish to consider improved traffic flow rj tai 1 measures in this area to include, for example, limited on- street parking, better turn-out lanes and improved traffic signal timing/synchronization. In our comments on the IS/NOP for the Project, we requested that the DEIR "analyze and, if necessary, propose mitigation for Project impacts on seasonal traffic problems ". It further requests that the DEIR "discuss and analyze the Projects design and impact on the intersections at 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th streets with Balboa Blvd." The DEIR did not take the suggestion and none of these intersections were addressed. The DEIR should be revised to address these intersections, provide an environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on transportation in the vicinity, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. m ' Further, traffic associated with Resort employee, construction and service vehicles is not g 63 mentioned in the DEIR. Are there plans to schedule deliveries and plans for off -site employee I parking to minimize traffic impacts? Correlatively, the DEIR does not address traffic access and internal circulation at the site. As indicated above, the DEIR states that the Project will not have significant impacts on vehicular B 1 access and, by implication, no impacts on internal circulation. Yet, the document is silent on these issues. The DEIR should be revised to address and consider vehicular access and internal circulation, identify any Project related impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. Also, the Project may have short-term impacts on transportation and circulation. Section 5.6 suggests that the Project will require a construction traffic management plan. Yet, Section 5.5 g b5 contains no analysis of the short-term construction impacts of the Project on transportation and ' circulation. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the short term construction impacts on traffic and circulation, discuss the construction traffic management plan, and, if ' necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Finally, as discussed briefly above, the DEIR attempts to address parking demands in connection with the Land Use analysis which discusses code requirements for the Project. ' However, the DEIR should include an actual study on the parking demands for the Project which B6& considers and addresses all Project features. However, Section 5.5 should include a parking study which addresses the Project's parking demands, access to parking lots, and related issues. The DEIR should be revised to address these potentially significant impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation. ' F. Section 5_6: Air Ouality. ' Without any analysis of hazards and hazardous materials in or around the Project site, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no impacts on air quality in that the Project will "not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or generate objectionable odors." DEIR, 5.6 -12. za EQAC Page 16 May 28, 2004 , However, without the hazardous materials analysis, this conclusion is difficult to support. As indicated above, the Project is near several areas subject to significant contamination. Such may g�r� have migrated to the site. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of such materials and 1 pollutants, the air quality analysis should be revised to include and refer to the pollutant analysis, and if necessary, mitigation should be proposed. G. Section 5.7: Noise. Section 5.7 addresses potential noise impacts associated with the Project. As indicated in Section 3.1.1 and elsewhere, the Project is partially surrounded by residential . neighborhoods. Such are sensitive noise receptors. Section 5.7.3 recognizes that the Project's heating, air conditioning and ventilation ' equipment may create minor amounts of noise but concludes that such noise is commonplace. However, the Project's operations will include other non - commonplace noise sources including delivery and trash trucks, employee transportation and other vehicular noise sources not present under the current configuration. The DEIR should be revised to include a noise study of the Project impact on residences including those along 19'' St. and West Bay, and 18'h St. and West Bay. If ' necessary, the revised document should propose adequate mitigation measures. In addition, the Project may attract other noise sources including Charter Boats and Boat Tour operators. Such new sources likely will generate noise sufficient to adversely affect the Bi7�l residential neighborhoods. The DEIR should analyze all such impacts including noise impacts to residential neighborhoods across the bay and propose adequate mitigation. Further, Section 5.7.3 indicates that a primary noise source is traffic and that the Project will not be affected by noise from traffic on Balboa Blvd., because the buildings will block noise from Balboa Blvd. However, given this sound barrier, the Project may generate noise from various events which noise may adversely affect neighbors across the bay. Section 5.7 contains no discussion or analysis of such noise generation and impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include such an analysis and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Section 5.7 shows that noise levels associated with the Project will not be significantly higher than they are now except during the construction phase. Since Municipal Noise Codes are formulated in terms of 24 -hour average noise levels, it is likely that short term noise impacts may be significant without mitigation. In view of this, we recommend that the DEIR include mitigation measures to ensure that construction companies and crews should be required to use all reasonable care to minimize noise generation by silencing loud equipment when feasible, avoiding early morning deliveries, controlling construction -site radios, and so forth. These considerations will minimize neighborhood disturbance and potential complaints. Construction companies should be encouraged to build subassemblies off -site when possible. Boo l B'? I The supporting noise impact analysis, Appendix G, notes that construction equipment noise will reach 90 dB when operating at full load. This will probably result in exceeding acceptable noise levels at the original or relocated Tot Lot(children's play area) during construction. Mitigation of this effect in the form of sound barriers around the Tot Lot should be required. Z3 1 1 EQAC Page 17 ' May 28, 2004 I3, Section 5.8: Aesthetics. Section 5.8 concerns the potential aesthetic impacts of the Project. Section 5.8.2 discusses Project impacts including those associated with public views, building heights, and ' setbacks. Among other things, the DEIR indicates that the Project will enhance public views. However, the DEIR is silent on the manner of enhancement. As indicated above, the DEIR maintains that the Project will create sound barrier so that vehicular noise will not reach Project 1 visitors. Given this feature, it is unclear how the Project will enhance public views but diminish noise from Balboa Blvd. I [] i 1 I As indicated above, the DEIR contains some inconsistencies regarding set backs. The computer - generated visual simulations are helpful in illustrating the type of architecture and the overall look of the buildings. However, the simulations appear to have altered the lighting between the before and after condition. For instance, Exhibit 5.8 -2 clearly shows the architectural features of the Project in the after condition; the lighting in the before condition makes it impossible to assess what is there. In addition, there are some inconsistencies with what is being said in the text and what is being illustrated in the simulations; and in some cases, the computer. simulations are misleading. In addition, there are inconsistencies within the text. The text on Page -5 states that "(t)he maximum height proposed for the two -level villas is 27 feet while the proposed tower will be 34 feet in height." The text on Page 5.8 -2 states that "the hotel will have a maximum height of 24 feet. The main lobby will have a height of 34 feet." However, the computer simulation, Exhibit 5.8 -3 shows a tower that appears to be 10 feet taller than the surrounding buildings. Will the main lobby area be 10 feet taller than the other hotel buildings? Considering that the hotel lobby is almost 20,000 square feet, which is nearly 20 percent of the "Total Enclosed Floor Area," Table 3.2 -1, Page 3 -5, the height and overall scale are not accurately represented in the computer - generated visual simulations. g'? 3 3,7111 F375 Also, all of the computer simulations show no overhead utility lines, though such lines exist I B7b today. Yet the DEIR contains no discussion of this Project feature. Please confirm that these utilities will be placed underground as a part of the Project In our comments on the IS/NOP, we stated the DEIR should analyze and address Project related aesthetic impacts to the character of Balboa Blvd., which will be substantially altered by the volume and mass of the structures that are proposed. The DEIR states that the setback for the proposed Project from Balboa Boulevard is 15 feet. Does this include the main lobby with a height of 34 feet? Again, this is not clear from the computer simulations. However, if that is the case, that volume and mass will have a considerable aesthetic impact on the character of Balboa Boulevard. ' Finally, Section 5.8.3 addresses cumulative impacts. It concludes that, because the projects listed in Table 4 -1 are remote from the Project, it would not contribute to any cumulative impacts. However, as indicated throughout, additional projects must be considered including the ' revitalization efforts in the Peninsula. The DEIR should be revised to consider and assess the cumulative impact of the Project together with the efforts to revitalize the area, and if necessary, propose mitigation. 1377 liy EQAC , Page 18 May 28, 2004 ' I. Section 5.9: Public Services. 1. Section 5.9.1: Police Services. , Section 5.9.1 concludes that based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Police Department, the Project will have no significant impact on g 7 f' police services. The DEIR fails to discuss the authorization and position of Lieutenant Klein and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. I Further, in our comments on the IS/NOP, we requested information regarding the number of (g g0 service calls both for the Project as well as the other Project Alternatives. The DEIR contains no such information. In addition, the City has experienced demands on police services during the summer I g$ including on the Fourth of July. The Project may require additional staffing at this time as well as others. The DEIR should be revised to include the requested information, provide additional information concerning peak demands on police services including the Fourth of July, and, if necessary, provide mitigation, e.g. private security for the Project. 2. Section 5.9.2: Fire Services. Section 5.9.2 concerning fire services draws a similar conclusion as above for similar reasons: based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Fire g`�3 Department, the Project will have no significant impact on police services. The DEIR fails to discuss the authorization and position of Mr. Lerch and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. In addition, Section 5.9.2 observes that: I , MI I "[Vlith two fire stations located within one mile of the project site, emergency response time would be adequate." This may be misleading: we understand that the responding station may not be the closest station. Moreover, staffing at the stations differ: only one of the referenced stations has medical personnel. I In addition, as indicated above, the DEIR does not discuss access and internal circulation. Although the DEIR promises that emergency access roads and resources will be provided, the DEIR B 85 contains no discussion for such access and resources. The DEIR should be revised to provide this discussion. Also, this section states that for fire suppression, "the municipal water supply should be I , adequate." DEIR, 5.9 -3. This statement should be stronger. The DEIR should be revised to g$(� include a study of the availability of fire suppression resources to ensure that the water supply will I ' be adequate in the event of a fire. I 15^ 1 EQAC Page 19 May 28, 2004 Both Section 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 indicate that the Project together with others will have no cumulative impacts on these services. However, as indicated above, the DEIR's cumulative impacts analyses for all impacts focuses upon Table 4-1. The DEIR's cumulative impacts analysis should also consider the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula to ensure that the Project together with the Table 4 -1 projects as well as the revitalization efforts do not have cumulative impacts on various resources including fire and police services. 3. Section 5.93: Solid Waste. Section 5.9.3 addresses solid waste issues. Section 5.9.3 estimates that, in the existing condition, the Project site generates 522.31 pounds per day of solid waste. This section estimates that the Project will generate 403.5 pounds per day. These totals come from Tables 5.9 -1 and 5.9 -2. However, the estimate of waste generation for the existing condition seems high. Table 5.9- 1 addresses the existing condition and projects that the mobile home park generates 481.6 pounds per day. Although this estimate is based upon State of California estimates that a household generates between 4 and 8.6 pounds per day. Table 5.9 -1 uses 8.6 pounds per day. This is problematic for several reasons. The DEIR fails to explain why the existing condition uses the maximum expected trash generation. Further, the DEIR fails to consider that many residents in the existing condition are only part time residents. Both of these would significantly lessen the estimate of the existing condition. Also, the projection for the Project seems low and fails to consider the type of solid waste generated by the Project. Much of the waste generated by the Project would include wet kitchen trash which would require more frequent collection. Also, we are unaware of any similar resort or hotel within the City that would generate such a small amount of solid waste. Section 5.9.3's cumulative impact analysis is likewise inadequate. The section contains no cumulative impact analysis: it merely concludes that the amount of waste would be an incremental contribution and would not be significant. The DER should be revised to study the solid waste generation both for the existing condition and the Project condition, and if necessary, propose mitigation. 4. Section 5.9.4: Water Service. Section 5.9.4 addresses water supply and service. Further, this section indicates that the Project will require relocation of the existing water main to a different alignment on the site. It concludes that this relocation will have no impacts. However, without more explanation, this is questionable. Residents, schools and other businesses in the area will suffer during the construction and relocation process. The DER fails to recognize this impact and provide mitigation for these short term impacts. UM MW r W EQAC , Page 20 May 28, 2004 5. Section 5.9.5: Wastewater Service. Section 5.9.5 addresses waste water issues. Under existing conditions, the ' site generates a total of 7,093 gallons per day; the Project is proposed to generate more than three times this much: 22,553 gallons per day without any increased capacity to handle the increase flows. p Moreover, the cumulative impacts analysis concludes that the Project together with future BC( v1 development will not create significant impacts. However, given that the Project will significantly , increase demands on an aging infrastructure and the cumulative effect of the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula, the DEIR should include a study to insure that capacity and infrastructure are adequate and that the Project will have no significant wastewater impacts. 6. Section 5.9.6: Gas, and Section 5.9.7: Electricity. , Both sections conclude that the Project will have no impact on these , services. Both sections recognize that the Project will require twice as much gas and electricity as the existing condition. Moreover, both sections indicate that, even with this doubling together with , future development including the revitalization of the Peninsula, the Project will not have Bq -L cumulative impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the adequacy of resource supply as , well as consider alternative sources, e.g. solar to replace electric consumption. If necessary, the DEIR should propose adequate mitigation. VII. Section 6: Other CEOA Considerations. ' Section 6.1 addresses significant and unavoidable impacts. It concludes that the Project will have no such impacts. As indicated above, Section 5.3 indicates that, even after mitigation, `only one significant unavoidable impact would remain" on benthic resources in or around the Project site. DEIR, 5.3 -13. The DEIR should be revised or explained so that this problem is resolved, and the public and decision makers may understand the Project's impacts as well as the need for any additional findings. Section 6.2 concerns growth inducing impacts. As indicated above, the Project is part of a revitalization effort for the Peninsula. As such, the Project may have growth inducing impacts. As �� elsewhere in the DEIR, Section 6.2 fails to consider the Project in relation to these revitalization efforts. The DEIR should be revised to consider the Project's growth inducing impacts when considered with these revitalization efforts, and if necessary, propose mitigation. VIII. Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. A. Section 7.1: The No Project Alternative. ' Under the No Project Alternative, the existing state is the project alternative. Section 7.1.2 states that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative , because it maintains the site in its existing condition. Nonetheless, because the No Project L "�7 1 11 CJ I! 1 I EQAC Page 21 May 28, 2004 Alternative will not meet any Project Objectives, the DER concludes that the No Project Alternative is not feasible. However, Section 7.1 is inadequate. First, the DEIR's analysis of the existing site is inadequate. The DER fails to discuss and explain all of the environmental impacts associated with �9 the current use and the existing condition including hazardous materials, water quality, land use, and other issues of the existing condition of the site. As to the Project Objectives, as indicated above, some of the Project Objectives are problematic: the advancement of economic goals do not seem to be appropriate environmental 2>9 S goals. Further, and more importantly, the DER fails to discuss exactly how the Project meets or advances these economic goals. B. Section 7.2: The Marinanark Marine Recreation Alternative. Section 7.2.1 discusses the Marine Alternative which includes parkland, land for the Girl Scout Center /Community Center, tennis and basketball courts, over 248 parking spaces, boat moorings and a boat launch. Section 7.2.2 is the impacts analysis for the Marine Alternative. This section concludes that the Marine Alternative would result in: less impacts than the Project to geology and soils, aesthetics and public services; similar impacts as the Project for land use and planning; and greater impacts than the Project for hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation/circulation, air quality and noise. Many of these latter stem from the analysis' estimate that the Marine Alternative would generate more traffic. However, this estimate is without substantiation or analysis. Indeed, it seems unlikely that this alternative will generate significantly more traffic. The DER should be revised to provide a ' full and complete traffic analysis of the Marine Alternative including variants and discuss the impacts in relation to the Project. If the Marine Alternative generates less traffic, then other impacts including air quality, noise, traffic and other related issues would be lower. If so, then the Marine Alternative could be the environmentally superior Alternative. ' However, this conclusion is based upon specific features of the Marine Alternative which could be modified to eliminate such impacts. For instance, Section 7.2.2 notes that the Marine ' Alternative will have greater water quality impacts, because it would include greater parking areas and impervious surfaces. As discussed above, the DER fails to discuss the amount of pervious surfaces for the Project. Moreover, the Marine Alternative could use alternative paving methods for ' the parking spaces including pervious pavers. Such would lessen any water quality impacts for the Marine Alternative. Or again, this section indicates that the Marine Alternative will have greater impacts on biological resources, because it would include "larger boat slips and boat launch" than the Project. Again, these features can be changed. Section 7.2.2 recognizes that the Marine Alternative's ' impacts on biological resources could be mitigated. as MR g9$ EQAC Page 22 May 28, 2004 As for land use, the DEIR states that both the Project and the Marine Alternative are I B9q "compatible with surrounding land uses consistent with the General Plan." DEIR, 7 4. However, the analysis fails to discuss whether the Marine Alternative will require a General Plan Amendment. The DEIR should be revised to provide more detail and analysis for the Marine Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank and its feasibility. C. Section 73: The Reduced Intensity Alternative. Section 7.3 addresses the Reduced Intensity Alternative which would include an.88 room hotel, a 4,500 square foot restaurant and 12 boat slips. Section 7.3.3 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Among other things, Section 7.3.2 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have greater transportation and circulation impacts, because it would result in 869 average daily trips as opposed to the Project's 640 average daily trips. However, many of those trips are associated with the large restaurant. A different project feature, e.g. a smaller restaurant and/or parkland, would reduce such trips, perhaps below the Project level. As before, the Reduced Intensity Alternative fixes on features that may create significant impacts whereas other possible features with fewer impacts are not analyzed. The DEIR should be revised to consider other features for the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank. IX. Miscellaneous Considerations. We note that the Project in the IS/NOP is entitled the Newport Regent Beach Hotel. The Project for the DEIR is entitled the Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan. The DEIR should explain the change end the proposed Community Plan. I 1 1 I 1 L X. Conclusion. t Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the DEIR be revised to address the issues raised above. ' 11 F7 1 u Al Afan'ngxwk Resort and Cominunity Plan - Roaponae to Commems on the Draft OR Responses To Comments ' B. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), Marinapark Sub - committee ' Bl. Please see response to comment B5 for a reference to the project site inclusion on a hazardous waste database. For clarification, only a portion of the project site is located within one - quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. There is no contradiction between checklist items VII(b) and VII(c). For checklist item (b), the proposed project would not routinely handle hazardous materials. In addition, no manufacturing or assembly processes are proposed. Therefore, this question must be addressed from the short-term construction point of view rather than from the long -term operational point of view. The discussion identifies the potential for a release from construction equipment, but concludes that, with the required safety procedures, the potential for such an impact is well below the level of significance. Conversely, checklist question VII(c) is from a different point of view. The qualifying criteria for this question is the proximity to a school (one- quarter mile) and whether the materials proposed for handling are acutely hazardous materials. Acutely hazardous materials are typically used in a manufacturing process ' in large quantities rather than household cleaning agents generally referred to as household hazardous waste. The proposed project would be expected to use cleaning agents (household hazardous waste) in the cleaning and maintenance of the facility. However, the use of such agents would not pose a potentially significant impact on ' Newport Elementary School. Demolition and construction of structures during the short-term construction phase has a greater potential for emitting acutely hazardous materials within one-quarter [Wile of the school. For this reason, a mitigation measure was developed and included in Section 1.6 of the DEIR under the hazards sub- section. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B2. It is correct that the Initial Study prepared for the project stated there is a very small risk preseht from gasoline or diesel tank rupture during construction activities. In ' light of the small quantities of fuel in construction equipment and extremely low probability of any release, the presence of construction equipment fuel would result in a less than significant impact. B3. The comment regarding the elementary school is noted. The types of hazardous materials that would be present during short-term construction activities and long- term operation of the project are discussed on pages 1-4 and 1 -5 of the Draft EIR. ' The quantity of these materials is qualitatively discussed, and due to the potential presence of lead and/or asbestos in the existing onsite structures which are planned to be demolished, a mitigation measure is recommended to reduce the potential of an airborne health hazard during demolition activities. With the implementation of the mitigation measure on page 1-4 in the Draft EIR, the potential for hazardous materials impact to the adjacent residences (i.e., approximately 40 feet west of the ' project site) as well as Newport Elementary School which is approximately 800 feet southeast of the project site would be less than significant. To further reduce this potential effect, a mitigation measure to include an inventory of all hazardous ' materials onsite during construction and operational activities is proposed. The following is added after the fast paragraph on page 1 -5 in the Draft EIR. Add: '7o further reduce the less than significant impact related to hazardous ' materials, the following mitigation measure is recommended. Mh haet Brandman Asaoc&W ' H:1Chmt (M- NM64M1064ERWM64ERM_RTC 7 -I fiml.dm 30 Madnepark Resort and Community Wan - ' Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments e During construction activities and operation of the proposed , project, an inventory of material identified as inherently hazardous or hazardous that is stored or handled onsite as well as the quantity , will be provided to the City." B4. The Initial Study identified the potential release of toxic substances due to the , potential presence of lead and/or asbestos in the onsite buildings. Page 1-4 in the Draft EIR further discusses this toxic substance issue and a mitigation measure is provided. ' B5. The comment regarding regulatory databases is noted. Section 1.6 of the DEIR identifies and summarizes the environmental issues found not to be significant as a result of the Initial Study. This section includes a discussion of hazards and , hazardous materials and identifies a mitigation measure related to lead and asbestos. A regulatory database review of hazardous materials was conducted in December 2003; however, due to negative findings in the project area, the review was not ' included in the Draft EIR appendices. Due to the request of the database review, it is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR as Appendix H and attached to this Response to Comments Document in Attachment 1. The following two paragraphs are hereby ' added to the end of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials discussion on page 1 -5 of the Draft EIR: Add: "A regulatory database review was completed for the proposed project by ' Environmental Data Resources (EDR), Inc. in December 2003 (see Appendix H). This report included a review of various databases that conformed to the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site , Assessments. The following was included in the search parameters: Federal ASTM Standard (8 databases); State ASTM Standard (11 databases); Federal ASTM Supplemental (16 databases); State or Local ' ASTM Supplemental (10 databases); Brownfields (2 databases); and an EDR proprietary historical database for forcer coal gas sites. The results of the database search in the EDR study identified 56 sites within a ' specified distance from the project site. Of these, 3 sites are located within one - quarter mile of the project site. The project site was not identified on any of the databases. The three sites area shipyard (226 21" ' Street), a former gas station (1500 W. Balboa Boulevard.), and a former coal gas manufacturing site (northeast of 18d' Street and W. Balboa Boulevard). , The shipyard is identified on the Resource Conservation and Recovery System database as a Small Quantity Generator; no open cases are associated with this site. The gas station is identified on the Leaking ' Underground Storage Tank database regarding a prior release; remediation has since been completed and the case is closed. The coal gas site, associated with the historical Southern Counties Gas Company, ' apparently ceased in 1929; no additional information is available on this site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to these three sites, representing the closest sites to the , project site as identified on the various databases. Moreover, implementation of the proposed project in association with these three 1 Micheal Brandman Associates HACRem (PN- .IN)\0064V0064ER20Y1064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 E®l.dw 31 Merinapwk Resort and Community Plan - Response to Commants on the Draft OR Responses To Comments sites would not have an impact on Newport Elementary School. First, two of the three sites, the coal gas site and the shipyard, are located farther than one - quarter mile from the school. Second, the gas station, located within one - quarter of the school, has completed the remediation efforts." ' B6. The analysis in the IS/NOP was preliminary and provided a basis of which issues to further discuss and analyze in the EIR. The IS/NOP identified hazardous materials as ' a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the hazardous materials issue was further reviewed and analyzed, and it was determined that a mitigation measure could be provided to reduce the potential significant hazardous materials impact to less than significant. ' B7. The comment regarding the elementary school is noted and please see response to comment B5 for a discussion of Newport Elementary School. Refer to Response B41 for a discussion of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. No further response is required. ' B8. Please see response to comment B41 for a discussion of the findings in the two Limited Phase II site assessments. The findings in both assessments determined that hazardous substances were detected; however, at levels that are considered less than significant. B9. Please see response B5 regarding the regnlatory database review. Furthermore, refer to Response B41 regarding the action levels for each contaminant detected in the onsite sediment samples. As described in response to comment B41, there were two separate Limited Phase II Soils Assessments. Both of these assessments were referenced in Section 10 in the Draft EIR and are available for review at the City of ' Newport Beach Planning Department. B 10. The comment regarding the Limited Phase II site assessment is noted. The proposed project does not include the removal of any docks or structures within the water. The ' mouth of the Rhine Channel is approximately one tenth of a mile from the project site. Section 5.2.1 of the DEIR discusses bayside water quality and makes a brief reference to water quality conditions in the Rhine Channel as determined by a study ' prepared by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. A review of this study, prepared in May of 2003, indicated that the majority of the pollutants studied were observed in lower concentrations near the mouth of the Rhine Channel, ' with higher concentrations observed in the middle and upper portions of the Channel. In addition, the study found that an association between sediment contamination and toxicity cannot be established. The results of the Limited Phase II Soils Assessment are plausible. Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.3 of the DEIR analyzed potential impacts related to waterside features of the project. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' B 11. Refer to Responses B5 and E9 regarding a gas station previously located at 1500 W. Balboa Boulevard which is near the project site. ' B 12. One potential significant hazardous materials impact and a mitigation measure were discussed on page 1 -5 in the Draft EIR. This potential impact (i.e., the presence of lead and/or asbestos in the onsite structures) would not relate to marine biological resources since the recommended mitigation measure would remove any lead and/or Ukhasl Brandmen Associates ' H:`.Cliem "- JM\0064V0064ER2A0064ERM-RTC 7 -1 fiml.dw IN Madnapark Resat and Community Plan - ' Response to Comments on th Draft ER Responaw To Comments asbestos from the existing structures on land prior to demolition. Furthermore, ' marine sediment excavation activities associated with the proposed boat slips would not suspend significant concentrations of hazardous materials according to the Limited Phase II Soils Assessments. Please see response to comment B41 for a discussion of the findings in these two assessments. B 13. Recreational opportunities will be diminished during construction of the project. ' This is not a significant impact because it will be short term, and because the , recreational facilities on the project site are not the only ones available to residents of and visitors to the Balboa Peninsula. There are tot lots with play equipment at West Newport Park, Channel Place Park, Newport Island Park, 38th Street Park and ' Peninsula Park. In addition, there are 4 tennis courts at West Newport Park, at 56th Street and Seashore Drive, but they do not have lights. , CEQA gnidelines (Appendix G) require assessment of impacts to recreation to the ' extent that project implementation would result in an increase in the use of existing "... neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial ' physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated." Loss of access , to four tennis courts during the estimated 12 -month project construction term would result in additional demand at the City's other tennis courts; however, the relatively ' short duration of this period of additional demand will not result in substantial deterioration or acceleration of deterioration of those facilities. Rather, users of tennis courts may experience inconvenience in traveling to other courts and longer ' waiting times for court access. Permanent loss of the one -half basketball court will result in additional demand for use of the City's other 7 full-court and 8 half-court facilities. Other than the City's , summer day camp program, the half-court is typically used for informal "pick -up" games. No data on man -hours of usage are available, but the informal nature of the court use suggests that the demand for court time at this facility will shift to the ' remaining 15 City basketball facilities without a quantifiable increase in the average hours of court use per day per facility. Accordingly, loss of this facility will result in a reduction in the total hours of court availability City-wide and possibly longer wait ' times for court time. The additional use of the 15 remaining courts, however, will be minimal and not result in substantial deterioration of those facilities. The impacts on the physical environment resulting from construction of replacement , recreation facilities on the project site are included in the analysis of construction- related impacts including those on air quality, water quality, and traffic. Details relating to physical access to courts and physical design features of the courts will be ' determined at the project review stage that will follow the November election if the General Plan Amendment required for this project receives voter approval. In any event, the location of physical access points and features such as court surfacing do ' not have the potential to result in impacts to the physical environment. B 14. The only recreational facility that would be lost permanently is the basketball half - court. Its loss alone, when all other facilities will be replaced, is not considered significant. As a half court, this facility is not used for organized games or City- sponsored programs other than summer day camp. The City does not have any ' information that indicates this half-court is more popular than full court facilities in the area. Michael Bremtman Aasociares HXHem (PNJN)\0064"63EIt200000E=_RTC 7 -1 fn.) &. 33 1 Merinepark Resort and Coimnwdty Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Commmto ' B 15. The park facilities are already available to and used by visitors staying in existing hotels and vacation rentals, as well as residents. Use of these facilities by guests of the proposed hotel would be no different, and hotel guests will have no priority over other users. The guests of the hotel will add new users of the park facilities; however, the removal of the mobile home park will also result in a decrease in users ' of the park facilities. B 16. The Draft EIR includes a No Project/No Development alternative, as required by ' CEQA. This alternative would retain the existing recreation facilities. The Draft EIR also includes a Marine Recreation alternative. This alternative includes retention/replacement of all the existing recreational facilities; and adds a full basketball court, 1.64 acres of parkland, a boat launch area and 20 boat slips, and off- ' street parking to serve these facilities. This alternative would implement the Recreation and Open Space Element. Both of these alternatives are analyzed in Section 7 of the Draft EIR. Recreation is an area in which the project was found not ' to have significant impacts. As discussed in the Notice of Preparation and on pages 1 -5 and 1-6 of the Draft EIR, all facilities other than the basketball half -court will be replaced, the project will not result in a resident population increase that would ' increase the use and deterioration of existing recreational facilities, and the project does not include the expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical impact on the environment. ' Please see responses to comments B 13, B 14, and B 15 regarding impacts of the project on recreational opportunities. B 17. The comment is correct that the change of land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Recreation and Marine Commercial is an area of controversy. Please see response to comment K 4 regarding the DEIIY s discussion of the need for a General Plan amendment. According to the State Lands Commission and the City of Newport Beach, the ' tideland boundary has not been fixed. The attached exhibit (Exhibit C) illustrates a general schematic of the location of the tideland boundary as suggested by Boundaries Unlimited and as contended by State Lands Commission staff. As shown ' in Exhibit A all of the mobile home units and small portions of the existing tennis courts and outdoor area of the Girl Scout House are included within the tideland boundary shown on Exhibit C. Areas generally within the tideland boundary are subject to use restrictions established by the statutory and decisional law as well as ' provisions of individual tidelands grants. The Project uses are consistent with the trust restrictions but residential uses such as the existing mobile homes are not. ' Tidelands boundaries are established by legislation, litigation or agreement. The location of the line of mean high tide with respect to any parcel is not something that can be resolved in an EIR and so long as the Project is consistent with the use of ' tidelands, the location of the tidelands boundary does not have environmental impacts. ' B18. The timing identified in each mitigation measure in Table 2 -1 in the Draft EIR is provided to indicate when the mitigation measure needs to be implemented. According to Section 15126.4(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions. As a result, the timing ' identified in each mitigation measure is to provide an enforceable measure. Michael Brandman Associates 11:`Cliem (PN- IN)\OO64\00640M0064ER20_RTC 7 -1 fi.M.dw 1 ' R| ` G! ! za » f 20 ■ CL ca IL k �| ` ■|kI /! |! / | §;k§■m §§■ k kel R5,2 f� f § ƒ � . L::JUJ Ili 9r .� / / ƒ 3 / w / m I 61 mom ON 4- s k w � � � � 0 � —v- « cc g � � 3 }\ �2 ! « {| CL !! I}� !!} .� }!)I!f A | -R to k § §7¢ f� f § ƒ � . L::JUJ Ili 9r .� / / ƒ 3 / w / m I 61 mom ON 4- s k w � � � � 0 � —v- « cc g � � H Mortnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Droll EIR Responses To Comments There are various plans identified to reduce potential significant impacts. Specific measures are identified in Section 5 of the Draft EIR to accomplish the reduction of these impacts to less than significant. However, the specific preparation of the plans are identified as various times of the development process such as prior to issuance of grading permits. Since specific measures have been identified for these plans, the provision of the timing for the preparation of these plans is not deferral of mitigation. B 19. Please see response to comment B17 regarding the tidelands issue. The Draft EIR assesses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project in Section 5. B20. In response to comments received during the environmental review process, an additional mitigation measure has been formulated to further reduce adverse impacts of the initially proposed twelve new boat slips. The environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR included those associated with bulkhead and groin wall placement, dredging, fill placement on the sandy beach, and extension of the slips beyond the pierhead line. The revised design required by the mitigation measure described below (Mitigation Measure LU -1) eliminates the twelve boat slips and replaces them with a 260 -foot long "marginal" dock. (See Exhibits A and B). This will reduce the amount of dredge material from 1,750 cubic yards to a maximum of 500 cubic yards. The project proponent has agreed to implement this mitigation measure. Section 5.5.5 on page 5.4-20 in the Draft EIR is revised to read as follows Delete: "No mitigation measures are required." ' Add: "As an alternative to obtaining a U.S. Army Corps of Engineering permit to allow the proposed boat dock to extend beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line, the following mitigation measure is recommended. F F, 1 I hI U LU -1 Prior to the approval of a planned community development plan, the project applicant will modify the proposed boat dock so that no permanent structure extends beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. The proposed features are illustrated in Exhibits A and B. The floating dock is comprised of an 8 -foot by 260 -foot platform anchored inside the pierhead line by eight (8) fourteen -inch pre- stressed guidepiles embedded in the bay bottom. The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a lesser number of shorter watercraft. An 80 -foot pivoting, American with Disabilities Act - compliant gangway provides pedestrian access to the floating dock from a stationary 10'by 14' platform anchored through intertidal sands on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles. The platform is connected by stationary walkway supported on four (4) pre- stressed concrete guidepiles and extending from the upland side of the sandy beach at elevation approximately 9 feet." B21. As shown on Exhibit 3 -3 in Section 3.1.2 in the Draft EIR, the American Legion boat slips are located southeast of the proposed boat slips. The boat entrance to the American Legion boat slips is approximately 260 feet east of the proposed boat dock. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a modification to the proposed boat dock. Michael Brandman Associates ' H:1Clien ( PN- IN)NO164\0064ER2=064ERM-JRTC 7 -1 tinal.dm ILL O) � i i �. 1 E .� I i „'¢�, O i C4'' 1 DA Z Ul Ul a 14 O O w14 < '.1 < x Z < O Lu Z \ � z 0 }/ § /\{ / \ Ll \ � z 0 }/ § /\{ ' Merfnspark Resort and Community Plan — Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Reaponsea To Comments B22. An assessment of the sediment that will be removed for the proposed boat slips was conducted as part of the Limited Phase II Soil Assessment prepared on April 9, 2004. ' No significant hazardous materials impacts were identified, therefore, no mitigation measures were required. Refer to Response B-41 for the findings of this assessment. B26. Exhibit 3 -3 shows the building footprint for the two -story Girl Scout House and Community Center as 4,166 square feet. Exhibit 3 -3 will be revised to show the total floor area of 6,191 square feet for the two-story structure. The Spa Villa is proposed to be 6,191 square feet. The Site Plan, Exhibit 3 -3, and the visual simulation in Exhibit 5.8 -3 both show a parking lot on the project site near the comer of Balboa Blvd. and I8th Street. Foreshortening of the middle ground (the parking lot) in the visual simulation perspective representation obscures the fact that the two -story villas are located more than 160 feet from the front (Balboa Blvd.) property line. B27. The project luxury resort hotel concept for this site was first presented to the City in 2000 in response to a Request for Proposals sent by the City of Newport Beach to Michael Bmndman Associates ' N: VCliem (PN- "%06Yft4ERW\OD64ER20_RTC 7 -1 fwal.dm -36 B23. The location of the tidelands boundary is a geopolitical demarcation that may be determined only by State Legislation or litigation; it is not an action the City may take unilaterally. The ultimate determination as to the location of the tidelands boundary is of no consequence in terms of the physical environment. The State ' Lands Commission has advised the City that, since it is likely that 70% of the site is tidelands, they will accept a land use plan that shows at least 70 % of the site in restricted land uses. B23. Please see response to comment B17 regarding the general location of the tidelands boundary. The proposed excavation associated with the proposed dock as described in response to comment B20 would be within the tidelands area. Water quality and ' biological resources mitigation measures are provided to reduce impacts associated with excavation/dredging of the bayfloor. ' B24. Please see responses to comments B 13 and B55 regarding public access to the tennis courts. ' The beach will remain public with access as described in Draft EIR Section 3.1.2, page 3 -8, "Site Access ", and Draft EIR Section 5.4.3, pages 5.4-7, 5.4 -9, 5.4 -12, and 5.4 -14. Exhibit 3 -3 shows the relationship of the Girl Scout House and Community ' Center relative to Balboa Boulevard and the parking lot adjacent to Balboa and 18th Street. The Girl Scout House and Community Center will be separated from the Balboa Boulevard right -of -way by a wrought iron fence and plaster pilasters with the remaining three sides of the site enclosed by block wall. Actual locations of access points through the wrought iron fence and through the block walls will be determined at the project review stage that will follow the November election if the project receives voter approval. In any event, locations of pedestrian access points to the facilities do not have the potential to result in impacts to the physical environment. B25. The term "Community Plan" is the project proponent's terminology for project facilities for the use and benefit of residents and the larger community of coastal visitors, e.g. the Girl Scout House, the tot lot, the Community Center, and the tennis courts. B26. Exhibit 3 -3 shows the building footprint for the two -story Girl Scout House and Community Center as 4,166 square feet. Exhibit 3 -3 will be revised to show the total floor area of 6,191 square feet for the two-story structure. The Spa Villa is proposed to be 6,191 square feet. The Site Plan, Exhibit 3 -3, and the visual simulation in Exhibit 5.8 -3 both show a parking lot on the project site near the comer of Balboa Blvd. and I8th Street. Foreshortening of the middle ground (the parking lot) in the visual simulation perspective representation obscures the fact that the two -story villas are located more than 160 feet from the front (Balboa Blvd.) property line. B27. The project luxury resort hotel concept for this site was first presented to the City in 2000 in response to a Request for Proposals sent by the City of Newport Beach to Michael Bmndman Associates ' N: VCliem (PN- "%06Yft4ERW\OD64ER20_RTC 7 -1 fwal.dm -36 Madnapaih Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comments potential developers of the Marinapark site. Marinapark Resort (formerly Regent Newport) was selected by the City Council from among the proposals submitted because the project offered potential benefits to the City that the others did not including generation of significant revenues to the City's General Fund. Accordingly, the potential benefits of the Marinapark Resort project that were the basis for its selection for the project site have merely been restated as the project objectives. The proposed project would meet the objectives noted in the DEIR as follows. The City has spent approximately $7,000,000 on public improvements in Balboa Village. These public investments have been made, in part, to stimulate private investment, especially in the commercial areas that have deteriorated over time. The City is beginning to see the results of this investment, as the Balboa Pavilion has renovated and upgraded its restaurant tenant. The proposed hotel at Marinapark would add to the quality of development on the Peninsula, upgrade community facilities, and bring additional visitors to support businesses on the Peninsula. Residential use is not permitted on tidelands. The proposed hotel is a visitor serving use, which is permitted. Although lease negotiations are not complete, the hotel is expected to generate approximately $1,100,000 in lease income and approximately $1,000,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. The hotel would generate increased property tax based on the value of possesory interest and the improvements. Lease revenue from the current users (mobile home park, Power Squadron, and Girl Scouts) is approximately $701,935. • The proposed project includes twice as many beach access points as the existing development. The project proponent has committed to building a new Girl Scout House and Community Center, four tennis courts and tot lot. All of these improvements will be made without any expenditure of tax revenue. Noise, glare and traffic impacts are analyzed in Sections 5.7, 5.8, and 5.5, respectively, of the Draft EIR. In each case, no significant environmental impacts have been identified. • The proposed dock feature of the project provides an additional marine-related facility. B28. This comment regarding discretionary approvals is noted. The last sentence in the second paragraph under Section 3.4 on page 3 -9 is revised to read as follows: Delete: "Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified later in the section under "Other Discretionary and Ministerial Actions ". Add: "Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified under Responsible Agencies and Other Agencies. The citizens of the City of Newport Beach will vote during a General Election to determine approval of the proposed General Plan amendment. Furthermore, the proposed Michael Brandman Associates mPClj m (M- 1T1)V0064b 2000 064ER064ER20 RTC7 -1 fiml.&c 37 ' MarliaperkResort mrd Commar;W Plan — Response to Comments on the Droll EIR Responses To Commems factional ownership interests in up to 12 of the resort hotel units may require a future legislative action to satisfy the intent of Land Use Policy 1 G, Land Use Conversions." All the discretionary actions required for approval of the proposed project are listed in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR. B29. The Draft EIR was prepared to identify potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and to identify potential mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that would lessen or eliminate potential impacts. The list of discretionary approvals necessary to implement the project after certification of the Final EIR is included in the EIR because such discretionary ' approvals provide opportunities for implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and identification of appropriate actions at each discretionary approval to ensure that the project complies with applicable state and local statutes, ' codes, and policies. Submittal by the City Council to the local electorate of the proposed General Plan 1 Amendment necessary to accommodate the project will allow the voters of the City of Newport Beach to approve or disapprove the project. By completing the EIR prior to placing the matter on the ballot, the City Council will ensure that the voters are fully informed about the environmental aspects of the proposed project when they ' make their decision. The power of the voters is limited, however, to a simple approval or disapproval of the legislative actions related to the project; the voters cannot, by popular vote, revise, condition, or add mitigation measures to the project. ' After the election, however, if the voters approve the project, subsequent discretionary approval procedures by the City, including those related to granting of a ' use permit and approval of grading plans, will allow for the imposition of additional conditions of approval, minor project revisions, and inclusion of additional mitigation measures if needed, consistent with the voters' approval. ' B30. Please see response to comment B17 regarding the tidelands issue. B31. The leasehold, terms, and lessor of the Marinapark mobile home park per se are not ' project characteristics that give rise to potential adverse impacts to the physical environment. Potential physical impacts relative to removal of the mobile home park are addressed where appropriate throughout the Draft EIR. B32. "Efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the peninsula" include investment of public funds to improve the quality of the ambient ' and pedestrian environments in the area. These efforts have not and will not include any development or redevelopment of uses that could contribute to various cumulative impacts requiring analysis in the Draft EIR. ' B33. Plans to develop live /work projects in and around the project vicinity are purely speculative at this time. No applications or pending applications for projects that would include development or redevelopment of uses that could contribute to various ' cumulative impacts requiring analysis in the Draft EIR have been identified. B34. The comment regarding geology and soils is noted. The second paragraph on page 5.1 -3 in the Draft EIR is revised as follows. Michael Brendman Associates ' HACbmt (PN- JN)t0064=MER2GWMER20 RTC 7 -1 fi=Ldm Ci Madnapark Resort and Cammun/ty Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Corn m Delete: "Per the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was encountered at approximately 8 feet under the project site, and the project site is located within a special study zone for liquefaction. Testing and analysis of project site soils indicated that the potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high." Add: "Per the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was encountered at between 6.5 feet and 8.5 feet below ground surface, depending on the boring location. The soils encountered in the sub - surface exploration are generally classified as sand, with some silt encountered in the top two feet. Grain size of the sand varies from fine to coarse grained." The geotechnical study concluded that there are no expansive soils on the project site because the onsite soils do not have expansive characteristics. Expansive soils generally have a high clay content and have the characteristics of contracting when dry and expanding when wet, thereby potentially effecting structures that may be located on them. Liquefaction is the loss of cohesiveness of the soil material during a seismic event that may cause the soil to loose its ability to fully support structures. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B35. The depth to groundwater is 6.5 feet to 8.5 feet depending on the location on the project site. The two mitigation measures were provided in the geotechnical investigation report were recommended with the understanding of the groundwater level. Utilities, detention basins and the parking structure under the tennis courts will be below ground while the remaining structures will be above ground. The proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts. To implement, these measures there is a potential need to conduct dewatering; however, if dewatering occurs, the applicant would need to follow Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements similar to all dewatering activities in California. The specific type of slab construction employed in the slab design is not required at this time. The geotechnical investigation report provides two options that could reduce liquefaction impacts to less than significant. The selection of the option does not need to occur at this time because either option reduces the effect to less than significant. B36. Section 5.2.1 of the Draft EIR discusses and describes the existing drainage conditions on the project site and in the immediate vicinity. A thorough description of the existing drainage and flooding conditions, regulatory setting, and water quality is presented. Section 5.2.3 of the Draft EIR presents a complete and thorough description of the proposed drainage and an analysis of the potential impacts that would result from that drainage. All of the stormwater runoff generated onsite will be conveyed off -site. Rainwater and water from irrigation systems will either be conveyed to the onsite drainage system or percolate into the impervious landscaped areas. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates HACh.M (Pd- JN)\0064\M64ER20`0064ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fl.Ld. Q I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' B37. The mitigation measures proposed in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR would reduce water quality and surface water drainage/hydrology impacts to less than significant. ' No additional mitigation measures are required. B38. The proposed project was considered in combination with the related projects ' identified in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR. The City currently has revitalization efforts on the Peninsula; however, these efforts include landscape improvements and pavement upgrades, which do not create more stormwater runoff to the drainage system. ' Please see response to comment B39 for a discussion of the project's effect on the existing storm drain, and the applicant's proposed mitigation measure to reduce this ' potential effect to less than significant. The proposed onsite detention facilities adequately reduce the project's effect on the existing storm system. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result ' from project implementation. B39. The proposed inclusion of detention hasins on the project site reduces the project's ' contribution to the existing drainage system so that the future peak flow concentration is not greater than the existing peak flow concentrations exiting the project site. Since there would be no increase in peak flow concentrations, the project would not cumulatively add to existing flows. As a result, no additional ' mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. When a project results in an increase in stormwater flows to existing deficient ' stormwater systems, there are two alternatives available to successfully address drainage - related impacts. The first is to improve deficient sections of each storm drain backbone system located downstream of the proposed development to ' adequately convey the design storm for the developed project condition. The second altematiye is to provide onsite stormwater detention that would retain the stormwater runoff onsite during the peak concentrations so that stormwater exiting the site would ' be at or below the existing pre- project conditions. The project proponent has chosen the latter, to provide on -site stormwater detention through the installation of two stormwater detention basins. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B40. The comment regarding mitigation measures is noted. The project does not propose to defer mitigation measures. Rather, Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR identifies ' specific mitigation measures that, if implemented, would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. Timing the implementation of these recommended mitigation measures to the issuance of a grading or other similar permit is consistent ' with Section 14.36.040 of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' B41. As stated in Section 5.3.1 in the Draft EIR, a Limited Phase II Soils Assessment was conducted. Two separate soil boring samples were obtained and discussed in separate documents which are referenced in Section 10 in the Draft EIR and available ' for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. These documents are Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Summary Letter prepared on February 17, 2004 and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared on ' April 9, 2004. Michael Brandmen Associates ' HACGem (PN- M\0064`WMER70V0064ER20_RTC 7 -1 5nal.doc ■Y Madnapark Resort and Commanity Plan - ' Response to Comments on the Oran EIR Reeponsm To Comments The first sample was discussed in a report dated February 17, 2004 and included two ' soil borings using hand tools in the northern portion of the project site and four -feet ' below ground surface from the borings. The two soil borings were located near the low tide line. Based on laboratory review of these samples, no detectable ' concentrations of semi - volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organ- chloride pesticides (OCPs), or polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs) were detected. Total , Petroleum Hydrolcarbons (TPH) were detected at 10 milligrams per kilogram ' (mg/kg). This concentration level is not significant because typically 100 mg/kg are ' allowable by the Regional Boards on land if depth to groundwater is greater than 20 feet. There are no regulations for TPH for sea sediment. A industry working group 1 called The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (1'PHCWG) ' proposed a risk based screening cleanup level of 29,000 mg/kg for C12 through C35 hydrocarbons. The samples are well below this screening clean -up level. ' The second sample was discussed in a report dated April 9, 2004 and included three borings by drilling at a depth of 0.5, 2.5, and 5 feet below the mud line in the area of the proposed excavation for the boat dock. Thus, the analysis was conducted of mud ' 5 feet deep, and not limited to the first half -foot of bay mud as asserted by the comment. Based on laboratory review of the samples, trace amounts of TPH were detected in the 0.5 foot samples in all three borings and in the 2.5 sample at Boring ' BP -2. The detected concentrations were less than 40 milligrams per kilogram which are below the action level stated above. A single sample contained a very low concentration of OCP (13 micrograms per kilogram); however, this concentration is well below (1) EPA preliminary remediation goals for residential soils which is 1,700 ' ug/kg, and (2) Regional Water Quality Control Board -Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) for DDT 2.92 x 106 ug/kg per year for the Rhine Channel. No other evidence of TPH, OCP, SVOC and PCB were detected in the three borings. Thus, ' the Draft EIR and incorporated technical studies provide evidence and analysis supporting the conclusion that there are no significant impacts of the proposed project related to hazardous substances in the bay mud. ' In addition, anew mitigation measure (LU -1 as described in response to comment B20) has been added to mitigate the impacts of the initially proposed dock and related structures; this mitigation measure will reduce the amount of excavation for , the proposed dock. In addition, a new mitigation measure (LU -1 as described in response to continent ' B20) has been added to mitigate the impacts of the initially proposed dock and related structures; this mitigation measure will reduce the amount of excavation for the proposed dock. ' B42. This comment is noted. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the action levels for the constituents evaluated. SVOCs and PCBs were not detected in any of ' the samples. B43 According to Robert Hoffman of the National Marine Fisheries Service, he doesn't know of any fish surveys conducted in the Lower Bay since the 1970s. With the ' exception of some on -going studies in the Upper Bay, there are no current in -depth sampling programs in the Lower Bay. However, in 2001 -2002, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) conducted some fish sampling using otter trawls in the channel between Lido Isle and the Balboa Peninsula , (approximating the sites of Allen's studies in the 1970s) to collect fish for bioaccumulation studies in the food web. CRM contacted Dr. Jim Allen and Dr. ' Michael Brandman Associates H :vcsem(PH- M\0%abo64eezoO%4ER20 (� / xrC 7 -1 s=�dm 1 1 I i 1 I I 1 I 1 L 1 Marinapa* Rosort and Community Plan - Rsaporm to Commorm on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments Dario Diel, the principal investigators for the study. The reports are not in the public domain yet and the data are not available for public review. While the City would prefer to provide more recent data, the older information provided in the EIR is still a valid source of information since it provides near project -site specific information in the main channel near the 10th Street Beach on species composition and dominant species present at the time of sampling. This list includes identified species that are still considered to be sensitive (California halibut), and there are no additional species that are regarded as "sensitive" or federal- or state -listed that might occur in the Marinapark project area. Mitigation measures and BMPs have been provided to protect this sensitive species. The only listed species of fish is the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), and this is not recorded from Newport Bay. B44. The existing concrete walkway is located parallel to the shoreline and directly adjacent to the mobile home park. The proposed cement walkway referred to in the project description as well as on page 5.3 -7 is located perpendicular to the shoreline and extends from the meandering walkway along the hotel suites to the boat dock. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a mitigation measure to modify the design of the boat dock. B45. The proposed concrete walkway will result in a loss of foraging habitat for shorebirds. The loss of foraging habitat does not result in direct mortality of this bird species because there are other foraging habitats available in the Newport Harbor vicinity. This loss of habitat is considered significant. However, the project's potential impact on the species of shorebirds and seabirds is less than significant because the project would not directly result in mortality of these bird species. B46. This comment is noted. The analysis of benthic infauna and epifauna in Section 5.3.3 is correct.. The discussion in Section 6.1 is also correct. This impact is short -term and the benthic community in the dredge areas would recover in diversity and abundance, assuming successful recruitment and recolonization. As discussed on page 5.3 -10 in the Draft EIR, maintenance dredging may be periodically required (at an assumed 10 -year interval) to remove trapped sediments during the long -term operation of the boat dock. Section 5.3.6 incorrectly summarizes the analysis in Section 5.3.3. As a result, the paragraph in Section 5.3.6 on page 5.3 -13 in the Draft EIR is revised as follows. Delete: "With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, only one significant unavoidable adverse impact would remain. This impact would occur during the short -term and would be on the benthic resources that would be removed from the bayfloor during the project and maintenance dredging activities. All other impacts to marine life would be less than significant after mitigation." Add: "The implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to marine life to less than significant." B47. The mitigation measures in Section 5.3.5 in the Draft EIR that are established to reduce potential impacts on marine life are adequate. The detailed listing of the typical best management practices (BMPs) are identified in Section 5.2.5 of the Draft Michael Brandman Associates H:VClient ( PN- M\006410064ER2GY0064ER20_RTC 7 -1 6nel.dm n MannWw* Resort and Commtmfty Plan - Response to Commema on the Draft OR Response To Com rents EIR. The BMPs that are referenced in Section 5.3.5 and listed in Section 5.2.5 would reduce potential water quality impacts and subsequently reduce potential impacts to marine life. The water quality plans reference in Section 5.3.2 in the Draft EIR are required to be prepared for City approval prior to the potential impact occurring (i.e., prior to issuance of a grading permit). Each of the water quality plans have a detailed listing of the types of BMPs that are needed to reduce potential water quality and subsequently marine life impacts. Section 5.3.5 in the Draft EBi is not deferring how to reduce the potential impacts, but only when the plans need to be prepared. B48. The reference to the Marinapark Mobile Home Park's inconsistency with the general plan designation is intended to disclose that this use is not among the list of allowed uses associated with the Recreational and Environmental Open Space general plan land use designation. The comment that the Marinapark Mobile Home Park may be converted to a public use is correct. Page 5.4-3 of the Draft EIR includes a list of uses allowed in the Recreational and Environmental Open Space land use designation, and hotel is not included in that list. The project includes an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation to Recreational Marine Commercial to allow development of the proposed hotel. B49. The standard for the division of a community, as identified in Section 5.4 -2 - Thresholds of Significance, is related to the actual physical division of an established community. The Land Use Element of the City General Plan references that the overall physical form of the City developed around villages based on the natural geographic features, such as Newport Harbor, and states that future development in the City should build on these villages. The project site is located in the Central Balboa Area, identified as part of the Balboa Peninsula Area in the Land Use Element of the City General Plan. The mobile home park itself would, therefore, not be considered a community. The project is proposed on a site that is bordered by a bay, a major arterial roadway, a collector street, and urban development. Activities that would have the potential to physically divide an established community would be large- scale, public works infrastructure projects such as freeways, dams, railroads, canals, pipelines, high - voltage electrical transmission lines, etc., or large -scale development projects such as regional malls, airports, etc. In these instances, there is a literal physical division that would occur from variables such as realignment or closing of roadways or massive modification of development patterns. The proposed project does not require closing or realignment of any existing roadways, does not propose any new roadways, or does not contain any other features that would physically divide the Balboa Peninsula. Moreover, the project proposes to reconstruct the recreational and community facilities that currently exist on the project site and maintain public access to the beach and public walkway adjacent to Newport Harbor. The proposed access points from Balboa Boulevard through the project site is described on page 5.4 -12 of the Draft EIR. There are open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby that provide access from Balboa Boulevard to the public beach. B50. The "Discussion" section following Policy C of the Land Use Element clarifies the outcomes expected through implementation of this Policy: "The City intends to insure that visitor serving facilities provide adequate off - street parking to Michael Brandman Associates H'.UieM "-JN)\W W"ER2OW64ER20_tTC 7 -1 final.dm �3 � A I 1 I I FJ 1 E I MarinspimIr Resort and Community Plan — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments accommodate their customers and clients and thereby insure as many parking spaces as possible will be available to the public." It is clear from this discussion that adequate parking capacity is to be provided on -site for each new development rather than attempting to satisfy additional demand created by new development through a combination of new, on -site parking and existing, on- street parking. Nothing in the discussion suggests an intent to require new development to provide excess on -site parking capacity to make -up for existing, inadequate parking capacity. Furthermore, the project includes more than two times the code - required number of parking spaces for the hotel. Also, please see response to comment Ql 1. B51. Please see responses to comnwnts B 50, B63, and Q 11. B52. The parking analysis in the Draft EIR is based on Newport Beach Municipal Code parking requirements for the proposed project. The comment addressed hereunder suggests that the number of parking spaces after project development be compared with the number of existing spaces. A comparison of project parking spaces with the existing condition (42 spaces indicated in the comment plus 22 existing metered spaces at the Balboa Blvd. curb) follows. Parking Available to General Public Metered parking at 18th St. curb 5 5 Metered parking at Balboa Blvd. curb 22 20 Public parking at 18th St. lot 23 41+ Community Center Staff 2 N/A Girl Scout dedicated and gated 10 N/A Public parking at tot lot 2 N/A Total Parking Spaces 64 65 • 21 of 41 spates will be reserved for visitors to the Girl Scout House and the Community Center during facility operating hours and will be available to the general public at all other times. The proposed project replaces all existing on -site and adjacent off -site spaces available to the general public and adds one additional public parking space. B53. As indicated in "Section 3: Project Description' of the Draft EIR, on -site ancillary uses are of sizes and designs primarily intended to serve the needs of hotel guests and include 600 square feet of retail space, a 550 square -foot caf €, a 1,124 square-foot restaurant, and a 3,603 square-foot ballroom. Other luxury hotels generally include dining space of at least 10,000 square feet, or more than nine times that of the proposed project, requiring a significantly greater number of employees. In addition, other hotel operations derive a significant portion of total revenues through catering, banquet, and convention and meeting business facilities. Such labor intensive ancillary uses that substantially increase the employee/room ratio are not included in the proposed luxury hotel facility. Because the proposed project ballroom is Michael Brandman Associates HA CGcm (PN- .1N)V0064\W64ER2D\DO64ER20 —RTC 7 -1 final.dm , q Mannapark Reml and Community Plan - Response to Comments on dre Draft EIR Reaponeea To Comments , approximately one -tenth the size of a modest -sized ballroom of other facilities, such uses cannot be accommodated and are not proposed for the project luxury hotel. B54. According to the City Recreation and Senior Services Department, the half basketball ' court is used more during the summer months and is used less or infrequently during the winter months. Please see response to comment B 13 for a discussion of the removal of this half basketball court as not being considered as a significant impact. t B54. Please see responses to comments B13 and B 14 regarding removal of the basketball half - court. ' B55. The project proponent does not intend to retain a tennis pro for the resort hotel and ' does not propose to offer tennis lessons in conjunction with operation of the hotel. In any event, terms of use and access to the recreational facilities proposed on the ' project site will be determined at such time as the City, as owner of the property, and the project proponent negotiate terms of the ground lease for the site. No physical impacts to the environment are anticipated as a result of the terms and conditions of ' operation that may be included in the ground lease. Additional hours of court availability will result from development of the project. ' Whereas ouly two of the four existing tennis courts are lighted and available for use until 10:00 P.M., all four reconstructed courts will be lighted, resulting in additional hours of court availability. The additional hours of availability will accommodate increased demand that may result from use by guests of the resort. B56. The comment regarding general plan designations is noted. The proposed project includes a general plan amendment that would change the general plan designation I from the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Recreational Marine Commercial. Should the City approve the proposed general plan amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with theGeneral Plan. Therefore, findings t presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B57. The proposed project does not provide accommodations for Charter Boats and Boat Tours. These accommodations were not discussed as part of the project in Section 3 of the Draft EIR. Please see response to comment B20 for a new mitigation measure that would modify the proposed boat dock. ' B58. The comment indicates that the existing view from the project site will be eliminated rather than enhanced. The opposite is true. As discussed in Section 5.4.3 of the I Draft EIR regarding Objective 6, Policy 6.2 of the Open Space Element, the only existing view of Newport Harbor from Balboa Boulevard is available at the extreme, easterly end of the site; no other views are currently available. The arrangement of , the buildings on the proposed site plan preserves the existing view corridor at the eastern end of the project site and adds two new view corridors through the project site from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor. There is no policy or guideline requiring a view corridor to be a specific size. In addition, the view of Newport Harbor from the public beach and public walkway will be preserved with the proposed project. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' I Michael Brandman Associates WNCliew (PN- JK)%W64%o)64ERZQVWERM-RTC 7 -1 fiWIAce Y / ' g ' Medneperk Resort and Community Plan - Responae to Commente on the Draft EIR Respongm To Comments ' B59. Please see responses to comments B29 and B32 regarding discretionary actions and efforts to revitalize the peninsula, respectively. ' B60. The comment regarding building setbacks is noted. The building setback requirements referenced in Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR are the minimum distance proposed in the draft Planned Community (PC) Development Plan. Since the site is zoned Planned Community District, the site does not have development standards including setback requirements. Buildings may be set back by distances greater than the minimum required. For 18th Street, the minimum distance a building is proposed to be set back in the draft PC Development Plan is 5 feet from the street. Section 5.4.2 of the Draft EIR describes the proposed setbacks for the buildings along 18th Street as ranging from 14 to 17 feet. These setbacks are for the residential villas and ' exceed the minimum distance requirements. There is no contradiction between these two references. The proposed administration building, as identified on Exhibit 3 -3, is proposed to be set back approximately 3 feet, 7 inches, which is less than the minimum identified in the draft PC Development Plan and Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the site plan will be modified to require the administration building to be set back a minimum of 5 feet in conformance with the draft PC Development Plan. This modification does not alter the land use compatibility conclusions provided in Section 5.4.3 in the Draft EIR. The following is added as the fourth sentence in the first paragraph on page 5.4 -8 in the Draft EIR: I Add: "The Business Administration Building proposed along 18th Street will have a setback of 5 feet." ' B61. The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) identifies seven intersections to be studied as part of the Marina Park Resort and Community Plan EIR. In accordance with the methodology of the TPO, the intersection of Balboa 1 Boulevard and 20th Street was not identified to be studied for this project. While the project will contribute to the traffic along Balboa Boulevard at 20th Street, based upon the City's TPO, the project has not been identified to contribute such a substantial amount of traffic at this intersection so as to warrant a specific traffic analysis. In fact, the City does not have information showing that this intersection ...is already at LOS E or worse." However, Austin -Foust Associates (AFA) reviewed City traffic counts along Balboa Boulevard between 15th Street and 20th Street to compare shoulder season volumes with peak season volumes as discussed on page 5.5 -2 in the Draft EIR. Pages 5.5 -5 and 5.5 -6 of the Draft EIR contain a summary of AFA's analysis of the project's contribution to summer weekend traffic ' volumes along Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of 20th Street, utilizing a worst case scenario. As identified in the Draft EIR, the total average daily project - related trips is expected to be approximately one percent of the total average daily trips (ADT) along this segment of Balboa Boulevard, which is not considered to be a perceptible from the summer ADT fluctuations along this street segment. Moreover, as identified on page 5.5 -6 of the Draft EIR, project - related traffic is expected to occur at times other than the peak hour, and in fact hotel patrons are expected to either be traveling in the direction opposite to the outbound beach traffic in the afternoons or traveling during periods other than that when there is peak traffic volumes exiting the peninsula. The ' projects listed in Table 4 -1 along with future revitalization projects will be required to perform traffic studies in accordance with the City's TPO, which may conclude the these projects will be required to implement traffic mitigation measures. AFA conducted the TPO analysis for cumulative (the projects listed in Table 4 -1) plus project conditions. City staff provided the project trip generation and distribution for Michael Brandman Associates ' HA Crient (PN- nN)10064\D064ER20)D064ER20 --RTC 7 -1 fimLdw W Atednaparh Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Dreg OR Responses To Comments the cumulative projects. As with the project - related TPO analysis, in order to be found to generate significant traffic impacts, the project must meet or exceed one percent of the projected peak hour background traffic on one leg of a study intersection and contribute enough traffic to cause an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS), which the City defines as LOS E or worse. None of the intersections identified for study as part of this project met both of these criteria under cumulative conditions and therefore, the project is not considered to have a significant cumulative impact that would require mitigation. B62. The traffic analysis in the Draft EIR concluded, based on available peak season roadway segment traffic counts, that the impact of the projected net increase in traffic was less than significant. Consistent with longstanding City policy, however, "shoulder" season traffic data were used for intersection Level of Service analyses. The City consistently uses shoulder season data because peak season data would skew the apparent need for roadway improvements and provide roadway capacity far in excess of that required on all but the busiest summer season days. The Transportation and Development Services Division of the City of Newport Beach identified intersections to be evaluated in the Draft EIR through application of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as is done for all projects to ensure that analysis is focused on those intersections that may truly be affected. Analysis of intersections of Balboa Blvd. with 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Street are not included because the City does not collect data on side streets such as these, because experience shows that they carry very little traffic. B63. Please see response to comment R3 regarding the types of trips included in the hotel trip generation rate. Furthermore, off -site employee parking is not part of the proposed project. Also see response to comment Q 11 relative to employee parking. B64. Please see response to comment B62 regarding left turns into the project site from Balboa Boulevard. Please also see response to comment H30 regarding the use of 15th Street by employees and service vehicles. Finally, please see response to comment Q4 regarding the 18th Street entrance. As shown on the project site, the internal vehicular circulation consists of a loop entrance and two access roads. One access road extends to the west to provide access to parking spaces for suites and villas. The second access road extends to the east to provide access to parking spaces for additional suites and villas as well as provide access to the 100 -space parking structure. Hotel guests and visitors are planned to use the project's entrance for entering and exiting the site. B65. The referenced construction traffic management plan in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR is Mitigation Measure AQ4 contained in Section 5.6.5 of the Draft EIR. This recommended mitigation measure is one of several measures identified to reduce air quality impacts. Construction activities are not expected to result in a substantial number of construction vehicle trips B66. Please see responses to comments B50, B52, B53, and Q 11. B67. Based on a regulatory database review as discussed in response to comment B5, there were past hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of the project site; however, these sites have been remediated. Furthermore, please see response to continent B41 regarding Mehael Brendman Asaoctstss IUCUM (M- 1I)W0"\00"MU9000 ER20_RTC 7 -1 fi�ldw . q7 ' Merinaperk Resort end Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments the two soil samples and their characterization of their concentrations as less than significant. B68. As discussed in Appendix G, Noise Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance (Section 10.26.045 HVAC Special Provisions) regulates the allowable noise exposure and operation of HVAC equipment in residential areas through the issuance of permits. According to the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, "New permits for heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where installations can be shown by computation based on the sound rating of the proposed equipment, not exceed an A- weighted sound pressure level of 50 dBA or not to exceed an A- weighted sound pressure level of 55 dBA and be installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM." Thus, compliance with these requirements by the project proponent will assure that the operation of HVAC equipment will be well within the 65 dB CNEL exterior standards set for residential land uses. The Noise Analysis is based upon the traffic generation forecasts presented in the Traffic Analysis (Appendix E of the Draft EIR). The traffic generation forecasts are based upon land use and are inclusive of all trips generated for a particular land use, including delivery and trash trucks and employee transportation. Thus, in projecting the future noise environment the actual vehicle trips for such support services have been included in the overall noise forecasting. However, it is noted that delivery and trash trucks differ from passenger automobiles in that they may include warning bells, they may idle onsite, and that the vehicles are required to perform activities that generate noise beyond that of a typical automobile. Delivery and trash trucks will turn left onto 15`s Street from Balboa Boulevard and head north towards the Bay and turn left onto the access roadway adjacent to the American Legion (roadway marked as delivery access on Exhibit 3 -3, Site Plan, of the Draft EIR). Deliveries and loading will occur along the eastern perimeter of the hotel structure, adjacent to the existing American Legion parking lot. As is common with such vehicles, there may be warning bells to alert pedestrians and other vehicles. These bells are subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts the amount of time such bells may be active. Moreover, while delivery activities may result in a temporary increase in the noise environment, such activities are generally limited to business hours, primarily between 7 AM and 6 PM and are generally limited to weekdays, although some deliveries will occur on weekends. These activities are not a constant source of noise that will increase ambient noise levels. Such noise is temporary and once complete, the noise environment will return to background levels. As previously noted, employee vehicle trips is included in the overall noise forecasts; employee transportation is not considered to generate non - commonplace noise and since the project - related traffic generation is not anticipated to exceed the 65 dB CNEL standard, there are no significant impacts associated with employee transportation. The residences at 50 feet from roadway centerline along Balboa Boulevard (i.e., north and south sides of Balboa Boulevard) would experience a noise increase from 65.4 dBA CNEL to 65.5 dBA CNEL. As stated on page 5.7 -10, a substantial increase in noise is 3.0 dB. Since the projected noise levels along Balboa Boulevard would not be substantial, no significant noise impacts on residences along Balboa Boulevard, including those residences along 18th Street, 19th Street, and West Bay, would occur from project implementation. KIM Michael Brandman Associates ' H-Uimt "- 1N)\0W\0064ER2W064ER20jtTC 7 -1 fiml.&c KIM Madnapork Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on his Draft EIR Responses To Comments B69. The proposed project does not include boat tie -ups for charter boats and boat tour operators; therefore, the project would not increase noise from these types of sources. B70. Please see response to comment H33 for a discussion of noise impacts from hotel activities. B71. As noted on pages 5.7 -12 and 5.7 -13 in the Draft EIR, the following are mandatory obligations contained in Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Mandatory compliance with the City of Newport Beach's noise control ordinance and implementation of the following project obligations would ensure that noise levels impacts remain less than significant. • Equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. • Construction equipment shall be maintained properly and tuned -up to minimize noise emissions. • Stationary source equipment (e.g., compressors) shall be located so as to maintain the greatest distance from proximate residential dwellings. • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance from the dwellings. • The name and telephone number of a contact person shall be posted on -site. Adherence to these regulations as required by law, will reduce project - related short- term construction noise to less than significant. B72. The recreational facilities on the project site will be removed when construction activities begin on the project site and will not be available until all construction is completed on the project site. Therefore, no construction noise would impact the onsite children's play area during construction. B73. The proposed project retains the existing views from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor at 18th Street and the extreme easterly end of the project site. No other visual corridor from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor currently exists on the project site. The proposed project adds (i.e., enhances) the existing views by providing two open air visual corridors that flank the main lobby of the hotel. The reference regarding the project including sound barriers is correct. As discussed on page 5.7 -11 in the Draft EIR, noise levels at the proposed resort hotel would be 61 dBA CNEL due to the distance (i.e., 186 feet) of Balboa Boulevard to the nearest hotel structure. The analysis continues to state that intervening structures and parking lots will further diminish the noise level at the hotel. These intervening structures include the tennis courts, Spa Villa, and Girl Scout House/Community Center. These structures would not impede any views that currently exist from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor. B74. The comment regarding aesthetics is noted. Please see response to comment B60 for a discussion on setbacks. Michael Brandman Associates H.\CGent "- ]N)\0064\OD64ER20t0064ERM_RTC 7 -1 fimU c Y'y /' q 1/ ' ' Marinspark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Continents on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments The computer- generated simulations provided in Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR are intended to illustrate the proposed project superimposed on an existing photograph. The benefit of using an existing photograph is that certain features appear in both the original photograph and on the simulated photograph that allow for a more accurate comparison than may otherwise be possible with methods such as artist renderings. ' The difference between the existing and proposed views on Exhibit 5.8 -2 has to do with the lighting conditions that existed when the original photograph was taken and the alteration of the photograph to include the proposed buildings. No attempt was made to match the existing and proposed lighting conditions. The aesthetic impact conclusions provided in Section 5.8 in the Draft EIR would not be altered due to the type of day lighting. B75. Following is a discussion of height limits to clarify the proposed height limits as well as the height limits for residential properties in the project area. This discussion results in revisions to discussions in the Draft EIR. 1 The residential properties across Balboa Boulevard from the project site have a height limit of 24 feet, 28 feet with a use permit. The project site currently has a height limit of 26 feet, 35 feet with a use permit. However, pursuant to Section 20.65.040 C of the Zoning Code, development regulations contained within the Planned Community Text may establish alternate standards that will not require the consideration of a Use Permit for structure height within the 35 foot limit which is determined at the midpoint of a sloping roof. The draft Planned Community development regulations for the proposed project include a maximum of 37 feet (at the peak of the roof) for the lobby structure and a maximum of 27 feet (at the peak of the roof) for all other structures. Based upon the conceptual elevation drawings; the midpoint of the sloping roofs will be below 35 feet and 26 feet, respectively, which is the maximum allowable by the Zoning Ordinance. 1 To ensureconsistency within the Draft EIR, the following pages are revised. The last sentence in the first paragraph on page 3 -5 is revised as follows: Delete: "The maximum height proposed for the two -story villas is 27 feet while the proposed tower will be 34 feet in height." 1 Add: "The maximum height at the peak of the roof proposed for the two - story villas is 27 feet while the maximum height at the peak of the roof of the ' proposed lobby structure will be 37 feet in height." The first sentence in the seventh paragraph on page 5.4 -7 in the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Delete: "Ibe proposed resort hotel includes a lobby structure that would be up to 34 feet in height and suites and guestrooms that will range from one- story (17 feet) to two -story (27 feet)." Add: "The proposed resort hotel includes a lobby structure that would have a maximum height at the peak of the roof of 37 feet, and the suites and guestrooms will have a maximum height at the peak of the roof that range from one -story (17 feet) to two -story (27 feet)" Michael Brandman Associates ' HACOeat (PN- JNA006W64ERW0064ER10 --RTC 7 -1 EuUm 5,0 Marfnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments The sixth paragraph on page 5.8 -2 in the Drift EIR is revised as follows: Delete: "Building Heights. Except for the main resort hotel lobby in Planning Unit 1, the hotel will have a maximum height of 24 feet. The main lobby will have a height of 34 feet. The maximum height of the community structures in Planning Area 2 will be 24 feet and no structures will be placed within Planning Unit 3." Add: "Building Heights. Except for the main resort hotel lobby in Planning Unit 1, the hotel will have a maximum height of 27 feet at the peak of the roofs. The main lobby will have a height of 37 feet at the peak of the roof. The maximum height of the community structures in Planning Area 2 will be 27 feet at the peak of the roof, and no structures will be placed within Planning Unit 3." The above revisions to the Draft EIR clarify the maximum height of the proposed structures which is at the peak of the roofs. This clarification of the maximum height limits does not alter the conclusions and findings presented in the Draft FIR and specifically in Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning and Section 5.8, Aesthetics. The photo simulation (Exhibit 5.8 -3) is presented to portray an accurate representation of what the proposed project would look like if built. The vertical elevations for the project structures, as clarified above, were obtained from the architectural drawings submitted by the project applicant. B76. The proposed project will include the undergrounding of the existing above -ground utility lines. B77. The proposed project would result in only approximately 33 percent of the project site being covered by buildings, including the subterranean parking structure. The remainder would be open and improved with parking and landscaping. The building setback distances identified on page 5.8 -2 of the Draft EIR are the minimum distances required by the City Zoning Code. The proposed setback distance for the hotel lobby is approximately 186 feet as described on page 5.7 -11 in the Draft EIR. Please see responses to comments B75 and U 11 for a discussion regarding building heights. B78. Please see response to comment B32 relative to cumulative impacts of efforts to revitalize the peninsula. B79. Lieutenant Klein is a sworn peace officer with the City of Newport Beach Police Department. The Chief of Police has assigned the responsibility for reviewing service needs from development projects to Lieutenant Klein.. Lieutenant Klein stated that all calls requesting police service are routed through a computerized call response system. This system tracks information related to the call such as time of the call, personnel dispatched, arrival time, and incident information. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B80. The actual number of service calls for the existing project site is not readily available. The Police Department does not have a multiplier that would predict requests for Michnot Bmndman Associates H.Wlim (M- JN)M64V0 MFJk20W64ER20_RTC 7 -1 fiml.dm Madnapsdc Resort and Community Plan - Response to Commanra on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments service by land use type. The assessment of the project's effect on the Police Department was qualitative; and therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B81. The July 4th holiday is considered the busiest time of the year for the Police Department. As a result of this, it is Police Department policy to require all sworn personnel to work that day. Historically, the majority of the holiday activity on the Balboa Peninsula has been located between 32nd Street and Orange Street. The project site is not located within this identified area. In the estimation of Lieutenant Klein and the Chief of Police, existing hotels on Balboa Peninsula do not and the proposed project would not require the reallocation of existing staffing patterns or the requirement for additional sworn personnel. Therefore, findings presented in the ' Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' B82. The Police Department considers summer months and holidays to be peak demand periods. Please see response to comment B81 regarding staffing on the Fourth of July. 1 B83. Specialist Kim Lerch is a senior member of the Fire Prevention staff and is responsible for the review and evaluation of all commercial and residential developments throughout the City. In addition, Specialist Lerch is recognized by the ' State as a Fire Protection Plans Examiner. A routine part of these duties include the examination and evaluation of development proposals throughout the City. Furthermore, the City's Fire Marshall has reviewed and concurred with the finding that the project would result in a less than significant impact on the City's fire protection services. B84. Based on written response from Ms. Kim Lerch, Fire Prevention Specialist with the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, the first responding fire station, Station 1, located at 110 E. Balboa Boulevard is within one mile of the project site. The second 1 closest fire station responding to the project site is Station 2 located at 475 32nd Street. Station 2 is also within one mile of the project site. Response time from either station to the project site would be comparable and would meet the required response time. While Station 2 is equipped with 1 medic van and 2 medical ' personnel, all responding fire personnel do have appropriate training to handle medical emergencies. Fire personnel from Station 1 would be able to respond to medical emergencies at the project site. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B85. Internal circulation per fire access roads within the project site would provide adequate access of fire department equipment and vehicles. Section 5.9.2 of the Draft EIR discusses onsite circulation. In addition, the project site plan (Exhibit 3 -3) depicts the location and dimension of the fire access roads and location of fire hydrants within the project site. Please see the project site plan in Section 3 of the Draft EIR for further information. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' B86. Per the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department, the City does not anticipate any necessary improvement projects in order to meet water supply service demands for the proposed project. The City has adequate water supply capacity to serve the development as provided in the City Water Master Plan (E. Davidson, 2003). In Michael Brandman Associates ' HXUnt (PN.JN)\006410064ER20\0064ER20- -RTC 7 -1 fMIA c �� Marinepark Resort and Community Plan - Reeponse to Comments on the Oran EIR Responses To Comments addition, written correspondence from the City Fire Department indicated that adequate water supply is available for fire suppression services. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B87. Please see response to comment B32 relative to cumulative impacts of efforts to revitalize the peninsula. B88. The use of the high range,of the estimate provided (8.6 lbs/day) allows for the potential maximum effect to be presented and analyzed for purposes of environmental evaluation. Generally, when ranges of possible values are used in environmental analysis, the end of the value range that represents the "worst case" value is used in order to afford the fullest environmental analysis possible. For example, as the comment indicates, some of the residents occupy the homes on a part-time basis. If the existing estimate of solid waste generation were based solely on current occupancy, and this occupancy were to change, then the estimate would be wrong. Solid waste generation rates generally estimate by type of land use that includes various types of solid waste. Section 6.04.140 of the City Municipal Code prohibits the accumulation of garbage for periods greater than one week and refuse greater than 15 days. Weekly collection of garbage and refuse is typical. There is no evidence that an increase in the collection frequency will be required for the proposed project. Garbage is specifically defined in the City Municipal Code (6.04.0 10) and could include wet kitchen trash. The proposed project would be served by the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in Orange County. This landfill has a remaining capacity of 92 million cubic yards as of June 30, 2003 with a projected closure date of 2022. In addition, the County of Orange is served by two additional landfills, Olinda Alpha and Prima Deshecha. The Olinda Alpha Landfill's remaining capacity as of June 30, 2003 was 44.74 million cubic yards with an estimated closure date of 2013. Preparation of an EIR is underway to extend the closure date of Olinda Alpha to 2021. The Prima Deschecha Landfill's remaining capacity as of June 30, 2003 was 85.57 million cubic yards with an estimated closure date of 2067. As of June 2003, the total Orange County landfill capacity remaining was 222.52 million cubic yards. The State of California threshold of significance for solid waste is based on a region's landfill capability of supporting solid waste disposal for the next 15 years. John Amau, Planner III with the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department, confirmed that the County of Orange has sufficient remaining landfill capacity to serve the entire Orange County area (including growth projections) and will continue to have capacity beyond the significance threshold of 2019. Projected capacity and scheduled close dates of existing landfill were calculated using projected population growth rates. While the proposed project would generate a higher amount of solid waste than the existing land use, current landfill facilities are able to accommodate for the increased amount of solid waste created by the proposed project now and in the future. The County of Orange can accommodate the proposed project as well as the cumulative amount of solid waste generated by pending development projects. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Micheal Brandmen Aseocietea H1CGem (PN- JN)%W\00 ER20 D0 E= -RTC 7.1 fwal.dw 1 ' Mannapark Resort and Community Plan - Reoponae to Comments on the Draft EIR Responsea To Comments i B89. Relocation of water lines result in the construction of the new water line prior to removal of the old water line. Water service would be disrupted for a brief period of time while connections between the existing water line and the new water line are completed. No significant disruption of water service would occur to surrounding land uses. ' B90. Based on discussions with Eldon Davidson, Utilities Director of the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department, there is existing capacity to adequately serve the proposed project which would generate three times as much wastewater than the existing land uses. The revitalization efforts on the Peninsula relate to beautification improvements which would not increase wastewater. 511 B91. Based on a written response from Kris Keas, Technical Supervisor with the Gas ' Company, Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Gas service to the project site can be provided from existing gas mains located in various locations nearby. Based on written response from Jane S. Brown at Edison International, Edison is 1 prepared to provide electrical service to the proposed project. The City currently has revitalization efforts on the Peninsula; however, these efforts include landscape improvements and pavement upgrades, which do not create a demand for additional gas or electricity. Therefore, the cumulative evaluation provided in the Draft EIR is adequate. B92. Please see response to comment B46 regarding benthic habitat and benthic infauna ' and epifauna B93. Please see response to comment B32 relative to cumulative impacts of efforts to revitalize, the peninsula. B94. This comment is noted. CEQA does not require an analysis of all of the impacts associated with the existing condition. CEQA requires a Draft EIR to evaluate impacts if the Alternatives are environmentally superior to the Project and whether they feasibly attain project objectives. The Draft EIR contains the required analysis. ' B95. Project objectives can include economic goals as well as environmental goals. Please see response to comment B27 regarding the project meeting the objectives set forth for the proposed project in the Draft EIR. B96. The typical daily and peak hour trip generation for the Marine Recreation Alternative could vary. However, based on the provision of 227 additional public parking spaces 1 (248 proposed minus 21 existing) approximately 900 to 1,360 ADT (net 780 to 1,240 ADT) would be generated based on a conservative turn- over rate of each parking lot by two to three times per day (i.e., each space is used two or three times each day). ' This would result in a net increase of 780 to 1,240 ADT after removal of the number of assumed ADT associated with the mobile home units (i.e., 120 ADT) Realistically, the actual turnover rate would likely be much higher, on the order of four or five. Consequently, it is quite reasonable to expect that the Marine ' Recreation Alternative with a conservative estimate of a net increase of 780 to 1,240 ADT would exceed the net 520 ADT and the 24 to 32 peak hour trips anticipated ' from the proposed Marina Park Resort project. Micheal arandman Amoelatm ' HXIieM l rM- nn\0004\0064ER20)0064ERM-RTC 7-1 &W.dw 511 Alarinapatk Resat and Community Plan - Responae to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responaes To Comments B97. CEQA requires the EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. (Guidelines, section 15126.6(a).) As explained on pages 7 -1 and 7 -2 of the DEB2, the discussion focused on alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative, nor is it required to analyze project alternatives at the same level of detail as the project under consideration. CEQA requires consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, enough to allow the decision maker "a reasoned choice." (Guidelines, section 15126.6(f).) Only feasible alternatives should be discussed, based on factors including the "site suitability" and "economic viability" of the options. The Marinapark DEBZ identified the project objectives and staff developed a range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the objectives while lessening adverse impacts. The No Project alternative, specifically required by CEQA, assumes the continuation of the current land uses. The Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative focuses on the provision of public and water - oriented recreational opportunities, allowing the City decision makers to compare the environmental advantages and disadvantages of such an option. The Reduced Density Alternative looks at a smaller resort, with a freestanding restaurant. This carefully designed range of alternatives provides the public and decision makers with a framework for evaluating the impacts of the Marinapark project in the context of feasible alternatives. The commentor states that a modified design and incorporation of mitigation measures in the Marine Recreation alternative likely would result in lesser impacts on hydrology and water quality. The Marine Recreation Alternative was designed to be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and tidelands restrictions, accommodate a revenue generating use (i.e., boat slips), and optimize the public recreational opportunities. CEQA does not require the plans for this alternative to be as fully developed as for the proposed project. If additional modifications were made to this alternative, the impacts could be further modified as well. The alternative as discussed, however, serves to provide the decision makers with a point of comparison in evaluating the impacts and desirability of the proposed project. B98. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of the alternatives to the proposed project. The commentor states that a modified design and incorporation of mitigation measures in the Marine Recreation alternative likely would result in lesser impacts on biological resources. The Marine Recreation Alternative was designed to be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and tidelands restrictions, accommodate a revenue generating use (i.e., boat slips), and optimize the public recreational opportunities. CEQA does not require the plans for this alternative to be as fully developed as for the proposed project. If additional modifications were made to this alternative, the impacts could be further modified as well. The alternative as discussed, however, serves to provide the decision makers with a point of comparison in evaluating the impacts and desirability of the proposed project.. B99. In the introduction to the alternatives analysis on page 7 -1 and under the discussion of Land Use on page 7-4, the Draft EIR states that the Marine Recreation Alternative is consistent with the existing Recreation and Environmental Open Space Michael Bmndman Aasocletm HA rbeft (PN- .Rd)V0064\W64ER2D"64CH7a RTC 7- 15m1 .dM �� ' Marrnapark Resort and Commrmlty Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft OR Responses To Commants designation, was selected for that reason, and would not require an amendment to the General Plan. 'B100. The commentor states that a modified design in the Reduced Intensity Alternative likely would result in less traffic impacts. The Marine Recreation Alternative was ' designed to be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and tidelands restrictions, accommodate a revenue generating use (i.e., boat slips), and optimize the public recreational opportunities. CEQA does not require the plans for this alternative to be as fully developed as for the proposed project. If additional modifications were made to this alternative, the impacts could be further modified as well. The alternative as discussed, however, serves to provide the decision makers with a point of comparison in evaluating the impacts and desirability of the proposed ' project. B101. After preparation of the Initial Study and before completion of the Draft EIR, the ' project proponent changed the name of the proposed luxury resort hotel and related on -site community facilities from the "Regent Newport Beach Hotel' to the "Marinapark Resort and Community Plan ". 1 l__ 1 I 1 Michael Brandman Associales ' H1Chen[ (PN -1N \0064`A "ER2ff0064ER20_iTC 7 -1 final.doc 506 CALIFORNIA f ISNtG +:'AE Ala \9" [1 I I c State of California - The Resources Aqency ARNOLD SCHINARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME MARINE REGION 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100 Monterey, California 93940 (831) 649 -2870 http://www.dfq.ca.qov Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 May 28, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN :.3 2004 PM 17 819110111112111213141516 ' RE: Comments on the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 200311021 ' Dear Mr. Campbell: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the City of Newport Beach's (City) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Project, located on West Balboa Boulevard, between -18th and 15th Streets, in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The proposed project would develop a 110 -room luxury resort hotel consisting of one and two -story villas and ancillary structures such as an administrative building, lobby, spa, subterranean parking structure, and tennis courts. The proposed project would displace an existing 56 -space mobile home park and would remove a community center, play areas, public tennis courts, and parking spaces. The community center, the play areas, and the parking lot are to be replaced. The project includes development on 8.10 acres. The proposed project also includes beach enhancements, a public walkway, a new bulkhead to separate the beach from the boat slips, and a new 12 yacht marina within 1 Newport Bay. Approximately 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment will be dredged to -10 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to create a basin (0.23 acres) for the boat slips. ' As a Trustee Agency for the State's fish and wildlife resources, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of such species. In this capacity, the Department administers the California Endangered Species Act, the Native Plant Protection Act, and other provisions of the California Fish and Game Code that afford ' Conserving CaCifornia's Wild(ife Since 1870 57 Mr. James Campbell May 28, 2004 Page 2 protection to the State's fish and wildlife public trust resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). As a Trustee Agency, the Department must be consulted by the Lead Agency during the preparation and public review for project- specific CEQA documents if there are potential impacts to biological resources. The Department has the following concerns and comments regarding the proposed project: According to the DER, the new 317 ft-long bulkhead and the nine pilings for the docks will impact approximately 9,846 square feet (sq ft) of intertidal and subtidal habitat at depths between 0 and -8 ft MLLW. Additionally, the 70 ft-long concrete walkway (to the boat slips) will result in a loss of 490 sq ft of intertidal sandy beach habitat at elevations between 0 and +7 ft MLLW. The total amount of impacted marine habitat is estimated to be 10,336 sq ft. The project applicant plans to mitigate the habitat loss by identifying a "location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site," which would be subject to approval by the Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. The replacement area would be approximately 31,008 square feet, based on a mitigation ratio of 3:1. A mitigation and monitoring plan would be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. We question where this proposed mitigation will occur since past projects in the Newport Bay area have had difficulty finding appropriate mitigation sites. We request that the final EIR provide a location of where such a habitat replacement/mitigation site will be located. The project area includes one of the few sandy beaches in Newport Bay. This beach serves as important marine wildlife habitat and is currently utilized by shorebirds and seabirds, including the California brown pelican. In addition to the continual disturbance to shorebirds and seabirds from marina activities, the proposed concrete walkway will also reduce the amount of foraging and resting habitat available to these species. According to the project description (and incorporated in the calculation of the footage to be mitigated in biological mitigation measure BR -6, described above) approximately 490 square feet of intertidal habitat (0 to +7 MLLW) will be lost from installation of the cement walkway. The cement walkway would also split the shoreline which would interrupt tidal flows and water circulation. Mitigation measures HWQ -5 and BR -5 states that the applicant will design a pile supported elevated walkway to facilitate tidal circulation. This pile supported elevated walkway is also discussed in Section 4.2.2 of Appendix D as a way of reducing the amount of impacts on intertidal habitat. From the provided description, it is unclear what type of a walkway will be part of the project and what the impacts from the new walkway (e.g. intertidal habitat) will be. A full description of the proposed pile supported elevated walkway and the associated impacts will need to be made clear in the C WIN ' Mr. James Campbell May 28, 2004 1 Page 3 final EIR. The Department also has concerns with the proposed new bulkhead. It is our recommendation that bulkhead projects be constructed in such a manner to be least environmentally damaging, with minimal impacts to marine habitats. G� We request that the final EIR should discuss the necessity of the bulkhead and its design in more detail. The majority of the Newport Harbor shoreline is lined with bulkheads and boat slips. The proposed project will add 317 feet of new bulkhead and cover additional bay habitat. The new structures associated with the marina will cover a portion of the water column and result in the loss of foraging habitat for sight foraging marine birds such as the state and federally listed California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) and California least tem (Stema antillarum brownie). Page 5.3 -10 of the DEIR states that the effect of the project ' on these species' foraging habitat is considered a locally significant impact. G 3 However, no mitigation is provided. The coverage of bay surface area habitat associated with this project is of concern to the Department because of ' cumulative impacts from these kinds of activities. There are many private dock upgrade projects that routinely occur in Newport Bay (in 2003, at least 0.16 acres of additional bay coverage was proposed from small private dock upgrade projects [based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers letters of permission reviewed by the Department]). We believe the final EIR should address the cumulative impacts of projects that result in additional bay surface area coverage (see section 5.3.4). The exact square foot coverage from the new marina should be detailed. Additionally; the project proponent should propose mitigation for bay coverage in terms of habitat replacement (e.g. removal of obsolete ' docks /structures elsewhere in Newport Bay). Although the DEIR describes dredging impacts on marine plants, infauna, epifauna, fish, and birds, it fails describe the effects of dredging on the habitat itself. The new dredging will convert intertidal habitat to shallow subtidal habitat. According to the Biological Resources Impact Assessment (Appendix D), dredging will occur in a 0.23 acre site at depths between 0 and -12 ft MLLW. Thus, we assume that dredging will replace some intertidal habitat with shallow C4 subtidal habitat. Additionally, the DEIR does not mention that a newly dredged 1 substrate is more susceptible for colonization by opportunistic and invasive non - endemic organisms such as the Japanese mussel (Musculista senhousia), bubble snail (Philine auriformis), yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus), and ' Japanese brown algae (Sargassum muticum). The final EIR should specify the change in habitat type and address.the potential for invasive non - endemic ' organisms. As mentioned in the DEIR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is ' proposing to restore eelgrass habitat (Zostera marina) 150 feet west of the I G5 1 s7 Mr. James Campbell May 28, 2004 Page 4 proposed boat slips. The Corps project is anticipated to commence in the spring or summer of 2004. The proposed project involves dredging that could negatively affect the Corp's eelgrass restoration project. Although there is a mitigation measure to address maintenance dredging or other maintenance in the boat slips (BR -7), The Department recommends that the project proponent develop mitigation measures and /or "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to protect eelgrass habitat during the initial dredging, as suggested in Section 3.6.1.7 of Appendix D. A discussion of these mitigation measures and BMPs should be included it in the final EIR. Page 5.3 -10 states that construction activities will not affect California least tems as they will move to another foraging area. The Department disagrees, and recommends that in -water activities such as pile driving and dredging, be prohibited from April 1 to September 30, during the tem's nesting season (this is a standard recommendation for marina projects in this area). This should be incorporated as a mitigation measure and included in the final EIR. Dredging may result in the suspension of contaminated sediments and the fate of dredged materials is not clearly presented in the DEIR. The last mitigation measure in HWQ -2 discusses dredged material and states that scows will be towed to the disposal site. The Department questions where the disposal site will be. If in -bay placement is being considered, sediments need to be tested in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Corps Inland Testing Guidelines. As always, Department personnel are available to discuss our comments, concerns, and recommendations in greater detail. To arrange for a discussion please contact Ms. Marilyn Fluharty, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, telephone (858) 467 -4231. Sincerely, Eric J. Larson, Ecosystem Coordinator Marine Region - Belmont cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento (original sent to Lead Agency) PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3044 C5 C& G7 ,41 Mr. James Campbell May 28, 2004 Page 5 Marilyn Fluharty Department of Fish and Game San Diego, CA Ken Corey U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA Robert Hoffman NOAA Fisheries 501 West Ocean Boulevard Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 0 Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Reaponaea To Comments C. State of California, Department of Fish and Game Cl. Mitigation measure BR -6 on page 5.3 -13 in the Draft EIR references a replacement site for the loss of soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat. There are restoration projects that are underway or in the planning phases. These projects are located in Upper Newport Bay. These include: • Shellmaker Island habitat restoration associated with the proposed Back Bay Science Center (A City of Newport Beach and California Department of Fish ' and Game project) • Big Canyon Restoration Project (a City of Newport Beach/Califomia Coastal Conservancy project ' • The Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Feasibility Project (ACOE 2000) at North Star Beach, Tern Island, New Island Channel, Middle Island Channel, or ' Shellmaker Island Channel; As noted above, two of the restoration projects are co-sponsored by the City of Newport Beach. According to Dave Kiff, Newport Beach Assistant City Manager, ' project applicants that are required to mitigate for loss of subtidal or tidal habitat could participate in the project. The participation could include payment of a fee toward the restoration program. The details of the participation are not known at this time; however, according to the City, the restoration programs could provide an alternative site for habitat mitigation. ' C2. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a mitigation measure that modifies the design of the proposed dock. The recommended design would not include a bulkhead or groin wall and would not require placement of fill on the sandy beach. ' Mitigation measure BR-6 is revised to read as follows: Delete- "Prior to approval of the boat slip construction permit issued by the U.S. ' Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ' California Department of Fish and Gam, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 3:1, 31,008.2 square feet (0.71 acre) would need to be replaced. In ' accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the ' boat slip construction permit shall be implemented." Add: "Prior to approval of the boat dock construction permit issued by the U.S. ' Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the project applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ' California Department of Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 41,344.24 square feet (0.95 acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Michael Brandman Associates ' H1Chm ( PN- JN)W64`A064ER20\0064ER20_RTC 7.1 fiml.doc 62 Misdnspark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft ER Responses To Comments Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan shall be ' developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat dock construction permit shall be implemented. , With the implementation of mitigation measure BR -5, the project's potential effect would be 9,846.06 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by ' the California Coastal Commission), 39,384.24 square feet (0.90 acre) of suitable soft , bottom benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced. With the implementation of the modified design as recommended in response to ' comment B20 and added as mitigation measure LU -1, the project's potential effect would be 13.6 square feet. With a mitigation ratio of 4:1 (as recommended by the California Coastal Commission), 54.4 square feet (0.001 acre) of suitable soft bottom ' benthic habitat and shorebird habitat would need to be replaced." C3. The loss of the foraging habitat for the California brown pelican and California least 1 tern is considered a locally significant impact. Mitigation measures BR -5 and BR -6 would reduce impacts on the foraging habitat to less than significant. C4. The proposed project includes dredging of intertidal and subtidal habitat. Mitigation , measure BR-6 refers to the replacement of soft bottom habitat and shorebird habitat. The replacement would need to be in -kind up to a 4:1 ratio. With the implementation ' of mitigation measures BR -5 and LU -1, the resulting dredging would only affect subtidal habitat. C5. Mitigation measure BR -1 includes BMPs during excavation activities. These BMPs , include the use of a silt curtain to contain all effluent within the construction zone. The use of a silt curtain would reduce potential impacts on the proposed eelgrass restoration area to less than significant. , C6. This comment regarding the timing for in -water construction activities is noted. The following is added as a bullet to mitigation measure HWQ-1. ' • Construction Timing: Restrict in -water construction activities between October 1 through March 31. C7. According to the Limited Phase 11 site assessments, the bayfloor sediments proposed for dredging do not have contaminate concentrations that exceed current standards. The modified boat dock would require 400 to 500 cubic yards of bayfloor sediment. The disposal location of the dredged sediment could be either an existing shoreline if , the sediment characteristics are 80 percent or greater of sand or if the sediment is less than 80 percent sand, the sediment would be required to be disposed of at an Environmental Protection Agency - approved dump site located approximately 17 ' miles off -shore in the vicinity of Catalina Island. 1 1 1 Michael Bmndman Associates n:'Chem (M -ni WM`0DMERWW64BR2D -RTC 7 -1 fimldoc 63 Jun - 09-2004 03:35pm From - California Coastal Commission ' CALIFORNIA COASTAL Swth Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 'Lang aeech, CA 908024302 (582) W-5071 Mr. ,lames W. Campbell, City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 926( ' Re. Marinapark Rest Draft Environme ' Dear Mr. Campbell, ' The following comments Chapter 3 policies of the C preliminary and those of C representing the opinion C ' project raises issues relab access and recreation, ' Below are the comments 1. Wetlands. ' The proposed car waters. The bulkl habitat, while the T-784 P.002 /006 F -404 noun, n ell rc Planner & Commuiilty Plan d Impact Report (SCH# 200311021) June 9, 2004 (to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the fnity Plan Project. According to the Draft Environmental Impact consists of. removal of the 56 -space Marinapark mobile home park ldated with Las Arenas Park (Balboa Community Center, Girl area, 4 public tennis courts, and a metered 21 -space parking lot), Center /Girl Scout House structure, a tot lot, a 41 -space shared V resort hotel (up to 12 rooms are proposed to be available for :diary hotel structures (including an administrative building, a hotel i), 59- parking spaces adjacent to the proposed villas, 9- handicap subterranean parking structure that will support 4- roof top public :ments Including fill, 12 new boat slips (including 4 slips for public is, a gangway, a groin wall at either end of the basin to contain the ide of the boat slips, a public beachfront walkway, and a concrete to the proposed boat slips on the Madnapark property. ated within the coastal zone In the City of Newport Beach, The require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal (dress the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the alifomia Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are )astal Commission staff only and should not be construed as the Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the proposed i to the protection of wetland habitat, water quality, and coastal Commission staff on the Draft Environmental impact Report. walkway, groin walls and bulkhead will result in fill of open coastal (D q will impact 9,847 square feet of Intertidal and soft bottom benthic 1 may will result in the loss of 490 square feet of intertidal sand 6q Thank you for -the opporh Madnapark Resort & Con Report, the proposed pro, and existing onsite uses, ' Scout House, children's G construction of a Commu parking lot, a 110 -room lu fractional ownership) and lobby building, and a spa parking spaces; a 100 -sp ' tennis courts, beach enhE use) supported by 9 -14" F fill, a bulkhead on the sou ' walkway from the resort h The proposed project is IC proposed development wi Commission. ' The following comments Chapter 3 policies of the C preliminary and those of C representing the opinion C ' project raises issues relab access and recreation, ' Below are the comments 1. Wetlands. ' The proposed car waters. The bulkl habitat, while the T-784 P.002 /006 F -404 noun, n ell rc Planner & Commuiilty Plan d Impact Report (SCH# 200311021) June 9, 2004 (to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the fnity Plan Project. According to the Draft Environmental Impact consists of. removal of the 56 -space Marinapark mobile home park ldated with Las Arenas Park (Balboa Community Center, Girl area, 4 public tennis courts, and a metered 21 -space parking lot), Center /Girl Scout House structure, a tot lot, a 41 -space shared V resort hotel (up to 12 rooms are proposed to be available for :diary hotel structures (including an administrative building, a hotel i), 59- parking spaces adjacent to the proposed villas, 9- handicap subterranean parking structure that will support 4- roof top public :ments Including fill, 12 new boat slips (including 4 slips for public is, a gangway, a groin wall at either end of the basin to contain the ide of the boat slips, a public beachfront walkway, and a concrete to the proposed boat slips on the Madnapark property. ated within the coastal zone In the City of Newport Beach, The require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal (dress the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the alifomia Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are )astal Commission staff only and should not be construed as the Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the proposed i to the protection of wetland habitat, water quality, and coastal Commission staff on the Draft Environmental impact Report. walkway, groin walls and bulkhead will result in fill of open coastal (D q will impact 9,847 square feet of Intertidal and soft bottom benthic 1 may will result in the loss of 490 square feet of intertidal sand 6q Jun -09 -2004 03:35pm From - California Coastal Commission 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Mannapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 2 of 5 T -784 P.003/006 F -404 , beach habitat and ssociated organisms. The total amount of affected soft bottom , habitat is approxim tely 10,336 Square feet The quantity of fill related to the grain walls tat alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when is not supplied in t EiR. Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act defines "Fill" as the , placement of earth r any other substance or material placed in a submerged area. ' Section 30233 of t e Coastal Act limits the fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to "Fill" currently exist. Se eight uses and it a pears that the proposed project does result in of open coastal , waters. Furthermo , that fill is associated with a use that is not one of the eight uses P 3' where 'Fill" is allo d. Projects that propose the fill of wetlands and /or coastal waters, p must demonstrate t the proposed impact would be allowable under the Coastal ACt. ' If allowable the pro act must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The , EIR should include an analysis documenting how the proposed fill would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act. Also, clarification should be made on whether or not ' the delineation of etlands and coastal waters was based on Coastal Act standards or another agency's (i e. Army Corps of Engineers) standard. If the habitat delineation and calculation of fill not determined by Coastal Act definitions, then a revised biological analysis regarding a proposed fill should be conducted using the Coastal Act ' .definitions. Should the propose d fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the , loss of any wetland and open coastal waters. The EIR should include a mitigation plan, tat alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when which specifically i entifles how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the alternatives beaches in danger evaluated in develc ping the mitigation plan. ' Typically, the Comi iission prefers on -site mitigation to off -site mitigation. The currently exist. Se Commission typica ly requires that mitigation be done at a 4:1 ratio. in addition, the owed and it appears that the proposed fill is not an allowable applicant must be f illy responsible for undertaking the mitigation. In this way, the P 3' Commission is assi ired that the mitigation will occur and it is clear who is responsible for be inconsistent with Section 30233 and 30235 of the Coastal Act. undertaking and m naging the mitigation. The EIR should discuss the mitigation that Possible project al1jamatives would be required_ alter the shoreline Ond , Section 30233 of tt a Coastal Act limits the fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to eight uses. Sectloi 30235 of the Coastal Act states that groins, seawalls, and other such construction t tat alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve stal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger rom erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on locals reline sand supply. The proposed proji ct includes construction of groins and a bulkhead where none currently exist. Se lion 30233 of the Coastal Act discuses uses In which fill of open coastal waters is a owed and it appears that the proposed fill is not an allowable development. In a dition, there has been no demonstration that the proposed groins and bulkhead are r ecessary to protect existing structures. Therefore, these components of the project wouli be inconsistent with Section 30233 and 30235 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, due to i impact on open coastal waters, an altematives analysis is needed. Possible project al1jamatives should avoid new groins, bulkheads or any devices that alter the shoreline Ond Instead focus on siting development to avoid erosion and other hazards without us of such devices. The EIR should analyze an alternative 1 Det 1 DS , ' Jun- 09-2004 03:36pm From - California Coastal Commission T-794 P.004 1006 ' Craft Environmental Impact Report arinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 3of5 development desig that avoids reliance upon shoreline protective devices and any structures, such as rains, that alter natural shoreline processes. 3. I 1] h 1 I I] Section 30222 of recreational facilit over general comi lower cost visitor i feasible provided. The project site cL (Las Arenas Park, home park would I hotel. In addition, onsite consisting c 4 public tennis cot all of the recreatloi project would insr The City's General Recreational and E Recreational and E aquatic facilities, ej American Legion. Me end of the exist the lease should b maintain and imp Marinapark mobile Indicates that nei with the existing la City proposes to c Open Space to th accommodate the Section 30222 of t visitor serving co Coastal Act which protected, encou i Report provided al the MannaPin g mark M i of the existo project site and w i The proposed use i cost visitor and rei i luxury hotel use, I inventory is need as an analysis of t EIR should contai Coastal Act places a priority on visitor - serving commercial designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation 'dial development. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states that recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and where F -404 ently consists of a mobile home park and public recreational facilities ie public beach and the Balboa Community Center). The mobile removed in the proposed project and replaced with a luxury resort ,e proposed project would demolish the existing recreational facilities Las Arenas Park, the Balboa Community Center, Girt Scouts House, s, and a children's play area. The proposed project would replace it facilities except a basketball half -court. In addition, the proposed 12 new boat slips, 4 of which will be for public use. Plan and certified Land Use Plan (LUP) designate the area as vironmental Open Space. The LUP states: °M is designated for �vlronmentel Open Space, and Is proposed to be ultimately used for rpanded beach, and community facilities such as the existing The existing mobile home park use will be allowed to continue until ing lease. At that time the City will make the decisions as to whether P further extended, or the property converted to public use. The shall ve, where practical, publIc access to the site bayward of the kiomes.° This characterization of the Marinapark area in the LUP 3r the existing mobile home park nor the proposed hotel is consistent id use designation for the site. In order for the project to proceed, the ange the existing designation of Recreational and Environmental designation of Recreational and Marine Commercial to iroposed development. While the proposed project will conform . to e Coastal Act since the private residential would be replaced with nercial facilities, the project may be at odds with Section 30213 of the itates that lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be led, and where feasible provided. The Draft Environmental Impact amatives to the proposed project and one of those alternatives was ine Recreational Alternative. This alternative consists of the removal le homes, and the development of recreational facilities on the ild be consistent with Sections 30222 and 30213 of the Coastal Act. m site would be luxury resort hotel, which would not serve as a lower eational facility. To assist staff in determining the type of use (i.e. ver cost uses such as a park, etc.) that is needed in the area, an that discusses the types of uses that are located in the area as well a present and anticipated future demand for each type of use. The this type of analysis as part of the review of alternatives for the site. ps I Tp.6 M01 Jun - 09-2004 03:36am From-California Coastal Commission Draft Environmental Impact Report spark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 4 of 5 T-784 P.005/006 F -404 , 1 4. Water ual' management utilizes a three- pronged approach: site design, source , The Draft Environmental Impact Report discusses water quality in terms of CEQA requirements, Regic lal board requirements and City requirements. In addition to ' CEQA, Regional Bo krd, City and other regulatory requirements, the proposed project will P� undergo review basi id upon water quality provisions in the Coastal Act. Sections 30230 D9 and 30231 of the lifomia Coastal Act provide the broad basis for protecting coastal waters, habitats, an biodiversity from degradation of water quality associated with new ' and redevelopment. itation, and reducing roadway or parking lot length. Some examples , Sound water quality management utilizes a three- pronged approach: site design, source , control, and treatment control Best Management Practices. A successful program would first incorporate site design measures to minimize impact to the hydrologic landscape ect needs to demonstrate that it is minimizing to the maximum extent and source control I lost Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce dry weather flows and , the generation and i ritroduction of pollutants into runoff. A few examples of site design D9 practices include mr iimizing Impervious surfaces,. using porous pavements or alternative pavers in parking a s, preserving native vegetation and root systems, minimizing houid be address constituents. erosion and sedime itation, and reducing roadway or parking lot length. Some examples , of source control BP IN include planting native, drought tolerant, non-invasive vegetation; minimizi ig pesticide and fertilizer use; using efficient irrigation systems; and implementing parkir g lot and street.sweeping programs, among other measures. ' After site design an (typically in a treatn proposed) should b designed to treat th addition, the propo: impacts generated construction struott filter the amount of percentile, 24 -hour hour storm event, v BMPs. Based on Section ensure that a dew its impact to coast redevelopment pr feasible the Impac incorporate, and t control Best Mane entire site. Parkir flows, and trash a areas, and BMPs source control BMPs have been designed, treatment control BMPs , rnt train approach for an extensive development like the one designed for the development. Treatment control BMPs should be specific pollutants generated on each portion of the site. In d measures muss be sized and designed to mitigate water quality ' f the development. As a goal, the Commission has required post- al BMPs (or suites of BMPs) should be designed to treat, infiltrate or tommwater runoff produced by all storms up to and including the 85th , toms event for volume -based BMPs, and /or the 85th percentile, 1- :h an appropriate safety factor (W., 2 or greater), for flow -based Finally, Commissi n staff suggests use of catch basin Inserts throughout the I D development, use f filtrations stems near areas with especially high risk of pollutant generation (loadin /unloading docks, parking lots, etc.), and the use of blofiltration. �7 � , 0230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission must 3pment minimizes to the maximum extent feasible polluted runoff and I waters. Even where there is existing development on a site, a ect needs to demonstrate that it is minimizing to the maximum extent D to coastal water quality. Therefore, the development should a EIR should discuss, the site design, source control, and treatment ement Practices (BMPs) that will be used in association with the , lots, landscaped areas, loading and unloading docks, dry weather i debris are common constituents in commercial and residential designed to these ' houid be address constituents. Finally, Commissi n staff suggests use of catch basin Inserts throughout the I D development, use f filtrations stems near areas with especially high risk of pollutant generation (loadin /unloading docks, parking lots, etc.), and the use of blofiltration. �7 � I 1 Jun - 09-2004 03:37am From - California Coastal Commission ' and and upper bay, private property maximize protec ' proposed, are tt various altemati ' Thank you for the oppo Marinapark Resort & C ' future activity associate provided herein are pre appropriate as the projt coastal development pt ' questions. 1 Ferule: Coastal ' Cc: State H iH: \fsy \EIR's \Comment graft Environmental Impact Report Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 5 of 5 T -794 P.000 /009 F -404 )nated as a Coastal View Area in the LUP. The Draft EIR states that i Balboa Boulevard across the project site to Newport Bay are the extreme, easterly end of the site. Furthermore, the draft EIR 9guration of proposed buildings incorporates two open air corridors e project entrance on Balboa Boulevard, flank the hotel lobby st and west sides, and continue to the beach and water. These rorrldors will also serve as additional coastal view corridors to the Bay \t-of -way at Balboa Boulevard. The EIR indicates that views from the way will be protected since the proposed structures will be no closer than those now on the site. The LUP states that existing view Id be protected and enhanced, especially views of the ocean, harbor, here coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on thin the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to in of the coastal view. While it appears that additional views may be e any other opportunities for extra views? The EIR should discuss s that maximize the provision of public views across the site. city to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the munity Plan Project. Commission staff request notification of any Ath this project or related projects. Please note, the comments inary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be develops Into final form and when an application is submitted for a iit. Please feel free to contact me at 562- 590 -5071 with any Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Project (SCH# 200311021)NB Pia 1 1 65 Coastal views Marinapark Is des ' existing views frol currently limited b states that the col that extend from t structure on the e additional access from the public ric 18'" Street right -c to this right -of-wa ' and and upper bay, private property maximize protec ' proposed, are tt various altemati ' Thank you for the oppo Marinapark Resort & C ' future activity associate provided herein are pre appropriate as the projt coastal development pt ' questions. 1 Ferule: Coastal ' Cc: State H iH: \fsy \EIR's \Comment graft Environmental Impact Report Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Page 5 of 5 T -794 P.000 /009 F -404 )nated as a Coastal View Area in the LUP. The Draft EIR states that i Balboa Boulevard across the project site to Newport Bay are the extreme, easterly end of the site. Furthermore, the draft EIR 9guration of proposed buildings incorporates two open air corridors e project entrance on Balboa Boulevard, flank the hotel lobby st and west sides, and continue to the beach and water. These rorrldors will also serve as additional coastal view corridors to the Bay \t-of -way at Balboa Boulevard. The EIR indicates that views from the way will be protected since the proposed structures will be no closer than those now on the site. The LUP states that existing view Id be protected and enhanced, especially views of the ocean, harbor, here coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on thin the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to in of the coastal view. While it appears that additional views may be e any other opportunities for extra views? The EIR should discuss s that maximize the provision of public views across the site. city to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the munity Plan Project. Commission staff request notification of any Ath this project or related projects. Please note, the comments inary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be develops Into final form and when an application is submitted for a iit. Please feel free to contact me at 562- 590 -5071 with any Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Project Project (SCH# 200311021)NB Pia 1 1 65 Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Responm to Comments on Me Dreg OR Responses To Comments ' D. California Coastal Commission ' Dl. This comment regarding fill as part of the proposed project is noted. As discussed in response to comment B20, a mitigation measure is recommended to modify the proposed dock so that there would be no bulkhead, no groin wall, and no fill. With ' the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project would not include fill activities and therefore, Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act would not apply. ' D2. Please see response to comment D 1 regarding fill activities. D3. This comment regarding the mitigation ratio is noted and has been incorporated in the ' revised mitigation measure BR-6 as discussed in response to comment C2: D4. Please see response to comment D 1 regarding fill activities. ' D5. Please see response to comment Dl regarding fill activities. D6. Please see response to comment D7 below regarding the provision of lower cost ' visitor and recreational facilities. D7. As stated on Pages 1-6 and 5.4 -12 of the DEIR, the project includes the replacement ' of all existing recreational facilities, including the public beach, with the exception of the basketball half -court. Therefore, the project will continue to provide lower cost visitor and recreational facilities consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act. ' The Marine Recreation alternative would provide more of these facilities through the provision of a full basketball court an additional 1.64 acres of parkland and a public boat launch. As boating is not necessarily a low cost activity, the alternative's ' provision of 20 boat slips at 40 feet in length may or may not satisfy Section 30213. There is an abundance of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities on the Balboa Peninsula, and very few luxury facilities. West Newport and the Peninsula have over ' five miles of wide, sandy beaches, all of which are available to visitors at no cost. There are two public piers on the Peninsula, from which the public may fish at no cost. The commercial areas on the Peninsula, particularly Balboa Village and ' McFadden Square, are dominated by lower cost restaurants and shops. The Retail Commercial Market Analysis prepared for the City's General Plan update in 2002 found that Balboa Village has very low sales per square foot, $128.80 compared to a ' national average of $265 to $399. McFadden Square has slightly higher sales per square foot, at $189.90. While this low sales performance is attributable, in part, to the seasonable nature of the market, it also is reflective of the low cost of the goods ' and services offered in response to demand from visitors to the beach. Similarly, there are lower cost visitor accommodations in the area. Peak summer rates at hotels and motels in Newport Beach range from $69 to $750 per night. Every hotel and ' motel on the Peninsula offers rooms for under $200. For example, the Best Western Bay Shores Inn, across 18th Street from the project site, has rooms available for $180 per night during the peak season. The Newport Dunes provides a 406 -space recreational vehicle park, with tent camping permitted. In 2003, peak summer rates ' ranged from $42 to $139 per night. Mkhael Brandman Associates ' H "+Client ( PN- JN)V0064b064ER20X0064ER70_RTC 7 -1 fimU n Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Resoonse to Comments on the Draft EIR To Comments ' D8. The comment regarding water quality is noted. The following will be added to the ' discussion under the Water Quality subsection immediately following the Regulatory Setting subheading on page 5.2-4 of the Draft EIR: "The ' Add: proposed project is subject to review for conformance with the provisions of Section 30230 of the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code) pertaining to marine resources and Section 30231 of the ' California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code) pertaining to biological productivity." D9. The proposed project incorporates site design features and source control measures in ' order to minimize potential impacts. Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR identifies , recommended mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate pollutants that have the potential to affect off -site water quality. Mitigation Measure HWQ-2 ' includes site design and source control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Site design BMPs includes erosion control measures, trash enclosures, and a reduction in ' the amount of impervious surfaces allowing for a greater amount of percolation. The ' erosion control BMP controls potential erosion by establishing ground cover within ' landscaped areas. The trash enclosure BMP prevents stormwater from coming into contact with any trash. Source control measures include BMPs such as litter control, , an irrigation system that prevents over - watering, water quality systems, and catch ' basin inserts. Mitigation Measure HWQ -3 includes source control BMPs for the boat slips portion of the proposed project. Therefore, the findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' DI O. Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR contain recommended mitigation measures that include treatment controls for the landside portion of the development that include , the hotel and other improvements and for the boat slips proposed to be located in Newport Bay. These treatment controls BMPs are designed to address pollutants specific to each of these areas. Mitigation Measure HWQ-6 requires that the two on- ' site deteiition basins be sized to accommodate peak stormwater flows. The water quality system BMPs identified in Mitigation Measure HWQ -2 would be sized and designed to meet the constraints of the proposed development. A telephone , conversation on June 21 st, 2004, with Mr. Fernie Sy, Coastal Program Analyst with the California Coastal Commission confirmed that the performance goal for post- construction structural BMPs referenced in this comment is not a strict, pre-defined set of performance criteria. A telephone conversation on June 18th, 2004, with , Metropointe Engineers, the firm that prepared the Drainage Technical Study, including the Water Quality Management Plan, confirmed that these performance criteria would be met with the implementation of the recommended mitigation ' measures. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. ' DI 1. The proposed project includes site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used. Implementation of recommended Mitigation Measure HWQ-4 would require a water quality monitoring program be ' put into place that would ensure that all of the BMPs recommended in Mitigation Measures HWQ -I through HWQ -3 are effective. Please also see response to comments D -8 through D -I I regarding a discussion of the BMPs. , D12. Please see response to comments HI and D9 for a discussion on catch basin inserts. Michael Brandman Associates HACGem (PN- JN)\MM\0064ER20`OD64ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fml.dm 70 INerinapar* Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments D13. There are no coastal views from Balboa Boulevard in addition to those discussed in the Draft EIR. Section 1 of the Draft EIR includes an alternative (Marine Recreation Alternative) that would increase coastal views from Balboa Boulevard compared to the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates HACGent (PN- M\0064\W64ER20\W64ER20JRTC 7 -1 fmldoc 71 ' SMB 1 1 Terry Temminen Agency SeoretWy Cal /EPA June 7, 2004 Fax:714 -484 -5438 Jun 8 2004 8:18 P.02 L Department of Toxic Substances Control Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport, California 92659 Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, Califomia 90630 Arnold Schvrarzenegger Governor NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINAPARK RESORT & COMMUNITY PLAN (SCH #2003111021) ' Dear Mr. Campbell: ' The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Notice of Completion (NOC) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above - mentioned Project. ' Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: ' 1) Appendix A of the draft EIR shows that Hazards and Hazardous Materials are considered as environmental factors that Could result in a potentially significant impact according to the Environmental Checklist Form of the I nitial Study as a part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft EIR. However, these factors ' were determined not to be significantly affected by the proposed project during the preparation of the draft EIR. Please explain why these factors are no ' longer considered potentially significant. 2) Page 1 -5 of the draft EIR states that a Limited Phase II Soil Assessment was prepared. This Phase II report has not been provided with the draft EIR. The ' EIR states that "a low concentration of organochlorine pesticide was also detected at levels below significant thresholds and would not require regulatory involvement or remediation," Please elaborate on "levels below significant ' thresholds." 3) The draft EIR also states that it has been determined through soil sampie analysis that no further assessment or remediation is warranted in the project E 3 area. Please state whether any regulatory agency determined that no further action is warranted, and which agency made that determination. 1 0 Printed on ROcycled Paper SMg Fax :714- 484 -5438 Jun 8 2004 8 :18 P.03 , Mr. James Campbell June 7, 2004 Page 2 of 4 4) The draft EIR states that concentrations of semi- volatile organic compounds ' (SVOCs), organochlorinated. pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not present along the beach portion of the site. Is this statement meant to imply that these contaminants are present in the immediate vicinity along the beach portion? If so, how far away from the beach are these ' L1 contaminants? If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous substances, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall within the 'Border , Zone of a Contaminated Property.' DTSC should be contacted prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone Property." 5) On page 5.2 -5, the report states that based on the sediment samples taken in 2004 adjacent to the project site in the vicinity of the proposed boat slips, no detectable concentrations of SVOCs, OCPs, or PCBs were detected. ' However, the report states that in 1994, the State Water Resources Control Board, in conjunction with other federal and state agencies, studied sediment chemistry and toxicity and, based on the results of the sampling and their ' respective locations, sediments were found to contain elevated concentrations ES of mercury, copper, DDT, PCBs, tri -butyl tin, lead, DDE, and total Chlordane. Moreover, the report states that the Southem California Coastal Water , Research Project investigated sediments conditions in the Rhine Channel northwest of the project site and found similar concentrations in the sediments. Therefore, the draft EIR should identify which regulatory agencies are currently ' involved with the approval of this project. All environmental investigation and /or remediation should be conducted under a workplan which is approved by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste cleanup. , 6) Human health risk associated with the site should be evaluated. Potential indoor air intrusion associated with the project implementation should also be E ' evaluated. 7) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain ' areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of It rather than placing it in another C 7 location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas. excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure the imported soil is tree of contamination. 73 1 ' SIVIB Mr. James Campbell June 7, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Fax:714-484 -5438 Jun 8 2004 8 :18 P.04 8) Any hazardous wastes/matedais encountered during construction should be . remediated in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Prior to initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastes /substances exists at the Site. If So, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. it may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy ' should be implemented in compliance with state regulations and policies rather than excavation of soil prior to any assessments. ' 9) If during construction /demolition of the project, soil and /or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction /demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is ' determined that contaminated soil and /or groundwater exist, the draft EIR should identify how any required Investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory ' oversight. Prior to approving the draft EIR, please address all of DTSC's comments. As the lead ' agency, it is your responsibility to ensure that all of DTSC's concems are properly addressed. ' If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr, Johnson P. Abraham, Project. Manager, at (714) 4845476. ' Sincerely, Greg Holmes Unit Chief ' Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office cc: See next page 1 3 E q 7y M Mr_ James Campbell June 7, 2004 Page 4 of 4 Fax :714- 484 -5438 Jun 8 2004 8 :19 P.0����� cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812 -0806 ' Mednspant Resort &WCommonByPlan- Resporm to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Commente ' E. California Department of Toxic Substances Control ' E5. Please see response to comment B41 regarding hazardous materials on the project site. The Limited Phase II site assessments that were conducted for the proposed project will be required to be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as the California Coastal Commission prior to obtaining the required approvals from these State agencies for project implementation. E6. Based on the two Limited Phase II site assessments and the regulatory database review, no significant human health risks are associated with implementation of the proposed project. Please note that page 1-4 in the Draft EIR includes a mitigation measure related to the potential for the existing onsite structures to contain lead and asbestos materials. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure would reduce human health hazards to less than significant. Please also see response to comment B3 regarding airborne health hazards. E7. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor sediments. Eg. Please see response to comment B5 regarding the regulatory database review completed for the proposed project and B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor sediments to determine presence of hazardous contaminants. E9. Soil and/or groundwater contamination is not suspected because the only adjacent contamination that occurred on land was at 15th Street, and remediation was completed. Furthermore, bayfloor sediment samples were evaluated in the Limited Phase II site assessment, and the hazardous materials that were detected were at levels that are considered less than significant. Please see response to comment B41. Similar to any applicant throughout the State of California, if contamination was found, the applicant would be required to follow the appropriate regulatory requirements in remediating contamination. Michael Brandman Associates H:\Cli-t "- 1IJ)VDD6a10064ER2 9W4MM -StTC 7 -1 fimldoc 76 El. Please see response to comment B6 regarding an explanation of the preliminary evaluation that occurred in the Initial Study and a further analysis and explanation in the EIR. After the further analysis, it was determined that a mitigation measure could be implemented to reduce the potential significant hazardous materials impact. This discussion is provided in Section 1.6 in the Draft EIR. ' E2. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the concentration level of organochlorine pesticide and the regulatory action level. E3. The two Limited Phase II assessments determined that action levels were not exceeded in any of the samples. E4. The contaminants listed were evaluated in the Limited Phase II site assessment report. As described in response to comment B41, the evaluated contaminants did ' not exceed regulatory thresholds. Based on the EDR, Inc report prepared for the project, there are no existing contaminated sites within 2,000 feet of the project site. E5. Please see response to comment B41 regarding hazardous materials on the project site. The Limited Phase II site assessments that were conducted for the proposed project will be required to be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as the California Coastal Commission prior to obtaining the required approvals from these State agencies for project implementation. E6. Based on the two Limited Phase II site assessments and the regulatory database review, no significant human health risks are associated with implementation of the proposed project. Please note that page 1-4 in the Draft EIR includes a mitigation measure related to the potential for the existing onsite structures to contain lead and asbestos materials. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure would reduce human health hazards to less than significant. Please also see response to comment B3 regarding airborne health hazards. E7. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor sediments. Eg. Please see response to comment B5 regarding the regulatory database review completed for the proposed project and B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor sediments to determine presence of hazardous contaminants. E9. Soil and/or groundwater contamination is not suspected because the only adjacent contamination that occurred on land was at 15th Street, and remediation was completed. Furthermore, bayfloor sediment samples were evaluated in the Limited Phase II site assessment, and the hazardous materials that were detected were at levels that are considered less than significant. Please see response to comment B41. Similar to any applicant throughout the State of California, if contamination was found, the applicant would be required to follow the appropriate regulatory requirements in remediating contamination. Michael Brandman Associates H:\Cli-t "- 1IJ)VDD6a10064ER2 9W4MM -StTC 7 -1 fimldoc 76 1 CALIFORNIA WASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 1818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor ' Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 ' 1(213) 236.1800 f (213) 236.1825 Wwve.scag.ca.gov Resident: Coundimember Ron Roberts. I.: a • Amt Viu President: Supervisor Hank g IW. Imperial County • Second Vice PresideoL AM Toni Young, Pon Hueneme • Immediate P sidenL Coundlmember Bev Petry. area iM County: Hank guiper, Imperial County to Ids, Brawle, Ios Mgeles County: Vonore BrathwaRe Burke, C •Harry Baldw".,San Gaunel • Paul F r Cemms • Tomy Cardenas. Ws Angeles - et Clark, Rosemead • Gene Daniels, Paramount • Mike DispenRa. Palmdale • Judy Dunlap, Inglewood • Eric Garceti, Los Angeles - Wel Greve[. Ws Mgeles • Frank Gruff. t eles • Isadore Hall. Compton • Tom SB e, Ins Angeles • Ronnie Lowenthal. Long • Martin Ludlow. Ws Angeles • Keith McCarthy, Downey • Oesellyn Mill,, Claremont - Cindy Misdkowski. Los Angeles • Paul Nowatka. T ce • Pam O'onnnor, Sank Monica • Nei LRS Mgeles • BemarE Parks, Ws Mgeles I wry. Los Angeles • Bean Prao, Pico RNera as Ws Mgeles • Ore[g Smith. Los Mgeles Did Stanford, Azusa • Tom Sykes. Walnut • Paul TalbN. Alhambra • Sidney Tyler. Pasadena • Tone R = u"0"'. IOM Be a d, - Antonio Yllaairnsa, gel. • Dennis Washbum. Calabasas • lad Los Angeles • Bob 16useflan. Glendale - Zine, Ws Angeles Orange County: Chris Noebg Orange County Ronald Bates. dos Alamitos •Lou Bone. Tustin Buena Park • Richard Chavez, Anaheim D Cook. Huntington Beach • Cathryn D ng, Laguna NguN • Rihard Oanon. Lake • Alta Duke, I Palma • Bev Parry , Brea Tod Ridgewa, Newport Beach Riverside County: Marion Ashim Riverside JoeThomas Budles. lake Dsionfe • Bonnie Morena valley • Ron Loveridge, R de Greg Pettis, Cathedral Liry •Ron R s. Temecula San Bernardino County: Paul alone. San Bernardino County • Bill Alexander, Rancho Conga Edward Burros. Tmvn of Apple V Lawrence Oak, Barstow •Lee Mn Ga¢ia, G Tenace• Susan lnngville, San Bernardino• G iN, Ontario • Deborah Robertson. Rialto vemura County Judy Mikels, Ventura County G ecerta. Simi Valley • Cad Morehouse, San B durs, pool youn &Pon Hueneme e County Transportation Authority. C s Smith, Orange County Riverside County Transportation Commission: Robin Lowe, Hemel ra County Tnnsportalion Commission: Bill D Simival" nMe m lemdad Favor ss9 olw May 19,2004 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. Community Plan Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 6 2004 PM AM 19110 X11 X12,112,3141516 1 20040258 Marinapark Resort & Thank you for submitting the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. We have reviewed the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The proposed project is not a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 16-30, 2004 Interoovernmental Review Clearinohouse Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236 -1867. Thank you. Sincerely, JEFFREY M. SMITH, AICP Senior Regional Planner Intergovernmental Review 9p?-t-� /Z�2� F IL 1111 �1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !1 1 Madnepark Resort and Community phm - Response to Comments on the Draft OR Responses To Comments F. Southern California Association of Governments Fl. The City concurs with the Southern California Association of Governments regarding the determination that the proposed project is not a regionally significant project. Michael Bmndman Associstm H:`C w "- JN)\OW�OWERWW64MM -RTC 7 -1 fimUm F G _ Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Review Comments Submitted By City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission June 9, 2004 Harbor Commission Contact: Lorrie Arcese Secretary to the Harbor Commission 644-3034 7R Section 3: Project Description Section 3.1.2 Project Characteristics WEIR p 3 -1 and Exhibit 3 -4 following p 3 -1, and Boat Slips pp 3-5,6) " The proposed project includes the development of a luxury resort hotel with ancillary facilities that include an administrative building, spa villa, surface and subterranean parking, and 12 new slips that are supported by a bulkhead. A concrete walkway will extend from the resort hotel to the boat slips. A bulkhead will also be constructed and will separate the beach from the boat slips." Comment: The project description characterizes the water- dependent boat slips as an "ancillary facility" rather than as a major component of the project. While the resort hotel, (the primary use) is a visitor- serving use, it can function as such at any "resort" location, and is not absolutely dependent on a direct waterfront location to achieve it. It is thus not inherently a water-dependent or water - related use, but rather a "water- enhanced use" as defined by the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element (HBE Definitions pp22 -23). Similarly, it is not inherently a "coastal dependent development or use" as defined by the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP LUP Chapter 5.0, Glossary). If the proposed project is to be defined as water /coastal- dependent, and thus conform to the policies of the two most - recently developed and adopted City documents covering development on the Newport Harbor water's edge, it should have a more credible waterdependent primary use component, image and functionality than the currently- proposed boat slips. This expanded functionality could also enhance project, City and Tidelands revenues, supplementing those of the hotel in better achieving Project Objectives 3 &s4 as well as 7. The use of a major bulkhead in the proposed design, as well as the related dredging and fill, as described in the text and shown in Exhibit 3-4, result in a docking facility design with disproportionately high environmental impact and related mitigation needs /costs (as well as construction costs), when compared to G Z the design options which are available for the site and project. It is recommended that the project applicant consider less environmentally- impacting design alternatives that could better achieve functional and economic feasibility, as well as more- likely local, state and federal regulatory agency permit approvals. The project description on page 3 -6 states " The proposed slips are for boats that do not exceed 30 feet in length, and they could accommodate up to 16 boats." This isat- variance -with -the- use- threughout--the- DEF&ef- =12- slip"s -the- size- of-the -_ facility. Examination of the proposed design indicates the actu capacity, including the two end ties (accommodating either four boats at 30' -32' or two boats of 64' -65') could actually be 20 or 18 boats, respectively. Less- impacting design alternatives using the same 20 -boat capacity as a baseline capacity and the more desirable flexible size mix and supporting environmental and services features typical of a destination resort boat berthing facility should be developed and the optimum one selected. (See other Comments on these subjects below)' /� i Section 3.3 — Project Objectives (pp 3-8,9) ' Development of the proposed Marinapark Resort & Community Plan would be consistent with the City's intent to accommodate a land use and accompanying physical improvements on the project site that would meet the following objectives: 1 • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands; J Li't r • Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between tideland revenue and ' tideland expenditures; • Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or en- ' hance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents; ' • Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users; ' • Ensure does that site redevelopment not generate noise, glare or traffic that could adversely impact the residents in the vicinity or the American Legion use on the ' site; • Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors ' for sailing and boating." Comment: Clearly the proposed resort hotel could help meet the first objective, and must meet the second State - mandated objective (although it does not meet the policies of several Newport Beach planning policy documents as. The resort hotel portion of the project, assuming manageable debt, good marketing, high rates, adequate occupancy, and professional management, could materially assist in meeting the third and fourth Project Objectives. The extent to which it might ' meet these Objectives remains to be documented in the project fiscal impact analysis, proforma and lease terms and thus is not supported or capable of being evaluated in the DEIR. The marine /water Tidelands portion of the project and potential tidelands lease, as presently described in the DEIR, though also not able to be evaluated within the DEIR as to conformance to Objectives 3 &4, would appear to generate little to no operational revenues for the project, City and community, or the Tidelands or General Funds. This is inconsistent with current City policies and practice regarding commercial permit use of Tidelands and with the Project Objectives as stated in the DEIR. The fifth and sixth ' objectives are represented as achieved by the proposed nature of the project design and by the applicant's intent to provide, as a project- absorbed cost and development responsibility, the renewal of the existing on -site public facilities. J Li't r The seventh objective is not credibly achievable by the project as currently designed and operationally described in the DEIR. Review of the marine site, market and revenue potentials to achieve this Objective (as well as Objectives 3 &4) suggests that a re-designed, environmentally -self- mitigating and well- operated destination resort marina alternative to the proposed boat slips project could achieve all three of these Objectives. It is recommended that the City work with the project applicant to further refine the boat berthing facility design and operational concept to achieve better attainment of Objectives 3,4 and 7, as well as to achieve compliance with existing local planning policy documents such as the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan within the intent of Objective 2. Section 5.3 Biological Resources "5.3.5 Mitigation Measures (pp. 5.3.12,13) BR -5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall design an elevated walkway to the boat slips that is supported by piles. This would allow tidal circulation to pass underneath the proposed walkway and alleviate potential water quality stagnation." Comment: This proposed mitigation measure is supported by the accompanying DEER analysis. It essentially replicates the successful design profile of the other thousands of Newport Harbor fixed piers leading to gangways and docks which allow birds, humans, water and sand to freely pass beneath the pier in the normal course of natural processes and human activity along the beach shoreline. It is particularly critical in enabling the beach to naturally reform in response to tidal action and seasonal storms, and it eliminates the continuing maintenance needed to remove sand from a beach -level walkway and replace sand scoured away from the walk by high tides. The environmental impacts of the additional piling to support the elevated walkway /fixed pier are likely minimal and partly beneficial (additional habitat growth surfaces), and should be addressed as a part of the now - increased total water - immersed piling count of the project. The pier design should utilize the new Citv of Newport Beach design standards for.dockg anu piers, currently in preparation. 11 1 C--q'-t 1 1 1 I 1 "BR-6 Prior to approval of the boat slip construction permit issued by the U.S. ' Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission, the pro)ect applicant shall identify the location of a suitable soft bottom habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site. Furthermore, the replacement site shall be -- approve&by-the -U S. Fish and- Wildlife- Ser-viee California - Department -of -Fish and Game, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on the project's potential effect and a mitigation ratio of 3 to 1, 31,008.2 square feet (0.71) acre) would need to be replaced. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation ' monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor the success of habitat replacement. A monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements identified in the boat slip construction permit shall be implemented," ' 1 �z � ' Comment: The proposed boat slips design creates beach, water and bottom area impacts and related mitigation measures, as well as costs, substantially greater than those offered by alternative boat slip designs which can accomplish the ' sameproject intent. Accordingly, a less- environmentally - impacting design ;should be created by the applicant, a design which would require_i4o dredging, bTtMheading or fill and which would provide additional flexibility and capacity of use for the project's maritime activities and boating visitors. The design coulc be developed along the existing pierhead line/ -6' depth+ line in existing "...usable water area for docking facilities." (LCP LUP DDF -2) Maintenance dredging, if required, would then be largely concentrated on maintaining the 1 existing angle of repose of the beach and achieving beach replenishment, which is a continuing process on the Harbor's beaches. Two (of many possible) design 1 functionality are: Boat Slips Mitigation Concept A- Pierhead Line "Long Dock" (see Sketch A) ' The berthing facility could be developed as a single 430' "long dock" configuration with a total of 850' of side -tie berthing capacity on both sides (ves- sel draft limitation of 4.5' on the inner /shore side). This solution has an ' equivalent numerical capacity count (20 boats) to that of the proposed project, but b provides a higher average vessel size of 40' and the inherent flexibility to G accommodate an entire range of visiting vessel sizes rather than limiting them to ' 30' length. The dock and associated vessels location would be approximately even with the outer extent of the existing American Legion Marina and its berthed vessels jsee DEIR Exhibit 7 -1 for actual ALM outer dock location). The ' long dock would be reached by a fixed pier connecting to the longitudinal beach sidewalk, leading to an ADA- compatible ramp to the floating dock. This location LIGGY 1V1 MIGYGLL{F.L pll4 A LLL 4l1 LL141 GLLVLIVLLLLLGLLL41 L111M4G• Vl LLl14sY4 V1l required. The 430' x 8' dock could be constructed with the same, or fewer than, nine pilings as in the proposed project and would have a surface /shadowing area of 3440 square feet , or 10 +% less than the proposed project's 3826 square feet, ' creating less of this environmental impact on the existing water column/bottom. The total side -tie berthing/revenue capacity of 850' is 274' more than the 576' capacity in the proposed boat slips, providing additional marine visitor access and revenue potentials. Also included should be vessel pumpout facility, water and electrical utilities, and other amenities (access to resort restrooms, showers and services)typical of a destination resort marina, as well as a watertaxi stop (none of these are included in the proposed project). These features would enable ' ._the design to better meet meet other environmental requirements andCi!y policies and would generate additional resort, City and Tidelands revenues. This alternative would also be less costly to construct and thus create less project debt burden, (estimated "hard" construction costs= $300,000 for Alternative A vs estimated $1,375,000 for the proposed boat slips). It could be expanded (if included in the permit applications) to the north in the form of slips in a later phase if either the pierhead line were able to be moved to the north, or; if it could be conditionally exceeded so long as the adjacent navigation channel was not restricted. 4 83 Boat Slimes Mitigation Concept B- Pierhead Line +Slips to No (see Sketch B) , This variant is essentially a northerly extension of slips from all or a portion of the long dock design described in Concept A above (Phase 2) to the same , northerly boat slips project line as shown in the proposed project (DEER Exhibits 3 -3, 3-4). It assumes either a relocation of the Pierhead Line, or an approved waiver of the line as a limit as in the proposed project, so long as the adjacent navigation channel deepest portion is not obstructed. The slips could be ' configured in either in a perpendicular- fairway layout similar to that shown in Exhibit 7 -1, or one with slip fingers extending to the north, perpendicular to the pierhead line header dock, with the navigation channel acting as their access ' fairway. As with Concept A, a wide range of vessel types and sizes would be accommodated and the pumpout, utilities, resort services and watertaxi dock provided. Environmental impact would be slightly greater than Concept A, comprising additional pilings and dock surface area, but still requiring no dredging or fill. Cost would be greater than Concept A, but still well below that of the proposed boat slips project, and the visitor berthing capacity and revenue potential would increase over both Concept A and the proposed boat slips ' project. This alternative would offer; the best balance of environmentally - responsible design; optimum capacity and vessel size mix; enhanced access and services to visiting coastal boaters and; optimum direct and indirect revenue , potentials for the resort, community, and City and Tidelands Funds. NOTE: All Comments above also apply to impacts described in Sections 3.6 , Construction Impacts, 3.8 Long Term Impacts and 4.2 Marina Construction and Operation in Marine Biological Resources Impact Assessment Report in DEIR Appendix D. ' Section 5.4 Land Use & Planning Harbor & Bay Element of the General Plan "Policy HB -1.1.1 - Water- Dependent Uses: designate water- dependent ' uses /activities as the highest priority, water - related uses /activities as the second priority, and water - enhanced uses /activities as the third priority. Analysis Twelve boat slips including four for public use are included in the proposed project. The remaining eight will be used as guest slips for visitors to the resort hotel. Inclusion of the boat slips in the project promotes -- attaintent-of3' obey -HB- 7.l3 -" Comment: The proposed primary project use and occupancy of the site is by a 110 -room resort hotel and its support structures and activities, which form the dominant functional, physical and economic components of the project. By HBE definition, the, hotel is wales- enhanced, not a water- dependent or water - related use and should thus be of lowest priority as a use considered on this site. (See HBE definitions, pp 22 -23) As drawn (Exhibits 3- 3/3 -4) and described in the .5 i ROM l• 1 1 1 DEIR, the "twelve -slip" boat berthing facility (actually 18-20 berths/boats rather than 12 -see Exhibit 3 -4) is a minor functional, physical, and (arguably a loss - leader) economic component of the project, with none of the commonly- accepted characteristics of a destination resort docking facility or marina. To suggest that this proposed facility qualifies the hotel a water - dependent use is an incorrect interpretation of the Policy. The analysis statement "...inclusion of the boat slips in the project..." (italics by Commentor) and the minimal capacity and sizing and economics make it appear that, unlike a true resort hotel and marina complex in which the marina is a major functional element and a major profit center, these slips were "included" as a supplemental, not a primary use. Further there is no narrative in the project description or other DEIR sections of..t_he boat slips' functional, marketing, operational or-economic role withift +]%a overall . protect concept that supports a credible claim of water dependency for the primary hotel use. This is an unsupported interpretatioh and appEcafion of this HBE policy —which would also apply under any revised GP designation of RMC and CP, should be rejected by the City as inadequate and revised by the applicant to a documentably- supportable water - dependent complex as recommended throughout these DEIR comments (Page 5.4 -13) "Policy HB- 1.1.2 -Land Use Changes. When reviewing proposals for land use changes, the City shall consider the impact on water - dependent and water - related land uses and activities and the importance of providing adequate sites for, facilities and service- essential to the operation of the harbor. This shall include not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing land uses, activities and services on adjacent properties. However in no case shall the protection of such land uses, activities facilities and services deny an owner viable economic use of the property. Analysis The project includes a luxury resort hotel with 12 boat slips. The inclusion of the boat slips provide a facility that is currently in high demand on Newport Bay. The project's provision of four boat slips for public use will provide a beneficial impact on marine recreational facilities. The provision of new public boat slips is consistent with Policy HB- 1.1.2. Comment: This is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the intent of this Policy, which was specifically drafted to prevent the displacement of, or if displaced, provide replacement sites for, "...facilities and services essential to the operation of the harbor". These facilities and services included boatyards, dredging, piledriving, marine construction, debris and spill cleanup, harbor maintenance, security patrol, fireboats, and the necessary land -water transfer of Wharf, currently the only place available for this use). The analysis representation of "beneficial impact" is also not reflective of the levels and market profiles of current and projected demand for permanent and visitor vessel berthing needs in Newport Bay. This aggregated demand, as cited from private marina sources' waiting lists, City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department waiting list, visitor and permanent slip and mooring berthing requests of the Harbor Patrol, and from marina industry operators and consultants is estimated to exceed 3000 permanent berths and "several hundred" c;,% (fj9 seasonal visitors. In light of these order -of- magnitude demand levels, the addition of 4 publicly - available 26 -30' slips, while laudable in intent, would not "beneficially impact" or. measurably address the types or numbers of demand for additional berthinZ in Newport Harbor. 'Me primary demand for slips in Newport Harbor (and in the overall SoCal marina market) is in the 4Q'_ and above length range. There is general regional marina vacancy and minimal market demand for 26' -30' slips in high -rate areas such as Newport Beach due to the high rates /cost as a percentage of boat value, and the more economical option of storing this size of boat on a trailer or in a dry storage yard. This misapplication of the policy intent and the unsupportable analysis contention of "beneficial impact" should be rejected by the City and should be dropped by the project applicant and EIR author, since there is no applicability to either policy or actual market demand, as the boat slip project is now proposed. "Policy HB- 1.2.4 -Land Use Regulations Ensure that land use regulations applicable to waterfront property continue to allow a wide variety of water dependent, water related and water enhanced uses. al sir The project includes 12 boat slips and retains the public beach. These water- dependent uses would promote the attainment of Policy HB- 1.2.4." Comment: This policy was drafted to be specifically directed at "...land use regulations" for waterfront property and not to specific projects and their elements. Its intent is to insure that the existing variety of uses and any future uses retained the unique character of Newport Harbor which is an eclectic mix of intermingled recreation, residential, commercial, "working" harbor uses, rather than an artificial segregation of uses by type as found in most large SoCal coastal marinas. The analysis does not speak to the regulatory aspect or variety aspects of this Policy (its subject) but rather only to two water - dependent uses, one of Which is a pre- existing public facility and use (beach), the retention of which would be assured in any project design review by City, CCC and the public. The second use, the boat slips, is not applicable in this case. It is a project element, not a suggested regulatory improvement, and, in any case it is applicable only to a single use category(waterdependent) rather than the varie of uses sought by the policy. The analysis conclusion of applicability of conformance to this policy should be rejected by the City as supporting project justification and revised or eliminated from the DEIR accordingly. " Policy HB- 1.3.5 -Guest Docks Maintain existing guest docks and encourage addition of _guest__dnck capacity at_Cit;!-facilities Xachtslubs ,ad_at priv_a�tel owned marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations. Analysis The proposed project includes 12 boat slips with four of these slips for public use and the remaining for guests and visitors of the resort hotel. Inclusion of these boat slips is consistent with Policy HB- 1.3.5." Comment: Conformance to this policy is generally achieved by the intent of the proposed boat slips design, At best, it supports the use of the four "public use" J Gq ! i I ! i io ! ! ! .._i I 7 1 or !i slips of 26' -30' as short -term guest docks for in- harbor small vessel use, a desirable end. However, it does not support the use of the docks, as proposed, by "guest" vessels of greater than 30' length seeking day or evening visits to the resort from either inside or outside the harbor, as might be expected from vessels transiting to a project guest dock (as contrasted with a visitor dock -see below) ci from Dana Point, Huntington Harbour, Long Beach, or other "day -trip" coastal locations. Accordingly, the guest dock /short -term docking facilities as designed and described in the proposed project should be expanded to accommodate vessels larger than 30' and should include a short —term drop- off /pickup dock area for watertaxis and local bayboat/electric boat users and their guests. "Policy HB- 1.4.2- Redevelopment Encourage redevelopment of outmoded or antiquated Harbor commercial uses as a part of an overall program to revitalize the older commercial and marine- oriented areas, especially in those areas with adequate infrastructure and parcels suitable for redevelopment as an integrated project. __.. Analysis The proposed- project includes the redevelopment of the project site, and the reconstruction of existing community and recreational facilities. The proposed facilities are located in an area that includes adequate infrastructure as described in Section 5.9 of this EIR. Therefore, the proposed project is determined to be consistent with Policy HB- 1.4.2." Comment: This is a misinterpretation and misapplication of this Policy. The project site contains no outmoded or antiquated Harbor commercial uses, is not an older commercial and marine- oriented area (the intent of this Policy was directed toward areas such as the Rhine Channel, Mariner's Mile, etc.). In fact none of the existing community and recreational facilities proposed to be replaced in kind by the applicant are covered under this Policy, since they are not harbor commercial uses. They are not water - dependent or water - enhanced, and only marginally water - related. The project does not propose to renovate any existing "harbor uses ", commercial or otherwise, or to provide any significant new harbor commercial uses beyond the boat slips, which are largely focused on the hotel's own use, rather than broader public use. The only existing "marine- 1 oriented" uses of the project area are the public beach, and its public use for 1 ' general swimming, casual beach /watersports, (past) public launching of beach - dollied or hand - carried small vessels, and to store beach - launchable City -owned vessels for public boating instruction. Except for deferred maintenance of the City -owned minor infrastructure supporting these uses, none are outmoded or ' - antiquated;- although -previous - small- boat- cr -oss- beach -- launching - capabilities... ---- could be restored and upgraded. The proposed project appears to retain all of these public uses and activities generally in place without redevelopment. The presence of adequate infrastructure for the proposed project is noted, but is irrelevant to the project's applicability to this Policy. The City should reject this tenuous claim of "redevelopment" consistency with the cited Policy as a basis for the environmental or policy conformance of the proposed project. Should the applicant wish to strengthen their claim for this policy, redevelopment of the public facilities could address existing deficiencies such as the need for a second R 97 public restroom serving the beach area and improved public boating instruction support infrastructure. "Policy HB- 2.1.1 - Public Access Encourage the expansion and improvement of existing public, waterfront access and water -uses access which provide important links to waterfront uses such as beaches, small vessel launching facilities, public dock, and other similar public water area uses. Analysis The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. Accordingly, the project is considered to be consistent with Policy HB - 2.1.1." Comment. The project - proposed east -west sidewalk essentially replaces, in kind, ' the existing sidewalk paralleling the beach, which is also accessible to the public, thus there is no net loss or gain of this access feature. The other beach -water access points described for the project are noted and are consistent with the ' intent of this policy, so long as public access is not restricted by hotel security or operational policy. The City should insure that this access is provided in perpetuity in the drafting of the lease document language. ' "Policy HB- 2.1.7 - Visiting Vessels. Encourage new and improved facilities and services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out stations and other features, through City, Cotinty and private means. Analysis Twelve boat slips including four for public use are included in the proposed project. The remaining eight will be used as guest slips for visitors to the resort hotel. Inclusion of the boat slips in the project promote attainment of Policy HB- 2.1.7." ' Comment. If the hotel and its boat slips are intended to function as a destination docking and services facility for visiting boaters from the California coasilme (Objective 7), the proposed design is inadequate for this purpose. The small ' capacity and size of the berthing facilities means that only a very few of the potential visiting vessels can be accommodated, thus diminishing, in advance, the- - ntial- demand and-- reu f enues om visiting 14-f pate -- -- _hoaters_and-froin -boating.. groups/ group cruises/events. More specifically, the limitation of vessel sizes to the 26' -30' range eliminates the large majority (typically 90% +) of potential visiting vessels of coastal cruising - capable size (typically 35' -50' and above) whose owners seek slip accommodations with amenities and services and are willing to pay top prices for these accommodations, amenities and services. These visiting vessel owners and their guests also have a higher propensity to spend significant retail dollars in the surrounding community at restaurants, ' shops, and other retail locations, as well as at marine service and fuel facilities, 9 , 88 i I I which also translates to additional local income and tax revenues. The apparent absence (undescribed in the EIR) of any of the typical amenities of a destination resort docking facility, such as waste pumpout, water and utilities, cable TV, courtesy use of resort facilities lsince, by definition, most stay on their vessel), courtesy transportation, and other features in the project description suggest that this facility is not considered an integral part of the development concept or ' resort operation. Clearly the. missed market potential, missed economic opportunities and missed pass - through revenues to the City and Tidelands Funds of the guest/visitor docking and services portion of this project have not ' been properly addressed by the proposed project. The City should require the design of a true visitor - vessel marina and support facilities at this valuable tidelands water area and a commitment by the project applicant to provide supporting resort marina services, in order to more fully address this opportunity to capture an important segment of the visiting boater market and revenues. ' Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan ' On pages 5.4 -17 through 5.4 -14 the Marinapark Draft EIR describes the project's attainment of several of the policies of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) land Use Plan. "Public Property Leaseholds PPL -1 —In the leasing or re= leasing of publicly -owned land, full consideration shall be given to the public's right of access to the ocean, beach and bay and to the provision of coastal- dependent uses adjacent to the water. PPL -5 - Public access shall be required when the City issues new leases of public land, or renews existing leases. Analysis The proposed project includes a sidewalk that parallels the beach extending east to west along the northerly portion of the site. The sidewalk will be open to the public and will maintain public access to the beach and to the water. In addition, public access to the beach will be allowed from the Balboa Boulevard sidewalks to the beach via the main resort hotel entrance at Balboa Boulevard and the open air corridors that flank the east and west sides of the resort hotel lobby. These corridors increase the number of public access points to the beach and water. As a result, the project is considered to be consistent with the above public property leaseholds- policies,- P- olicies— P- PL- 1-and- PP- L =S'= -. -__- 14 Comment: The analysis focuses only on the question of access and does not address the primary potential of for the proposed public property leasehold development, a "...coastal dependent use adjacent to the water ". The proposed resort hotel is not a coastal- dependent use as defined in the LCP LUP Chapter 5.0 Glossary: "Coastal Dependent Development or Use: Any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all ". No coastal- dependent use is ' mentioned in the Analysis discussion and conformance justification which addresses 10 8� only literal pedestrian access, not the coastal "portal" or "gateway" access potential offered by a coastal- dependent resort complex. (Please also see the discussion of this Ci 3 5 issue in Response to GP HBE Policy HB -1.1.1 Water- Dependent Uses) The City should , require the applicant and EIR author to indicate how +he prniP uses -provide coastal- .dependent uses adjacent to the water and how they enhance the "portal /gateway' , access effect; for the public (in addition to the pedestrian access). , " Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Unique Coastal Resources Dredging, Diking and Fining DDF -2 — New development on the waterfront shall take into consideration existing usable 1 water areas for docking facilities. Analysis The proposed project includes 12 boat slips in an area of Newport Bay that has usable water for docking facilities. As a result, the project is considered consistent with Policy DDF -2." , Comment: The intent of this LCP LUP policy is to encourage waterfront and marina developers to locate and design their dock facilities within deeper, already- navigable water areas that would not require construction dredging and might only require future maintenance dredging, or current minor dredging to make up for deferred maintenance ' dredging. "Usable water areas" thus is defined as navigable water, not requiring, major dredging, as means of encouraging the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas ana unique coastal resources. The proposed marina project will require the dredging of 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of material, the construction of a bulkhead 1 Gl� (diking) and approximately 2,500 to 3,000 cubic yards of clean sand fill, to make the proposed boat slips design navigable by the vessels intended to use it. Additionally, the dredging, bulkheading and filling aspects of the marina as currently proposed will ,create significant environmental impacts to bottom areas, beach sand transport processes, tidal scouring, water quality and other benthic conditions which will require extensive initial and continuing mitigation and maintenance. The applicant should revise the design of the berthing facilities to eliminate these impacts and improve functionality by better using the existing usable water area to avoid dredging, bulkheading and filling. Several possible design options could accomplish this. ' "New Development Visitor - Serving Facilities - VSF =3- Consistent with all other policies to protect and enhainee the quality-- residential character of the community, the City shall encourage and protect both public. -and private water- oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing puonc access to. the waterfront. , Analysis The Mediterranean- themed architecture of the one and two story resort hotel buildings, the construction of a new meandering pedestrian sidewalk along the beach, the preservation of the existing palm trees along the beach, and the installation of new landscaping on grounds adjoining the public beach will be , 11 l O J 1 ' similar in character to the highest level of improvements existing along the harbor. The physical improvements of the proposed project, therefore are considered to be - consistent with the Policy VSF -3 directive to maintain, protect and enhance the ' quality residential character of the community." Comment: Although the architectural and landscape aesthetic improvements (or retentions in the case of the existing sidewalk function and palm trees) described are laudable, the analyst has missed the subject of Policy VSF -3, which is: ".... to encourage and Protect both public and private water- oriented recreational and ' entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront." No mention is made in the analysis of how water - oriented recreation and entertainment elements of the project would encourage and provide public access to the waterfront. (It / is understood that the existing/proposed sidewalk provides this access in a literal C41 r ' sense.) For instance, the applicant could have indicated how the destination resort docking facilities (if properly redesigned and relocated) would provide regional and local recreational boating access to Newport Harbor facilities and activities, and how hotel- sponsored events at the beach/marina (concerts, water recreation events, barbeques, fishing tournaments, boating events, etc.) would provide entertainment accessible to the public. With no apparent understanding of the basic intent of the ' policy and no such expressions of recreation /entertainment access intent or understanding, the analysis is incorrect and the project does not conform to this policy. ' "VSF -4c — Provision and maintenance of public restrooms is a top priority. A permanent restroom facility shall be constructed at Las Arenas Park Analysis The proposed project includes a public restroom as a part of the proposed Community Center. This provision would be consistent with the intent of Policy VSF -4c." ' Comment: There must be multiple restrooms in the new GS /Community center as a matter of code, serving that use and the adjacent children's play parklet which are located along Balboa Boulevard. This complex and these restrooms are isolated from the �$ beach by the main body of the resort, requiring adults and children from the beach to cross a primary resort entry/exit road to access the restrooms. Accordingly, it is recommended that there be a second directly beach - accessible public restroom ' provided. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Harbor Permit Two conclusionary statements in this portion of the Draft EIR (Page 5.4 -20) appear ' unsupported by the analysis, and could, to a reader unfamiliar with these issues and - processes , - appear- --to- imply -that = 'less- thansignificantampacts' wauld -be-the major-factor . ..... _ ........ _ in the potential granting of permits or approval of a project exceeding the pierhead line: ' "Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to obtaining a Harbor Permit." ' "Therefore implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction of a dock outside of the pierhead line' 12 11 Comment: In the case of the Harbor Permit, many additional factors beyond ' presumptive "less than significant impacts" (desirable, but not adequately defined or supported by analysis in the EIR ) would determine the issuing of a Harbor Permit. Also it is not certain that the boat slips portion of the project, as now proposed, would be granted my of the permits necessary for construction by the City and the other agencies involved, irrespective of their "less than significant impacts" aspects. The implied linkage is vague and incorrect as stated and needs to be rewritten to avoid misinterpretation. The Pierhead Line issue is currently under review by City, which intends to subsequently approach the Federal government with a plan to permit the revision of the existing 1936 -era pierhead lines to allow more berthing space in areas of the harbor where it will not interfere with navigational channels, moorings, and other water -use areas. There is no guarantee that this revision/expansion will occur. The project's , proposed boat slips design has 80% of its docking space capacity located beyond the pierhead line. Accordingly, an alternative "fail- safe" plan providing a docking facility completely or largely within the existing pierhead line (while also meeting the other criteria outlined in these EIR review comments) is recommended. As above, the implied linkage is vague and incorrect as stated and needs to be rewritten to avoid miBinterpretation. - ' Section 7- Alternatives to the Proposed Project Three sentences of the introduction to this section of the DEIR, which describe the intended/ mandated focus and evaluation process of the alternatives, and the accompanying restatement of the project development objectives are important in this discussion and comments: (DEER pp 7 -1,2) " This section focuses on alternatives to the proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse impact associated with the proposed project even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives or be more costly. Additionally alternatives are discussed in the terms of achieving the project objectives and considering the feasibility of implementing the alternative. According to Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social ' and technological factors." (Page 7 -1) Comment: The methodology used in the DEIR to compare the proposed project with the alternatives, mpanc-cii az,-thi Ma- rii►a- park- Recreation Alfernative and -the Redurced -, Intensity Alternative, does not utilize an objective -by- objective attainment (or non- attainment) analytical comparison of the Pronosed Project and its alternatives with the Project development objectives, and has no supporting narrative or data. It is therefore impossible for a DEIR reviewer to determine the degree or basis for the qualitative or cluantitative achievement of these objectives by the Droposed- proiect or the alternatives in this important section of the DEIR. Similarly, a reviewer's ability to determine or , understand the feasibility of implementing-the alternatives in comparison with each 1/t ' n E I other and with the proposed project is not possible in the DEIR as written There is no comparative narrative or chart including the five feasibility factors, plus time and "success" nor any supporting feasibility analysis text and data for the conclusionary ' declarations of alternatives feasibility or infeasibility included later in this DEIR section These omissions weaken and obscure the alternatives analysis section of the DEER, -Renerally considered as one of the —most important and votentially legally vulnerable sections of the EIR vrocess..This section of the DEIR should be substantially revised and strengthened with more detailed and accurate data and narrative describing the alternatives and the comparative analysis process as the basis for conclusionary ' statements. Iii particular, if economic feasibility (not just total revenue potential) is used as one of the criteria for weighing alternatives in comparison with the proposed project, (in addition to the "effects on the environment') of the DEIR, then fiscal impact and economic feasibility analvses (with feasibility achievement criteria) need tQ be made fp'r all of the alternatives and the'-piopose& project, before conclusionary statements about alternatives are made on this subject. ' 7.2 Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative Section 7.2, (including Pages 7 -3 through 7 -5 and Exhibit 7 -1) of the Marinapark Draft EIR describes and analyzes the Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative as a possible alternate use of the Marinapark site to those in the proposed project. As stated in the Draft EIR (Section 7: Alternatives to the proposed project, page 7 -1): 2. " The Marinapark Marine Recreation Center (Alternative) was selected because this alternative is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Recreation and Environmental Open Space and is consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element which suggests expansion of park and recreational uses. This alternative was developed by the City of Newport Beach staff. The purpose of this alternative is to provide expanded recreational facilities for City residents and ' provide a project consistent with limitations of the Tidelands Trust " Comment: The Marine Recreation Alternative (MRA) is also compatible with all applicable portions of the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element and the Local Coastal ' Program Land Use Plan. Further, the Marine Recreation Alternative addresses the long - identified need for a location within the Harbor for many priority water- dependent public uses and activities identified in the GP HBE and on the Harbor Commission ' Priority Issues Task Lists. It does not require a General Plan Amendment or other changes in existing regulations or documents to be implemented. 2 3 �7.2 urine Recreation Alternative (Plan) Figure 7 -1 Comment: It is assumed that the MRA as shown in Figure 7 -1 is a purely conceptual collection of these uses and functions in one of many possible combinations and is not 1 necessarily the recommended or "best' design configuration for the marine elements of the concept , but merely illustrative of the collection of uses intended. Several modifications to this conceptual layout appear desirable as self - mitigating measures ' creating less environmental impact and more functionality. 14 13 For example, the suggested launch ramp could be moved to the eastern end of the site, adjacent to the proposed commercial marine services launch area, since they are compatible functions and structures. This would retain an entire strip of uninterrupted beach to the west of the ramp. The marina/boat berthing facilities could then be moved slightly to the west of the launch ramp and developed in a different, environmentally less- impacting design as noted in the Comments on Section 5.3 Biological Resources which describes two potential alternative designs for both the proposed project and that shown in Figure 7 -1. These mitigation- inherent designs move the boat berthing facilities out to the Pierhead Line/ 6' mllw depth line eliminating the need for dredging or bulkhes"ing, and by using a piling- supported fixed access pier over the beach, achieve the recommended mitigation design for access across the beach. The "charter boat moorings" (actually "end -tie berths) shown in Figure 7 -1 are illustrative of only one of many potential public visitor- serving user for these large (88') end ties, a berthing category currently in limited and declining supply in Newport Harbor. Other "large vessel" uses could include large visiting yachts, visiting tallships or other historic or notable vessels, and, if necessary/desirable, a relocated Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, located on an independent dock. 7.2.3 Conclusion (p7 -5) , " The implementation of this alternative would result in less impacts to geology ' and soils, aesthetics, and public services and utilities compared to the proposed project." (Agreed -No Comment) " The alternative would also result in similar impacts to land use and planning." I Comment: The proposed project will require a General Plan Amendment, whereas the MRA will not. The proposed project is inconsistent with a number of General Plan Harbor and Bay Element and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies as noted elsewhere in this DEIR review. The MRA is consistent with these plans and policies. " Furthermore, this alternative would result in greater impacts to hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise impacts compared to the proposed project." (Disagree- See Comments Below) Comment: Hvdrologv and Water Oualily No quantitative comparison of significant impact difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided in the DEIR on than the proposed project. For example, the amounts of impermeable surface area requiring (by law) collection and treatment of storm water by the same methods with the same mitigation measures (in both the alternative and the proposed project) appear approximately equivalent, when the paved and roof/building footprint areas of the proposed project are compared with those of the MRA. In fact, if a permeable hardscape paving such as "grasscrete" or similar is used as a mitigation for the parking areas of the MRA, and added to the 1.64 acres of park area, it would appear to be superior to the proposed project in permeability /runoff retention and percolation surface area. Further, 15 C�23 qY � all modem boat ramp designs incorporate a paved capture bump or berm with a french drain and filtered catch basin at the top of the ramp to retain, treat and drain to stormdrains or public sewers any parking lot or ramp apron runoff before it can run ' down the ramp surface into the water. An MRA ramp design would be required to have such a design. BMP -driven operation and oversight of the MRA ramp facility by City (or lessee operator) staff would reduce pollution potential on the ramp surface. NOTE: Under the Impact Analysis of this subject on page 7-4, the conclusion is stated "The implementation of the project mitigation measures would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level ". This is inconsistent with the "greater impacts" for the MRA statement in the quoted sentence from the Impacts Conclusion section of the DEIR, quoted above. The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. Comment: Biological Resources- No quantitative comparison of significant impact 'difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided on this subject as a basis for reaching the conclusion that the MRA has a greater impact than the proposed project. The estimated dredged areas and volumes are generally similar in magnitude between the two plans -MP @ 0.23 ac./1.25 -1.75k cy versus MRA@ 0.25 aQ 1.3k -1.8k cy. The launch ramp is the primary difference in the creation of additional (mitigatable) impact, and is an acknowledged difference in the development and use intent of the two projects, created in order to meet a significant, demonstrated public need. (In the review Comments for section 5.3- Biological Resources, two self - mitigating boat dock designs not requiring dredging or bulkheading are described, which could reduce the impacts of eitlier the proposed project or the MRA.) NOTE: Under the Impact Analysis of this subject on page 7-4, the conclusion is stated " Marine Life impacts associated with this alternative could be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the project mitigation measures ". This is inconsistent with the "greater impacts" for the MRA statement in the sentence from the Impacts Conclusion section of the DEIR, quoted above. The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. Comment: Transportation- No quantitative comparison of significant impact difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided on this subject as a basis for reaching the conclusion that the MRA has a greater impact than the proposed project. The MRA provision of 106 Beach/Slip (and Launch Ramp) parking spaces for public use, plus 142 additional public parking spaces for the park, GS /CC, tennis courts, and - general use-results-in-248-parking spaces-for-public- use.- --he- proposed - project- provides 154 public parking spaces, or 94 less than the MRA in this demonstrably underparked public recreation beach /area. Additional public parking may create the potential for more peak trips during high- visitor period. However, providing, easily- accessible additional public parking in the MRA, the potential of reducing traffic and air quality problems associated with current visitor parking space "hunting/dreling" traffic on local streets in this area is increased. In terms of assisting in the achievement of other project objectives, the minor environmental trade -off of additional public parking 16 4�a3 C4 a,�l C?a5 4 ,7 96" spaces in this critical area should be evaluated and weighed carefully against possible additional (but unknown) peak hour trips when these are calculated. NOTE: Under the Impact Analysis of this subject on page 7-4, the conclusion is stated 'Me implementation of this "alternative and the proposed mitigation measures would result in less than significant traffic impacts." This would then be inconsistent with the "greater impacts" for the MRA statement in from the Impacts Conclusion section of the DEIR, quoted above. The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. Comment: Air Oualit- No quantitative comparison of significant impact difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided on this subject as a basis for reaching the conclusion that the MRA has a greater impact than the proposed project. Without quantitative information of additional peak trips of sufficient number to create additional significant long -term air emissions, the speculative conclusion "Overall, since long -term emissions mot -be greater , this alternative woul result in greater air quality impacts compared to the project' cannot be supported. (emphasis italics & underline added by HC) This assertion needs to be revised to be consistent with any quantitative analysis of additional peak trips /air quality - linked impacts. Comment: Noise - No quantitative comparison of significant impact difference between the MRA and proposed project is provided on this subject as a basis for reaching the conclusion that the MRA has a greater impact than the proposed project. The amount of noise related to greater vehicle trips (if any) which might be generated by the MRA cannot be determined until those trips are projected in number and time of day and compared with those of the proposed project. (see Transportation and Air Quality Comments above) The amount of boat engine noise generated from any marine use and activity is a factor of the type of vessel (sail power -only may be involved in either or both projects) engine type and muffler system, type and amount/frequency of use of the vessels, and operator skill. Thus a profile of these factors for both the proposed project and the MRA would have to be developed to enable credible noise level projection. The two projects are approximately equivalent in numbers of berthed vessels — 20 for the proposed project and 22 for the MRA. The MRA has the potential for additional noise on the basis of the added launch ramp, but the degree of additional impact is not able to be quantitatively calculated A mitigation factor for boat noise is that the 5mph harbor speed limit would force all vessels to operate at an idle level, with low related noise levels. NOTE: Under "the-Impact Analysis of this subject-on- page- 7-4 —,the- conclusionis- stated- "Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts after mitigation ". This would then be inconsistent with the "greater impacts" for the MRA statement in from the Impacts Conclusion section of the DEIR, quoted above. The DEIR is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised "Overall this alternative would result in greater impacts compared to the proposed project." 17 L,d 7 al . q30 U 3L1 1 1 q6 I I r 7 Comment: This conclusion is not supported by the information provided in the DEIR, since no documented technical analysis or quantitative comparison is made to establish its validity as a greater cumulative or overall impact intensity for the MRA. Further, the conclusionary sentences in each of the individual impact analysis categories (except for air quality) discussed in section 7.2.2 Impacts describe less impacts for the MRA than for the proposed project.(See Comments in preceding text, particularly those under "Notes ".) The DER is thus inconsistent in its conclusion of greater impact of the MRA in comparison with the proposed project on this subject and needs to be revised. ' This alternative would meet many of the project objectives. However it is not ,known if this alternative is economically viable, and therefore it is unclear if it meets the objectives related to City revenues." Comment: Agreed. It would appear to meet all of the project objectives. (See Comments for Section 3.3 Project Objectives) The degree to which it meets the Tidelands and City 1 General Fund revenue objectives is impossible to determine, since no criteria or threshold numbers for successful attainment in these categories, and no analysis of minimum or threshold attainment by the proposed project and the MRA have been ' described in the DEIR. A refined MRA design and operating plan, with an appropriate rates/fees structure (under public operation) or an appropriate lease rates/fees and lease terms structure (under private lessee operation) could, using currently - successful similar publicly -owned facilities as a threshold example, likely provide revenues to both Funds well in excess of current sources. This assertion of course needs to be developed and analyzed in detail to compare with existing revenues and those anticipated from the proposed project, and with the acceptable threshold levels, to determine "economic viability", which will , of course, be different for the MRA and the proposed project due to their different uses and operating structures. "It also does not serve visitors in the manner envisioned by not providing accommodations." Comment: This is not an environmental impact issue and is not a stated project objective for any except the 7' objective - "Provide for additional marine- related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating". If the MRA is ' developed, as envisioned, as a much - needed destination marina with supporting services for recreational boating visitors from along the coastline, it will by definition, provide accommodations for visitors. Serving the 40' average size coastal cruising power and sail vessels desiring weekend (typically 2 -3 nights) and longer (one week to 1 one month) berthing stays, the MRA as proposed could accommodate 20 -22 cruising - vessels - with -an- average adult - crew- size- of -2 -4- persons, with -.each vessel_typically- havdng . 4 -6 beds/bunks. Assuming an average of 3 persons /vessel and a 2.5 night average stay, a 100% occupancy weekend would yield 22x3x2.5 or a total of 165 " boat nights" of accommodation, with the visitors having brought their own lodging. Rates and fees charged for berthing and services would be at market for high - quality destination visitor marinas. This visitor marina accommodation package would include power and water service, waste pumpout, trash containers, cable TV hookup, telephone, showers /restrooms, laundry and watertaxi service, all generating additional revenues. ' While this is only a portion (20 %) of the 825 "room nights" and revenues generated by 1R Cy3�_ 433 G 3`t NN the hotel under similar assumptions, v providing I�3� thus meeting CONCLUSION: If properly designed, mitigated and operated as described above, the , Marine Recreation Alternative would appear to represent a completely feasible, �.35 economically viable, environmentally - responsive alternative to the proposed project, ' conforming to all City Project Objectives and all City Planning and Development Policy documents. ■ RAFT EXHIBIT A Recommendations of the Harbor Commission to mitigate incompatibilities, inconsistencies and deficiencies of the Proposed Resort Hotel at Marinapark: 1. Redesign the boat berthing aspect of the madna/dock to minimize the number of small slips (except as provided for launches, dinghies, and small bay /electric boats). Require suitable fiscal impact analysis of each alternate design which will allow comparative study with the proposed project vs. the Marine Recreation Alternative ("MRA") 2. The redesign, which should be based upon a supporting marked demand or research study, should offer docking opportunities for larger visiting boater vessels (say 40 — 100 ft.) and provide the appropriate amenities (i.e. electrical power, water, and cable connections, plus a waste pump -out station, ground transportation services (car rental, bicycle rental, hotel shuttle, etc). 3. Add in a small boat launching ramp (See concept as set forth in the "Marine Recreation Alternative" included in the draft E.I.R.). 4. Relocate/reconfigure the boat berthing structure to not extend northward past the ... ..pierhead line. 5. As one alternative design concept, have the applicant consider one primary long dock which would provide the operator maximum flexibility in accommodating yachts and boats of varying length and beam. Such a concept may prove more consistent with the "Yacht Resort" amenity and marketing plan of the hotel. Also, without the constraint of multiple small slips design, the property frontage would have the capacity and capability to respond to event driven demand, a yachting race, seasonal transiting boaters who annually stop in Newport enroute to or from Mexico and points north. Similarly, the open design would allow the water frontage to be accessed for public emergency use (i.e. Harbor Department, lifeguard, or fire boat response, storm debris removal, etc.) Such added facilities adaptability and the provision of potential future public services (i.e. water taxi, charter boat service, etc.) is more consistent with the intent of the policies of the Bay and Harbor Element of the General Plan. As such, the land use for the proposed project should seek to broaden the use spectrum of the waterside dock/marina facilities. 6. Require a second public restroom on the beach/marina side of the project. 7. Incorporate lease provisions to ensure that public access to, along, and from the waterfront is not impaired by the necessary security devices required on a dock or in a marina. Also, storage of resort beach front equipment (umbrellas, swim gear, paddleboards, kayaks, etc.) should be provided in such a manner so as not to impair the public access and view corridor points being designed in the property. Page 1 of 2 G 3& EXHIBIT A I I I Page 2 of 2 ' loo 1 8. Direct the applicant to better define and document the means by which guests of the resort hotel will be provided both public and private water oriented recreational and entertainment facilities. Again, appropriate market research data should be completed which, when added to the physical environmental factors and constraints of the property, could be contributory to a better design of the marina/dock facilities. For example, hotel sponsored events at the beach marina (concerts, batbeques, sailing regattas, charity boating events, fishing tournaments, group cruises, marine habitat eco- tours, etc.) could provide unique access opportunities for the public and visiting boaters, and, by doing so, r /_ give a new and unique access not otherwise available in, or available only in limited areas of, the Harbor. 9. As a condition to the various approvals, consider imposition of appropriate mitigation or impact fees to offset the City's cost of improvements to or over the tidelands, and for the ongoing environmental protection and maintenance of the Harbor. By eliminating the dredging and bulkhead construction elements of the proposed project thru use of an alternative design, such impacts can be reduced or mitigated, presumably to a level of , insignificance. In any event, the Lease should address and specify a means of assigning and recovering the real costs associated with the area wide clean up of pollutants and dredging burden being carried by the City. Also, appropriate best management practices ' ( "BMPs'l should be required as a condition of the Lease. r I I Page 2 of 2 ' loo 1 ' Marinapw* Resort and Community Plan - Respww to Comments on the Droll EIR Reapanass To Comments ' G. City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission Michael Brandman Associates ' H:% CHen[( PN- RN)\0064%0064ER20`O064ER20_RTC 7 -1 final.doc /O G1. The project is not characterized in the Draft EIR as a "water- dependent use" or as a that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. "coastal dependent development use ". The terms water - dependent, water - related, that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. and water - enhanced appear in the Draft EIR only through inclusion of policies from G8. Policy HB -1.1.1 - "Water- dependent Uses" of the Harbor and Bay Element indicates ' the Harbor and Bay Element. G2. In response to concerns raised by the Harbor Commission, a mitigation measure has Gl, the project is not described in the Draft EIR as water - dependent or water - related. been included that replaces the slips with a floating, longitudinal dock parallel to the beach and wholly within the existing pierhead line. This measure is discussed in response to comment B20. The modified dock eliminates the bulkhead and groin walls and the need for placement of sand behind it. The modified dock reduces the ' amount of dredge material from up to 1,750 cubic yards to as little as 500 cubic yards. Inclusion of the mitigation measure would place the dock facility within the existing pierhead line, reduce the amount of dredge, and eliminate the need for fill, the bulkhead, and groin walls. G3. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a mitigation measure that modifies the proposed boat dock. This modification includes the provision for six boat dock tie -ups. These tie -ups are proposed to accommodate boats that are 30 feet long and shorter. ' G4. Please see response to comment B27 regarding the project objectives and revenue generated by the proposed project. Projected revenue from the proposed project is not identified as being generated by marine/water Tidelands as opposed to upland Tidelands inasmuch as no such distinction is made in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Harbor and Bay Element for purposes of determining project consistency with same. In response to concerns raised by the Harbor Commission, a mitigation measure has been recommended to modify the proposed dock (please see response to comment B20). The proposed dock will allocate two of the six public tie -ups for use by the general public, consistent with the project objective of providing additional marine- related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors. G5. This comment regarding proposed mitigation measure BR -5 (proposed elevated walkway supported by piles) is noted. Please see response to comment C2 regarding the habitat replacement required with the implementation of mitigation measure BR- 5. Michael Brandman Associates ' H:% CHen[( PN- RN)\0064%0064ER20`O064ER20_RTC 7 -1 final.doc /O G6. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion ' that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. G7. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. G8. Policy HB -1.1.1 - "Water- dependent Uses" of the Harbor and Bay Element indicates ' that water - dependent uses are the highest priority, water - related the second priority, and water - enhanced uses the third priority. As indicated in the response to comment Gl, the project is not described in the Draft EIR as water - dependent or water - related. Michael Brandman Associates ' H:% CHen[( PN- RN)\0064%0064ER20`O064ER20_RTC 7 -1 final.doc /O Mednapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on do Dealt EIR Responses To Commems As a water -enhanced use, the project is consistent with the third priority indicated in Policy HB- 1.1.1. "Functional, marketing, operational or economic role" of the slips does not give rise to potential impacts on the physical environment and, as such, is not required in nor appropriate to the analysis in the Draft EIR. G9. Policy HB -1.1.2 — Land Use Changes of the Harbor and Bay Element advises that the Impact of new development on water - dependent and water - related uses should be considered. The proposed project does not interfere with, encroach upon, or remove any water - dependent or water - related use. Neither does it limit activities on adjacent property, as the American Legion and its marina will not be impacted. This is consistent with Policy HB- 1.1.2. Moreover, Policy HB -1.1.2 advises that protection of existing water - dependent and water - related uses should not come at the expense of denying an owner viable economic use of the property. G10. The project includes General Plan, LCP Land Use Plan and zoning changes, all of which are land use regulations. The proposed land use designation of Recreational Marine Commercial will allow a water enhanced use, the hotel, along with water - dependent new boat slips. GI 1. The provision of guest docks at the proposed private marina would be consistent with Policy HB -1.3.5 — Guest Docks. The policy does not suggest a priority for guest docks based upon the size of craft to be accommodated. G12. As noted in the comment, since existing improvements on the project site are not Harbor commercial uses, Policy HB -1.4.2 does not apply. G13. This comment regarding access paralleling the beach is noted. G14. The hotel and its slips are not proposed as a "visitor- vessel marina;" rather, the guest docks proposed as part of the hotel are intended to accommodate day visitors to the property. Policy HB -2.1.7 — Visiting Vessels does not indicate that guest docks need to be a "destination," and the project does promote attainment of the policy, as stated in the Draft EIR. G15. Policy PPL -1 advises full consideration of beach access and coastal dependency of proposed uses but does not require that uses that do not satisfy both considerations be precluded. As stated in the Draft EIR, the project does provide public access to the beach and bay, and it includes new boat slips, which are water - dependent. G16. Response to comment B20 indicates modification of the dock design, eliminating groin walls and the bulkhead so as to further reduce dredging and subsequent fill on the sandy beach. G17. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the proposed project maintains and expands access to the existing and proposed water - oriented facilities, the public beach and the dock. This is consistent with Policy VSF -3. G18. This comment is noted. Should the voters approve the General Plan Amendment necessary to accommodate the project, the potential for improving access to Las Arena park and/or restroom facilities from the beach may be considered during Michael Brandman Associates 1J.,cUem "- al)\WM)G064ER20` MEE20JTTC 7 -1 final.dw f 0� Marinspark Resort and Community Plan - Rssponse to Comments on the Draft OR Responses To Commems 1 subsequent use permit and design review processes. I'm checking with Bob to see if we can say that a public nesiroom will be a lease requirement. 1 G19. Please see response to comment B20 regarding a mitigation measure that modifies the proposed boat dock. With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the 1 proposed boat dock would not extend beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line. G20. CEQA does not require that alternatives to the proposed project be defined or 1 evaluated at the same level of detail as the project. The Marine Recreation Alternative was developed by the City staff in response to input from the Planning Department and the Harbor Resources Division. This Division received input on the marine recreational needs from the Harbor Commission and others. These needs ' included additional parking for marine charter activities. As to satisfaction of project objectives, the Marine Recreation Alternative includes 1 community facility components similar to those identified in a Parks Department submittal to the City Council in response to the original Request for Proposals circulated by the City. Given that the Marinapark proposal was selected by City ' Council, one may conclude that the project achieves objectives that were not achieved by competing proposals similar to the Marine Recreation Alternative. This is illustrated in the table on the following page. 1 1 i 1 i 11 1 1 CJ i Michael Brandman Associates 1 HACGew (PN-MX0064`a064ER20\0064ERW- RTC 7 -1 f=Ldw 103 �i �gWg A` O oo� �U �g m� l oil ' Marinspork Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on his Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' G21. The Harbor Commission is correct that the Marine Recreation Alternative does not require a General Plan amendment. As the Commission has assumed, this alternative ' is conceptual as to design and illustrative of how the intended uses could be arranged on the site. CEQA does not require the plans for this alternative to be as fully developed as for the proposed project. If additional modifications were made to this alternative, the impacts could be further modified as well. The alternative as discussed, however, serves to provide the decision makers with a point of comparison in evaluating the impacts and desirability of the proposed project. G22. Please see response to comment G21 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative. Even though this alternative does not require a General Plan amendment, this alternative was determined to have similar impacts to land use and planning compared to the proposed project. The consistency of the proposed project to the City's policies was evaluated in Section 5.4 in the Draft EIR. The implementation of mitigation measure LU -1 (see response to comment B20) would further reduce ' potential significant environmental issues, and the proposed project would be consistent with the City's policies of the General Plan ' G23. The analysis comparing impacts of the alternatives is qualitative rather than quantitative, as permitted by CEQA. For purposes of CEQA compliance, the range of alternatives provided in the EIR is adequate and provides decision makers the basis for a reasoned decision. Variations are possible on all alternatives, and if decision makers wish to consider the possibility of additional modifications to the Marine Recreation Alternative as they evaluate the impacts and the desirability of the Marinapark proposal, they may do so based on the information provided. G24. Both the Marine Recreation Alternative and the proposed project could result in less than significant water quality impacts after the implementation of the proposed project mitigation measures. Even though the alternative and the project would result in less than significant impacts, the Marine Recreation Alternative was determined to result in greater (less than significant) impacts compared to the project because of the ' activities associated with the boat launch and larger marina. G25. Please see response to comment G23 regarding level of alternative analysis. The proposed project with the implementation of mitigation measure LU -1 (see response ' to comment B20) would result in the dredging of approximately 400 to 500 cubic yards. This volume is required with the modified dock design. The marina in the Marine Recreation Alternative would be substantially larger than the proposed dock ' and would require a greater volume of dredge material. This alternative could implement the project mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant. Even though the alternative and the project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources, the Marine Recreation ' Alternative was determined to result in greater (less than significant) impacts compared to the project. ' G26. Please see response to comment G25 regarding the comparison of impacts to biological resources. G27. Please see response to comment B96 regarding the comparison of traffic volume impacts. Wahesl Brandman Associates H:r-rjM (PN-NU)064\0064ER20VDO64ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fimldm 105- Mannapark Resort and Community Plan - Resaonae to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments G28. Implementation of the Marine Recreation Alternative or the proposed project would ' not result in significant traffic impacts. However, since the Marine Recreation Alternative would result in a greater amount of traffic (see response to comment B96) , compared to the proposed project, the alternative would result in greater traffic impacts. G29. Please see response to comment B96 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative ' resulting in greatei trips than the proposed project. Since a greater amount of trips would be generated by the Marine Recreation Alternative, a greater amount of air emissions and impacts would be generated compared to the proposed project. ' G30. Please see response to comment G29 regarding the comparison of trips. Since a greater amount of trips would be generated by the Marine Recreation Alternative, a greater amount of noise would be generated compared to the proposed project. ' G31. Implementation of the Marine Recreation Alternative or the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts. However, since the Marine Recreation ' Alternative would result in a greater amount of traffic and therefore noise (see responses to comments G29 and G30) compared to the proposed project, the alternative would result in greater noise impacts. G32. Please see responses to comments G24 regarding water quality, G25 regarding biological resources, G28 regarding traffic, G29 regarding air quality, and G30 ' regarding noise. These responses confirm the conclusions provided in Section 7.2.3 in the Draft EIR. G33. The Marine Recreation Alternative could generate revenue to both the City's General ' Fund and Tidelands Fund. It is unlikely that revenue from this alternative would be at the same level as the proposed hotel. Please see response to comment B27 regarding expected revenue from the proposed project. In comparison, the Marine Recreation alternative would not generate property tax as a public facility and would generate less property tax than the hotel if it were a private, commercial facility. G34. The Harbor Commission is correct that the project's provision of visitor accommodations is not an environmental issue. G35. Please see response to comment B97. For purposes of CEQA compliance, the range ' of alternatives provided in the OR is adequate and provides decision makers the basis for a reasoned decision. Variations are possible on all alternatives, and if decision makers wish to consider the possibility of additional modifications to the ' Marine Recreation Alternative as they evaluate the impacts and the desirability of the Marinapark proposal, they may do so based on the information provided. ' G36. The Harbor Commission's recommendations for an alternative design are noted and could be considered by the City at time of permit issuance. I Michas; Brandman Associates H:`cliem (PN- M\0064`0064ER201D%4ERW-RTC 7 -1 B=Ldw O Central JVewport BeacFi 1 ' June 8, 2004 G P.O. Box 884 • Newport Beach, Califomia 92661 ' Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 .association RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 9 2004 PM 71819110111,12 11 12 13141516 ' Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Marinapark Resort & Community Plan (DEIR) ' Dear Mr. Campbell: ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on referenced document. The Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA) is a voluntary membership organization representing residents and owners of property between Newport ' and Balboa piers. CNBCA has been in existence for over 50 years. We recommend that, due to the substantive nature of following comments made by the CNBCA as well as by other participants in the DEIR review, the City revise the document and re- circulate the revised DEIR for agency and public review and comment. Following are CNBCA comments: Section 1: Introduction 1.6 EIR Focus and Effects Found Not To Be Significant Hazardous Materials: It appears that only the beach portions of the project site were subjected to a Phase II level assessment. The historic uses on and adjacent to the site were along Balboa Boulevard (Central Avenue). A Standard Oil Company oil depot was located at the northwest corner of 18th Street and Central Avenue. There was potential for contamination across 18th Street to the project site. The northeast corner of 18th and Central housed a Southern Counties Gas Company installation that also may have caused contamination. The western side of the project site should be subject to a Phase 11 examination. HI !07 There was a gas station at the northwest comer of 15"' Street and W. Balboa Blvd. that underwent remediation upon closing. Confirmation should be made that none of the contaminants traveled to the project site. Population and Housing: Concern XII of the CNBCA NOP comments is not adequately addressed. The creation of over 50 mostly low- income jobs is of significance to Balboa Peninsula and surrounding areas in a community and its surrounds that contain some of the highest priced housing in the nation. Recently a South Orange County five star resort entered into an agreement with a Lion -profit organization to provide housing for its low- income employees who could not afford to live in its area. This issue should be addressed in the EIR. The DEIR indicates that a future Relocation Impact Study will be prepared to address impacts related to relocation of the existing mobile home park residents. This Relocation impact Study should be included in the DEIR, which should be recirculated for public comment. Recreation: CNBCA NOP comments were ignored (see XIV in letter dated November 19, 2003). The site and beach in particular are of state not local importance. As State Tidelands, the site is to be for the use of all the peoples of the State while the EIR comments address only local use. The current zoning is for Recreational and Environmental Open Space and has historically been planned by the City for aquatic uses. There will be a loss of 261 feet of recreational beach due to the creation of a marina. It is difficult to determine from the small scale of the project plan in the DEIR but it appears that intrusion of the lateral sidewalk onto the beach will result in the loss of useable beach as will as the vertical sidewalk. These are significant impacts that must be addressed in the EIR and are of cumulative importance due to the very small proportion of bay beach available to the public citywide. Project sponsor. Marinapark LLC is listed as the project applicant. The Secretary of State website does not show an LLC with this name nor does the City of Newport Beach website show a business license for this entity. Proper identification of the Project Sponsor must be made. Section 2: Executive Summary 21 Project Description: The description is misleading to anyone who reads only the Executive Summary. It does not include a description of the following uses: 600 sq. ft. of retail use; 550 sq. ft. of cafe; 1,124 sq. ft. of restaurant, 1,154 sq. ft. bar, 3,603 sq. ft. ballroom and a swimming pool. Each of these uses should be acknowledged to alert the reader of this section that there are additional impacts from the project to be addressed. Access from 15"' Street is described as being for fire and delivery. There also is access to the 100 -car underground parking structure from 15"' Street along a 20 -foot alley. There are significant traffic impacts that result from this access. 2 kz H3 K Lf- H5 H (o /j 1 I r I� ' 2.2 Concern with the statements made in the section will be addressed below. 1 I I 1 I [1 2.5 Sufficiency of Mitigation Measure and Environmental Effects will be discussed below. However, throughout the table there is a term used "approval by the City of Newport Beach." This term does not describe if there are staff approvals required, and if so by what level of position, or if the approvals will be available to public scrutiny and input such as at a public hearing level and by what entity. This information is critical to ensuring the sufficiency of mitigation monitoring and to determination of the sufficiency of the EIR. Section 3: Proiect Description 3.2 Project Characteristics: Table 3.2 -1 does not include square footage for the enclosed space of the subterranean garage. The paragraph for boat slips does not recognize the end ties that are created. These end -ties provide space for the potential use by charter vessels that have impacts on noise, light, traffic and waterside vessel circulation patterns. The potential use of berthed boats for overnight hotel clients is not addressed although this potential use has been discussed in public. Mitigation measures should ensure that rental of berthed boats as overnight accommodations and use of the end ties for any purpose are prohibited. The parking paragraph describes access to the subterranean garage as being from the east boundary. It fails to recognize that this access is from a 20 -foot alley that abuts residential and commercial uses as well as a public park. - 3.3 Project Objectives: Reduction of any perceived deficit in the City's tidelands account is not legally necessary and is not an environmental issue subject to be addressed by CEQA. Likewise impact on general fund revenue and impact on the Girl Scouts and other users are not issues to be addressed in an EIR. 3.4 Intended Uses of DEIR, Responsible Agencies and Approvals: Installation of the proposed marina would require adjustment of the U.S. Pierhead line at this location. This is a major precedent setting action requiring approval by the "Secretary of the Army' (successor assumed). This approval is completely ignored in the DEIR. This approval may trigger the need to address NEPA and the preparation of an EIS. Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting Exhibit 4 -1: There are inaccuracies in this exhibit. The public, 21 space metered parking lot at the northeast corner of 18th Street and W. Balboa Blvd. is not depicted (it is shown as part of the mobile home park). This is a major issue for 9M 49 I H io H11 H13 H ILt 1 3 101 public coastal access. The public park on Fifteenth Street, Veteran's Memorial Park, between the American Legion and the 20 -foot alley access to the proposed hotel, is shown as part of the American Legion. It is a wholly accessible public park and should be shown as such. This is critical to assessing the impacts on the public park from the increased traffic proposed for the adjacent 20 -foot alley. Metered parking, #9, should be depicted as a rectangle; there is metered parking adjacent to the public park. After Mitigation 5.2 Hydrology and Water Quality: 5.2.1 Existing Conditions: This section discusses storm water but does not address tidal action. The west end of the site, during high tides, currently experiences water up to the existing retaining wall of the mobile home park while the east end experiences water topping over the groin wall of the American Legion basin. The EIR neglects to discuss the level of grade for the proposed project and how it interacts with the public beach and tidal action. This discussion is needed for protection of the property and protection of the bay water that might reach into the site and pick up pollutants such as fertilizers. This section fails to recognize that Balboa Boulevard floods over the curbs during periods of heavy rainfall and especially during concurrent rain and high tides. Newly installed grates over inlets will trap debris, clog the inlets and reduce the capacity of the inlets. This reduced capacity has not been tested in a storm. Table 5.2 -1 demonstrates increase in flows to the 15"' Street storm drain from 16-19% and to the 18"' Street storm drain from 15-22% where there is no capacity to absorb the flow. 5.2.3 Project Impacts: This section does not discuss the potential for degraded water conditions in the boat basin. The basin will be created by a bulkhead 261 feet long and two groin walls 79 feet long. The EIR acknowledges the residency of ocean water in the area is 7 days. There are no studies of the water exchange within the proposed basin. It can be anticipated that circulation will be poor and water residency will be longer than outside the basin thus leading to water pollution potential. This problem must be discussed and mitigation measures proposed. 5.4 Land Use and Planning: 5.4.3 Project Impact: Land Use Compatibility fails to recognize that the plan includes two restaurants, a bar and a spa, all open to the public. The proposed project divides the residential uses cry 18t e.1d 19th Streets from what is now a residential continuum and sandwiches it CI N15 1 Cl Hob ' M7 H 3.1 1 110 1 L 1 between two commercial areas, the hotel and McFadden Wharf. Traffic 1 flow will be impeded at peak times by vehicles attempting left turns to access the hotel. We differ strongly from the opinion that vehicular trips generated by the proposed project will not result in significant traffic ' impacts (Policy C). Table 5.4 -1 is misleading. The proposed project would be a Planned Community which has its own regulations. The idea that there be only one parking space per two rooms might suffice in Manhattan but not in Orange County. Guests generally arrive in their own cars. Fractional ownership facilities definitely generate at least one car per unit. Staff of a luxury hotel can approximate a least 80 members plus delivery and service vehicles. There are no parking spaces allocated to the boat slips, 1 ballroom, restaurants, bar or spa. No mention is made of the loss of 21 spaces in the public parking lot. 1 Policy D discussion implies that, because visual access from Balboa Boulevard is poor now, providing only a minimal improvement is justified. The site plan does not demonstrate visual corridors, just offset walkways 1 around the lobby structure. Substantial visual access must be provided by H a this project. This is in keeping with policies of the Coastal Commission, is 1 only fair to local residents and visitors for their pleasure inasmuch as this is public land and would enhance Peninsula esthetics. Currently, a person driving down Balboa Boulevard would barely know of water on either side 1 of the street. Recreation and Open Space — There will be a loss of grass area that now 1 creates a pleasant walking experience along Balboa Boulevard. The half basketball court will not be replaced. It is heavily used, just not Haa programmed by PB &R. The tennis courts will be replaced in the same ' and incorrect orientation as they are now (east -west facing the sun) but will be programmed by the hotel thus diminishing the availability to current users. This is contrary to Policy. ' Coastal Yews Policy 6.2, please see above. Harbor and Bay Element — the proposed slips are small. It is doubtful that eight will be used by 1 visitors to the hotel. Boats in transit are usually larger. There must be a Hai mitigation measure to ensure that these slips are not used for hotel rental as overnight accommodations. If this is the intent of the slips, appropriate definition must be made and mitigation measures imposed. The hotel is a 1 water- enhanced use. Preference must be given to using the site for water dependent uses. 1 Noise Element - This section discusses protection of the hotel from noise but not the adjacent residents and those across the water from noise H 1 generated by the hotel. Appropriate mitigation measure must be included 1 5 to address this problem. The hotel walls have the potential to deflect the already substantial noise from Balboa Boulevard across to residences where it now is absorbed, to some extent, by vegetation and can travel over one story structures. The Housing Element - This section does not address the creation of low income jobs thus generating a need for affordable housing. Local Coastal Program — This section neglects to address policies that would adversely affect the proposed project. For example, the project is proposed to be a five star luxury hotel. This is completely contrary to LCP policies to protect, encourage and provide lower -cost visitor serving and recreation facilities and lower -cost hotels and motels; encourage new overnight visitor accommodation developments to provide a range of rooms and room prices in order to serve all income ranges. The project is on public land and the City's policies, including other LCP policies for visual access, hand launching, and recreational beach use should be enhanced, not diminished by a project on its own property. The project or an alternative use should be designed to more appropriately meet the City's own policies. As a City leasehold, the project only replaces an existing sidewalk parallel to the water, a sidewalk that may actually encroach into what is now existing beach (scale of plan is too small to discem). A mitigation measure should be included that would prohibit the hotel from placing its equipment, such as umbrellas or chairs on the beach or providing food and beverage service to guests on the beach inasmuch as these activities would be intimidating to daily visitors to the beach who could be made to feel inferior. Visual access and parking have been discussed above. 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts — All the above add to loss of coastal access, increased traffic, isolation of a residential neighborhood and have cumulative impacts on Balboa Peninsula and the City as a whole. 5.4.5 Mitigation Measures — Copious mitigation measures, some of which have been proposed above, must be imposed if this project is to be approved. The DER must be substantially revised and recirculated for comment. 5.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation - CNBCA vigorously disagrees that project implementation will result in less than significant impacts. 5.5 Transportation /Circulation — This section is wholly inadequate. It does not address existing traffic conditions, which although are outside of the City, are important to City residents, beach visitors, potential hotel guests and neighboring city residents. Newport Boulevard intersections at 17" Street, Harbor Boulevard and 19'h Street in Costa Mesa are vital to local circulation and now are likely a level of service D, E or F. They should be 0 H;�� HXS Ha6 Hal HD-19 H a,l H3o 11z included in the traffic analysis. On Balboa Boulevard, the intersection at 15"' Street is heavily used by residents, beach visitors, local residents using West Bay Avenue, American Legion visitors and church attendees. This intersection must be included in the analysis in order to assess the impact of all the left turns generated by the project due to 100 car garage access and delivery access from 15"' Street down the 20' alley. The traffic section does not address the peak traffic hours of 11 A.M. to 6 P.M. Memorial Day to Labor Day for beach visitors. These are the same as arrival and departure hours for hotel guests. Traffic impacts from events at the proposed hotel are not addressed. It can be anticipated that the ballroom will be used for daytime and evening weddings and parties, all of which will generate extraordinary traffic. If the marina end tie is used for charter vessels, traffic will be greatly exacerbated and conditions of approval and mitigation measures must prohibit such a use. The employee turnover at shift changes impacts traffic. Consideration of the increased traffic flow at the time of employees' work shift changes (50 or more incoming, 50 or more outgoing) affects the flow of traffic on Balboa Boulevard and is not addressed. Because there is overlap of employees on -site during shift changes, an additional parking demand is created. This is an issue which must be addressed in the DER and mitigated. There are two curb cuts for driveways proposed for hotel ingress and egress. This is contrary to City policy of no curb -cuts on Balboa Boulevard. The two hotel driveways will be at the intersections of 16`" and 17'' Streets. -While there are breaks in the center divider at both intersections, they are seldom used and used only for occasional u -turns and west -bound left turns. These two intersections will be heavily impacted by entry and exit from the hotel and no analysis is provided. This analysis is essential. These impacted intersections will also require mitigation of noise and air quality impacts due to the concentration of vehicles. 5.7 Noise — It is difficult to take this section as a serious analysis when the noise studies at the site (Page 5 Giroux Noise Study) were conducted on February 5 -6 2004. If one were to try to determine the most quiet time of year on Balboa Boulevard, these dates would probably qualify. The noise study should be re- examined and studies undertaken for 24 hours on a summer weekend. This is the time when hotel users would be at a peak and most impacted by noise. It is also the time when adjacent residents would be most impacted by incremental noise from the hotel. Back up bells on delivery vehicles should be mitigated, noise impacts from uses facing the water must be studied and mitigated. Noise emanating from the ballroom, restaurants and balconies of hotel rooms will travel across the VA H3D Hai H3Z H33 113 water and impact moored boat users, Lido residents, wildlife and diminish the beach experience for visitors. 5.8 Aesthetics — The "wall' created by the two story hotel that reaches 34' at points is substantially different than the park setting that currently is viewed from Balboa Boulevard. View corridors must be opened and copious vegetation planted and affixed to the structures to mitigate there impact from the street. This impact negates statements made in 5.8.3, 5.8.4 and 5.8.5. There will be significant impact, even after appropriate mitigation measures are imposed. 5.9 Public Services and Utilities: 5.9.2 Fire Services —This department also includes life guard service. The public swim area is between 18"' and I streets and is seasonally guarded. The impact of additional hotel guests in the water, most H35 probably outside of the roped swim area, should be addressed and a determination made if additional life guards will be needed and if the City or hotel should provide the service. 5.9.3 Solid Waste — The concept that a mobile home park that is occupied only part time along with two part-time community uses, generate more waste that a 110 room hotel, 12 units of which are fractional ownership, plus a 12 F}36 slip marina, two restaurants, a bar, a ballroom and a spa is ludicrous. Even if the increased waste can be accommodated and no mitigation is necessary, at least a forthright study should be conducted to validate any determination. This study should be part of the recirculated DER. Section 6 — Other CEQA Considerations 6.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts —The unavoidable adverse impact of this proposed project precluding the use of this City owned property from being used for recreation -open space purposes must be addressed. The property has long been planned and zoned for such a ��� use. Its initial use was as a public campground, an affordable, public serving use. The substantial investment required to construct improvements will essentially terminate the use of the site for water dependent, public recreational uses. There is very little bay beach available to the public and this is the last chance for the City to create such an opportunity. Section 7 — Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect The preamble to this section reiterates development objectives which are 3$ economic and not a subject of CEQA. I H 8 IN 7.2 Marinapark Marine Recreation Altemative — In the CNBCA comments on ' the Notice of Preparation, dated November 19, 2003 we stated that this ' This projection is based on case studies for hotels in Del Mar and Beverly altemative should follow the plan of the PB &R Commission 1983 report Hills. The DEIR asserts that "the resort weekday trip rate appears to "Marinapark Study - Altemative Uses." Instead the altemative presented in h39 tthe DEIR included improvements that are more intense and which result in ' studies is not included in the DEIR. Please include the underlying data for allegedly higher impact than the hotel. The hotel analysis, by the way, these case studies in the DEIR when it is recirculated. This data is does not include public beach visitors in its analysis although public beach ' essential for full and complete public review. visitors are included in this Altemative analysis. A fair Altemative 3. Based on ITE trip data for Resort Hotel, traffic impacts would be much in Recreational Project should be included for analysis and the 1983 study at greater than indicated the DEIR. Please include a comparison between least has some public standing as a Commission recommendation. ' ITE trip generation projections and the projections based on the two case studies. 7.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative — this smaller hotel was supplemented by a large restaurant which could only be to the detriment of the analyzed H HD altemative. This gives the appearance of contrivance and manipulation to make the proposed project look superior. The altemative should be tchanged to something more fair. Appendix E: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis: 1. The weekend traffic analysis is inadequate and should be revised prior to recirculation of the DEIR. The traffic study needs to include actual peak wi summer day weekend traffic counts. The traffic study should also include an appropriate LOS analysis of this peak traffic. 2. The traffic study projects a relatively small increase ADT for the project. ' This projection is based on case studies for hotels in Del Mar and Beverly Hills. The DEIR asserts that "the resort weekday trip rate appears to kA1 -f Z represent the Saturday rate as well." However, the data for these case ' studies is not included in the DEIR. Please include the underlying data for these case studies in the DEIR when it is recirculated. This data is ' essential for full and complete public review. 3. Based on ITE trip data for Resort Hotel, traffic impacts would be much in Ky 3 greater than indicated the DEIR. Please include a comparison between ' ITE trip generation projections and the projections based on the two case studies. ' 4. Two case studies from hotels outside of Orange County do not provide an adequate statistical basis for the conclusion that traffic impacts will be jiLi L{ ' much lower that projections based on ITE data. A Trip Generation Study should be prepared to establish local Trip Generation rates. This Study should be included in the DEIR when it is recirculated. 5. The ICU method does not adequately address impacts to intersections�5 and is not recognized by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The DEIR ' should include a full HCM -based LOS analysis of each intersection. 1 9 1 15 6. The traffic study indicates that 25% of project traffic is distributed to the east along Balboa Boulevard; however, none of the intersections east of the project site were analyzed. Prior to recirculation of the DEIR, impacts on the following must be addressed: {6 • Balboa Blvd. and 15"' Street intersection • Balboa Blvd. and Main Street Intersection • Queuing and wait time at Balboa Island Ferry crossing • Analysis of increased traffic along Balboa Island streets to Pacific Coast Highway Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Impact Report. CNBCA is of the opinion that the comments made above are substantial and warrant revision of the DEIR and its subsequent recirculation. We look forward to reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report further when it is recirculated. Very truly yours, Louise Fundenberg, President Central Newport Beach Community Association 10 //(a MadnW&r* Resat arW Cammunity Plan - Response to Cormnents on dw Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' H. Central Newport Beach Community Association ' Hl. Please see response to comment B41 regarding the sampling of the bayfloor sediments. Please see response to B5 regarding the regulatory database review conducted for the proposed project. ' H2. Please see response to comment B5 regarding the regulatory database review conducted for the proposed project. According to the EDP, Inc. report, 1500 West Balboa Boulevard included a gas station and is on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank ( LUST) database. The database also indicates that the LUST was remediated and the case was closed in the year 2000. Therefore, no further action was warranted. ' H3. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of approximately 50 full-time jobs based on data provided by the project applicant. ' Information regarding industry- standard ratios was not provided. It is acknowledged that the majority of the jobs would be low income jobs. According to information presented in the Orange County Snapshot published by the California Employment Development Department, the County unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in 2002. Given this rate, the low income jobs generated by the proposed project would likely come from the Orange County labor pool. Only a few of the jobs are expected to be ' high income jobs (i.e., senior management), and these jobs could be filled from outside of the Orange County labor pool. Because of the relatively small amount of jobs being created from the proposed project and the expectation that the low income jobs would be filled by current unemployed people in the local economy, there would not be a need to supply additional affordable housing or to make special housing arrangements for the employees. Therefore, the findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. H4. The Relocation Impact Report (RIR) is a requirement of Civil Code Section 798.56 and Government Code Section 65863.7, not CEQA. The RIR is required to evaluate ' the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobilehome parks and relocation costs as elements of a decision to change the use of the property. The Report is not required to address physical environmental impacts. H5. The City of Newport Beach is the current owner of the project site. Certain use restrictions apply to any property that is considered to be tidelands. A hotel is a permitted tideland use. The proposed hotel is not permitted under the City's current General Plan designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space and that designation was applied to the property prior to the time that State Lands Commission staff took the position that a majority of the site was tidelands. As a ' result, a General Plan amendment will be required with the proposed project. The comment regarding the location of the hotel facilities in relation to the existing ' lateral sidewalk is noted. To ensure consistency with the project that was evaluated in the Draft EIR as well as by the City, Exhibit 3 -3 is hereby corrected to illustrate that the hotel facilities will not extend beyond the existing lateral sidewalk. No environmental effects in addition to those already addressed in the Draft EIR would occur with this correcti on. H6. This comment regarding the project sponsor is noted and is not a specific comment ' on the contents of the environmental analysis. Michael Brandman Assoelstm H:Cbm "- H4)=64%064ER2DM64ERM-RTC 7 -1 5mIAa I1 Madnapark React and Community Plan - Responm to Commends on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments H7. The purpose of the Executive Summary is to provide a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. The detailed uses within the hotel lobby building are discussed in Section 3.1.2 in the Draft EIR. The entrance into the luxury resort hotel is at the Balboa Boulevard/ 17th Street intersection. Hotel guests and visitors would use this entrance while the entrance from 15th Street to an alley would be only used by employees and service vehicles. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts on 15th Street would result from the 50 employees and the service vehicles. H8. The sufficiency of the mitigation measures and EIR is based on the analysis and determination of the mitigation measures' ability to reduce the potential significant impacts associated with the project. The determination of the approval authority at the City of Newport Beach that will provide oversight and approval for specific monitoring of the various mitigation measures is not required as part of the EIR. However, prior to approval of the project, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program is required to be prepared for the proposed project and approved by the City Council. H9. The square footage for the enclosed space of the subterranean garage is approximately 29,643 square feet (241 feet by 123 feet), as indicated on page 2 -1 of the Draft EIR. The project does not include the provision for the proposed dock to be used by charter vessels H 10. The maximum length of a boat proposed for the dock is 30 feet (see response to comment B20 regarding modification to the boat dock). The hotel boats and watercraft are not proposed to be used for overnight accommodations. H 11. Please see response to comment H7 regarding the use of the alley and 15th Street. H 12. CEQA requires that the Draft EIR include a "... statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project ". The objectives are required to help define a range of reasonable alternatives to the project and to help decisionmakers prepare findings, or a statement of overriding considerations if needed. Information about projected revenues from the project is included for use in determining consistency with project objectives. H 13. In response to concerns raised by the Harbor Commission, the project proponent has replaced the slips with a floating, longitudinal dock parallel to the beach and wholly within the existing pierhead line. No pierhead line relocation, therefore, will be needed and no request for relocation will need to be submitted for approval. H 14. This comment regarding revisions to exhibit 4-1 is noted. Exhibit 4 -1 is hereby revised (see revised Exhibit 4-1) to illustrate the 21 space metered parking lot at the northeast corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 18th Street, and Veterans Memorial Park located immediately west of 15`h Street. The metered parking is identified on the exhibit adjacent to Veterans Memorial Park. H15. Please see response to comment H14 regarding modifications to Exhibit 4-1. H16. According to Coastal Resources Management, elevation 9 feet would be located outside of the tidal range. As shown in Exhibit 3 -4, elevation 9 feet is located north MichOW Brandmen Associates n x:` CU, 7 -1 fi.W. tt�/( N LN O LLJ cr 44HON On Ap On On O yK yo O O O ' Aladn4pa8 Resort and Commenity Plan - Response to Commons on the Draft EIR Respenses To Comments of the existing lateral sidewalk adjacent to the existing groin wall (eastern end of the project site). Please see response to comment H5 regarding the correction to the location of the proposed resort facilities so that the proposed facilities do not extend north of the existing lateral sidewalk. Since the proposed facilities would not extend north of the sidewalk, the existing tidal influence would not affect the proposed resort facilities. H17. The comment on hydrology and water quality is noted. Section 5.2 -1 of the Draft EIR under the Flooding sub - section references the potential for flooding along ' Balboa Boulevard. Mitigation Measure HWQ-2 in Section 5.2.5 of the Draft EIR states that the catch basin inserts are subject to a regular cleaning and maintenance program by the City. Neither of these is the result of the proposed project. Although ' Table 5.2 -1 demonstrates an increase in flows that would result from the proposed project, recommended Mitigation Measure HWQ-6 would require proposed onsite detention basins, as part of the proposed project, be sized in order to detain peak flows so no contribution to an off -site, pre- existing flooding condition would result ' from project implementation. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the drainage impacts that would result from project implementation. H18. A mitigation measure has been recommended to modify the proposed dock as discussed in response to comment B20. The recommended modification would ' remove the bulkhead and groin wall and include a boat dock that would allow bay water to flow under the dock to the bay shore, and therefore, would eliminate the potential for bay water to become stagnant. ' H19. The ancillary facilities of the proposed hotel (i.e., restaurant, caf6, bar, ballroom) are of sizes and designs that are primarily intended to serve the needs of the hotel guests. Since these facilities support the proposed hotel and are not a primary facility, ' Section 5.4.3 in the Draft EIR adequately describes the compatibility of the proposed hotel which includes ancillary facilities. Please see response to comment B62 ' regarding the total vehicle peak hour trips entering and exiting the project site. H2O. Please see response to comment B50 regarding the provision of adequate parking and B53 and Q l regarding parking requirements for the proposed project. H21. Please see response to comment B58 for a discussion on visual access. There are no California Coastal Commission policies requiring substantial visual access from Balboa Boulevard to Newport Harbor through the project site. H22. The proposed project will result in the loss of the existing grass area adjacent to Balboa Boulevard. Please see response to comment B -13 for a discussion of the half ' basketball court and B55 for a discussion of tennis lessons. ' H23. Please see response to comment G 14 regarding visiting vessels. The project description does not include use of the slips or vessels owned by the hotel to be used for overnight accommodations. Also see response to comments G as to the project being a water - enhanced use and G9 as to the appropriateness of a water - enhanced use ' on the project property. H24. Please see response to comment H33 for a discussion of noise impacts from hotel ' activities. The proposed hotel will be set back from Balboa Boulevard by bfkWW Brandman Asax/atas H:\Cliem (PN- 7H)\0064V 064aR20`D064ER20RTC 7 -1 finLLdm ' �+r Marlmpark Resort and Community Plan - Respmm to Comments on dw Draft EIR Responses To Comments approximately 186 feet. This setback along with the various landscape features between the hotel structures and Balboa Boulevard would minimise noise deflection. As discussed on page 5.7 -11 in the Draft EIR, the nearest hotel facade would be exposed to noise levels of approximately 61 dBA CNEL. If these facades deflect noise, the sound level would continue to decrease to lower than 61 dBA. The cumulative noise levels from the addition of deflected noise levels from the proposed hotel facades and existing noise levels along Balboa Boulevard would not be noticeably different than the existing noise levels along Balboa Boulevard. H25. Please see response to comment H3 regarding the discussion on low income jobs. H26. Please see response to comment D7 regarding lower cost visitor serving and recreation facilities in the Coastal Zone. There is nothing in the City's LCP policies, or in the Coastal Act, that prohibits the development of luxury hotels. Please see response to comment H5 regarding a correction to the location of the proposed hotel facilities in relation to the existing lateral sidewalk. H27. The proposed project will increase coastal access from the project site as discussed on page 5.4 -12 of the Draft EIR. The project will contribute to cumulative traffic volumes; however, as described in Section 5.5.4 in the Draft EIR, the project's traffic contribution would not result in significant cumulative traffic impacts in accordance with the City's TPO because at the locations where the project - related traffic would result in peak hour trip contributions of a greater than one percent increase, the intersections operate at LOS B. The issue raised in the comment regarding isolation of a residential neighborhood is not understood; however, the existing residential uses adjacent to the project site would not be isolated because residential uses are located along the south side of Balboa Boulevard. H28. This comment regarding the inclusion of mitigation measures and recirculation is noted. H29. As stated in Section 6 of the Draft EIR, all impacts associated with the project could be reduced to less than significant after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. H30. The Traffic Analysis evaluates study area intersections consistent with the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO). As identified in the response to comment B61, Austin -Foust Associates (AFA) reviewed City traffic counts along Balboa Boulevard between 15th Street and 20th Street to compare non -peak season volumes with peak season volumes. Pages 5.5 -5 and 5.5 -6 of the Draft EIR contain a summary of AFA's analysis of the project's contribution to summer weekend traffic volumes along Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of 20th Street, utilizing a worst case scenario. As identified in the DEIR, the total average daily project - related trips is expected to be approximately one percent of the total average daily trips (ADT) along this segment of Balboa Boulevard, which will not be distinguishable from the summer ADT fluctuations along this street segment. Moreover, as identified on page 5.5-6 of the Draft EIR, project - related traffic is expected to occur at times other than the peak hour, and in fact hotel patrons are expected to either be traveling in the direction opposite to the outbound beach traffic in the afternoons or traveling during periods other than that when there is peak traffic volumes exiting the peninsula. Mkhael Brsndman Assodales AO W Cb.m (M- M)%0D64I0W4FR20`00"URM_RTC 7.1 fiml.dm /l, ' ' Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Cormuenls on the Draft EM Responses To Commends As to 17th Street, Harbor Boulevard and 19th Street intersections with Newport Boulevard in Costa Mesa, the added trips to Newport Boulevard would diminish to less than 12 vph in the AM and 16 vph in the PM peak hours, and these volumes are well below a one percent threshold at these locations. It is estimated these intersections currently handle over 6,000 vph, and this project contribution (i.e., 16 ' vph) is less than the one percent threshold (i.e., greater than 60 vph), and therefore, is less than significant. ' Access to the parking garage and alley from 15th Street is for employee and service vehicles only. The total peak hour entry-exit volume to the hotel is less than 50 vph, of which an estimated maximum of 20 percent of the vehicles per hour may be employees/service trips. This volume (10 vph) is not a significant addition at 15th Street. The proposed project does not include tie -ups for charter vessels; therefore, traffic ' associated with charter vessels would not be generated from project implementation. The proposed project includes 3,603 square feet of ballroom space which is intended ' to serve the needs of the hotel guests. Due to the nominal size of the ballroom, large special events are not proposed to be accommodated at the proposed luxury resort hotel. The traffic generated by the use of the ballroom by hotel guests is part of the ' trip generation rate for the hotel. Please see response to comment B53 regarding the onsite ancillary uses. H31. As identified in Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project ' is anticipated to result in 50 new employment opportunities. The types of employment will range from business and administration staff to a variety of hospitality and support services staff. Given the varying demands of these positions, ' it is unlikely that all 50 employees would be on site at one time or that there will be major shift changes that will result in the ingress and egress of large numbers of staff. For example, cleaning and janitorial staff generally will be onsite in the momings and ' afternoons while bar staff will be onsite during the afternoons and evenings. As noted in the comment, there will be an overlap of employees onsite; however, there is adequate parking onsite to serve a fully occupied hotel, hotel visitors and patrons of the other onsite land uses (tot park, Community Center /Girl Scouts House) and a fully staffed hotel. As noted on pages 3-6 and 3 -8 of the Draft OR, the project will include 59 surface parking spaces that are proposed adjacent to the proposed villas as well as a 100 -space subterranean parking structure for hotel guests and visitors. ' H32. The Transportation and Development Services Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed driveways. Please see response to comment ' B62 regarding project traffic at the proposed entrance. H33. Baseline noise measurements were taken over a 24 -hour period to determine the ' existing noise environment. While it is noted that typical of a beachfront community, there will be noise increase in the summertime as traffic and visitor populations increase, such increases are not characteristic of the overall noise setting for the nine ' months out of the year that are not summer months. The Draft EIR also accounted for the fact that the noise environment differs during the summer seasons. As indicated on pages 5.7 -8 and 5.7 -9 of the Draft EIR, utilizing the traffic generation numbers forecasted by Austin -Foust and Associates (AFA) and approved by the City, Giroux and Associates calculated off -site noise levels along seven area roadway Michael Brandman Associates ' x:Uiem ( M- JM`a064\0064ER20`a064ER20_RTC 7 -1 EmIdac fz[ Afarlmlperk Resort and Community Plan — Reaponee to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments segments for two different scenarios: summer traffic conditions (existing and existing ' with project) and winter traffic conditions (existing and existing with project). Table 5.7 -5 of the Draft EIR includes the projected noise conditions under both scenarios. ' Since the traffic analysis assumed a worst case scenario of all 110 rooms being occupied at once, the noise analysis is also based upon a worst case scenario. The impacts of noise upon hotel users are discussed on page 5.7 -10 of the Draft EIR. ' The City's Municipal Code cites that land uses such as hotels are not to be located in areas that have noise measurements that exceed 65 dB CNEL. The existing noise environment within the area proposed for the hotel is below the 65 dB CNEL. Since ' normal noise attenuation from exterior to interior is 20 dB, the project would meet the interior standard of 45 dB. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.7, Noise, of the 1 Draft EIR, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) imposes structural standards that govern noise transmission from one unit to another unit within the same multi- tenant ' structure. As required by law, the project will be in conformance with the UBC. Please see response to comment B68 regarding noise levels from delivery trucks. , The noise from some hotel activities may be heard on or across Newport Bay. However, hotel- generated noise would not be sufficient to substantially increase , ambient noise levels. As stated on page 5.7-6 in the Draft EIR, the City's noise ordinance standards apply to onsite noise generation from mechanical equipment, site maintenance, and social functions. Given that hotel activities are required to comply ' with the City's noise ordinance, hotel activities would not result in significant noise levels. H34. The proposed hotel lobby structure which is the nearest hotel structure to Balboa Boulevard is set back approximately 186 feet. The project includes landscaping as illustrated in Exhibits 5.8 -3 through 5.8 -5 in the Draft EIR. Based a variety of factors as discussed in Section 5.8 in the Draft EIR, the implementation of the proposed , project would not result in a significant impact on the visual quality of the project site from areas in the vicinity of the project site. 1 H35. The proposed project could result in an increase of people using the existing public beach, and there could be an increase in the number of people swimming adjacent to the shoreline. This increase is expected to fluctuate depending on the season. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department regularly evaluates their life guard service ' and monitors fluctuations to determine the need for additional lifeguards in various areas of the City including the vicinity of the proposed project. ' H36. Please see response to comment B88 regarding the generation of solid waste by the mobile home park and the proposed project. ' H37. The proposed project's consistency with the City's general plan policies is provided in Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR. The proposed project would remove a portion of the project site from future open space uses. This removal would be an unavoidable impact. ' However, given that this portion of the site has not been used as recreation/open space use for the past 40 plus years, the loss of this future potential recreation /open space area is not considered area is not considered significant. Furthermore, the proposed project , includes the reconstruction of the majority of the existing recreational facilities located on the project site and, in comparison with the existing onsite land uses, provides greater public beach access. Michael Brandman Associates / �J IN)kOD64\o 4ERIA`O064ER20-R'rC 7 -I f=Ldoc H,\Ctiem (PN- �( ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 McAnapark Resort and Community Pisa - Rssponse to Comments on the Weft EIR Responses To Comments H38. Please see response to comment B95 regarding the inclusion of economic goals in the project objectives. H39. The proposal presented by the City's Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in February 2000, which was not selected by the City Council, did not include any aquatic facilities. The Marine Recreation alternative in the Draft EIR was developed to respond to the needs noted by the City's Harbor Commission, as well as to respond to the Recreation and Open Space Element, which includes aquatic facilities among the things that could be developed on the site in the future. H40. Please see responses to comments B97 and B 100 regarding the selection of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. H4 L Please see responses to comments B61 and B62 regarding summer traffic. H42. As indicated on page 5.5 -3 of the Draft EIR, during weekdays the proposed project will generate 640 daily vehicle trips within the project area. However, since the Institute of Traffic Engineers (TTE) Handbook does not have a compatible weekend trip generation rate for a luxury resort hotel (the IM Handbook has only a single reference to a resort hotel rate for weekends and cautions its use), Austin -Foust Associates (AFA) conducted weekend traffic counts at two comparable luxury resort hotels, the L'Auberge Del Mar Resort in Del Mar and the Hotel Bel Air in Bel Air. As stated on page 5.5 -5 of the Draft EIR, "The traffic counts indicated that the weekday and weekend trip rates did not vary significantly, and in fact, remained quite consistent." Presented below are the traffic count summaries for both hotels: Resort Hotel Trip Generation Case Study Summary As shown in the tables above, the weekend traffic counts varied from 6 to 11 percent from the weekday counts which is not considered substantial. Therefore, the hotel weekday trip rates was considered as the weekend trip rate. H43. Traffic generation rates are established by utilizing the generation factor identified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE), Trip Generation, 7" Edition, which is the industry standard. The IM generation rates forecast vehicle trips by land use, which was determined to be resort hotel for the proposed land uses and mobile home park for the existing onsite land uses that will be displaced. These generation rates established the trip generation factor for weekday trips. Furthermore, AFA conducted traffic studies to examine the weekend traffic characteristics of luxury resort hotels, since the IM Generation, 7h Edition does not include a reliable weekend trip generation factor for luxury resort hotels (the ITE handbook has only a single reference to a resort hotel rate for weekends and cautions its use), such as the proposed project. The IM weekend rate for a resort hotel is 13.42 trips per room per day while the trip rate found during the special studies varied from 5.4 to 8.0 trips per Michael Brandman Associates ' HAClient (PN -M\OO6 \0064ER20`0064ER20 —RTC 7 -1 fnaLdw 123 Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments room per day. The weekend trip generation rate derived from the special study was essentially the same as 1TE's weekday rate of 5.4 to 7.4 trips per room per day. As stated in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, "Luxury hotels differ from typical business/vacation hotels in that they are very expensive, offer upscale rooms and suites, and provide luxury personal services such as individual spa and treatments and exclusive dining. Luxury hotels are marketed to high -end travelers who are not tied to conventional commuter schedules rather than the conventional business travelers and family vacationers whose travel patterns correspond to normal peak hour weekday periods." Therefore, it is reasonable that AFA did not utilize 1TE's weekend trip generation rate for conventional hotels, since it would be inaccurate to utilize a trip generation factor that would not reflect the project's impacts. This is in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and specifically, Section 15144, which identifies that, "Drafting an EIR naturally involves some degree of forecasting. While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." H44. The traffic analysis does not conclude that based upon the two case studies conducted at the L'Auberge Del Mar Resort in Del Mar and the Hotel Bel Air in Bel Air that the proposed project will have a lower trip generation rate. It concludes that the weekend trip generation rate is similar to that of the weekday trip generation rate See response to comment H43 for the basis for this conclusion. It is reasonable in forecasting traffic conditions that the City and AFA had to make certain assumptions based upon professional expertise and knowledge of the project design and objectives. Among those assumptions are that a luxury resort hotel will attract a certain clientele that differs from that of a conventional or business hotel. Furthermore, since the 1TE generation factors are based upon general land use rather than a local land use, it is appropriate to conduct case studies outside of Change County as long as the land uses studied maintain similar characteristics to that of the proposed project. In fact, ]TE trip generation rates are established by examining studies of various land uses throughout the United States. The conclusions of the two case studies were that the trip generation rates for weekends are similar to those during the weekday. Such a finding is considered reasonable since hotels such as the L'Auberge Del Mar Resort in Del Mar, the Hotel Bel Air in Bel Air, and the proposed project cater to high -end vacationers whose activities are not confined by the day of the week, as would occur with a business traveler. Please also see response to comment U17 for a further discussion on the intent of the two case studies. H45. The traffic analysis was conducted in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) that was prepared by the City of Newport Beach and approved by the City Council. The TPO was designed to assure a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects. The ICU methodology was the forerunner of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). In an earlier version of the HCM, the ICU methodology, called "The Critical Movement Methodology," was the HCM method. More importantly, the ICU methodology has been adopted locally by both the City of Newport Beach and the County of Change for its Congestion Management Program (CMP) as the prescribed methodology for traffic impact assessments. Experience shows that the two methodologies produce comparable outcomes, but CMP and City requirements dictate use of the ICU. The results of the ICU, expressed in percentage of capacity, are much easier to understand than the HCM delay -based results. Michael Brandman Associates / W.VCliem (i%- M\0044b060ER20`0064F _R'rC 7 -1 f=ldm 1 ' Mar/napark Resort and Communhy Plan - Response to Cammente on the Draft EIR Responses To 0marents ' H46. The traffic analysis was conducted in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines that were prepared by the City of Newport Beach and approved by ' the City Council. In accordance with the TPO, project trip distribution is consistent with assumptions in the Newport Beach Traffic Area Model (NBTAM) relative to the trip production and attraction characteristics of the land uses as well as previous trip ' distribution determinations for projects of similar size and location. As identified on page 5.5 -3 of the Draft EIR, trip distribution of project - generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the subject property. Due to the low volume of traffic that represents 25 percent of the project traffic (i.e., 8 vph in the AM peak hour and 12 vph in the PM peak hour) a detailed analysis was not conducted. Such volumes are too low to even ' suspect a significant traffic impact will result. They are well below the one percent threshold at intersections along Balboa Boulevard east of the project site. I i 1 I i I 1 Michael Bmndmen Associates r r 5 + ' HXRea(PN-R \0064\006M1F,R2OkOD64rR2l1_RTC 7.1 fi=Ld c ` I 6/2/04 ' Dear City Councilmen and Planning Commissioners: I would like to propose an alternate use for the Marinapark property. There is currently a very high demand for residential properties in Newport Beach, The City Council might consider authorizing the redevelopment of Marinapark as a tract of single ' family lots. The lots could be sold to individuals and developers and single - family homes constructed. A local real estate agent estimated that the bayfront lots would each be worth ' about $2,000,000 and the interior lots about $1,000,000. It appears that approximately 25 bayfront lots and 25 interior lots would fit into the parcel without taking away the Girl ' Scout building, the tennis courts, the basketball court, or the income - generating parking lot. The immediate potential income would be: ' 25 lots x $2,000,000 = $50,000,000 25 lots x $1,000,000 = $25,_000.000 Total: _ $75,000,000 Subtracting out an estimated development cost of $15,000,000 (which seems high), and the net gain is $60,000,000. That amount of money put into long -term bonds @ 5% ' would yield the city $3,000,000 per year. Also, the built -out property values would be somewhere in-the range of $125,000,000 which Would generate additional income for the city of close to $200,000. In conclusion and summary, the site could be utilized for relatively non - controversial single family residential housing and a secure income stream generated of about $3,200,000 /year for the city. Respectful] , ' David Grove 3419 Via Lido #440 ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 10 TA U6 ' Afarhmpark Resat and Community Plan - Rssponse to Commems on the Draft ElR Responses To Comments ' I. Mr. David Groverman 1 I I LJ I 1 I1. This comment regarding an alternative use that includes residential units is noted. According to the State Lands Commission staff, approximately 70 percent of the @Uchaei Brendmen Associates HACEem (PN.JN)10064%0064ER101DWER20 RTC 7.1 finaUm project site is located within the tideland boundary. The California State Lands ' Commission has determined that residential uses such as the existing mobile homes or other types of residential uses are not permitted within tideland areas. Therefore, one of the project's primary objectives is to redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. 1 I I LJ I 1 @Uchaei Brendmen Associates HACEem (PN.JN)10064%0064ER101DWER20 RTC 7.1 finaUm 1 ' Page 1 of 2 ' Campbell, James From: scoff gohl [sagohl @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:20 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us ' Subject: Marina Park Resort Mr. Campbell, I am writing in support of the proposed Marina Park Resort. The project appears to well ' conceived, with the developer offering unbelievable incentives to our community. My concern is this, if "The City has determined that the project probably would not require a vote by the citizens should the General Plan Amendment be approved. ", why then is it being put to a ballot vote? I am requesting a truthful (non - political) answer from you in response. For seven years as a homeowner in Newport Beach I have watched the emergence of the greenlight naysayers in this city and the economic harm that it has caused. I have watched as potential development (that would increase the appeal of our beautiful ' coastline and city) avoid Newport Beach, to the benefit other communities (e.g. have you seen Main St/PCH in Huntington Beach ?). Further, I have watched while virtually no regentrification has occured along PCH or the harbor and pier areas of the pennisula. 'All the while, in my opinion, the elected officials in this city have bent, broken and pandered to the seeming - blackmail and agendas of this loud, illogical group of residents. Now I read "...the City Council has decided to have the project voted upon by the citizens of Newport Beach due to the importance of the project." and I can only believe that once again my elected officials are acquiescing to the demands of this segment of " greenlight" residents. I hope I am wrong. But, if the "Greenlight Initiative" set the framework for what needs to be put to resident vote, why then is the city willfully setting precedent to lower the bar even further? iI implore you and other city planners to support this project and return my (and other like- minded residents of this city) confidence in the respected people who are entrusted 0 to develop the vision of this city. Thank you in advance for your doing what is best for the residents of Newport Beach, and I look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, Scott Gohl it Do you Yahoo!? 19 0 06/04/2004 Mednspark Resort and Communlly Plan — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments J. Mr. Scott Grohl J 1. This comment regarding support of the Marinapark Resort is noted. No further response is required. Michael Brsndman Assoc isles I a HACHe ( M- 7H )\0064=MER2Oft646R20- RTC7- 1fiwldm Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 7 2004 PM 71819110111112,11213141516 1 Re: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Resort ' Gentlemen: ' On behalf of the Marinapark Homeowners Association ( "MHA "), I would like to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "the DEIR ") for the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan project ( "the project ") currently under consideration ' by the City of Newport Beach ( "the City "). The comments in this letter are based upon the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; !'CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). MHA is comprised of the residents of the Marinapark mobile home park ' ( "Marinapark ") which currently occupies most of the site of the proposed project. The MHA members occupy individual mobile home sites pursuant to separate lease agreements with the City. Contrary to assertions in the DEIR, most of the residents reside there on a full -time ' basis. Many have resided there for decades, and constitute a close -knit, longstanding community. The project would literally eliminate Marinapark, displacing all of the residents, most of whom are retirees and many of whom are of lower- income levels. Marinapark 1 would be replaced by an expensive private enclave, essentially an exclusive playground on public property. The project is in conflict with both the land use regulations of the City and conditions in the surrounding community. Despite a valiant attempt by the City's environmental consultants to portray the project as having no significant environmental impacts, that is far ' from the reality of the situation. We previously submitted comments in response to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation which preceded the DEIR, noting several environmental impacts which had not been identified, but those comments appear to have been ignored in the preparation of the DEIR. For that reason, and for the other reasons set forth below, the DEIR is legally insufficient to support approval of the project as proposed. IMwinapwk.Cou.CityNB.060404(DEIR) 130 Cary D. Lowe Attorney at Law 228 SAINT ALBANS AVENUE ' SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91030 (323) 255 -7600 FACSIMILE (323) 255 -6330 ' clowe@socal.rr.com June 4, 2004 ' VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS & FACSINIILE Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 7 2004 PM 71819110111112,11213141516 1 Re: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Resort ' Gentlemen: ' On behalf of the Marinapark Homeowners Association ( "MHA "), I would like to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "the DEIR ") for the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan project ( "the project ") currently under consideration ' by the City of Newport Beach ( "the City "). The comments in this letter are based upon the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; !'CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). MHA is comprised of the residents of the Marinapark mobile home park ' ( "Marinapark ") which currently occupies most of the site of the proposed project. The MHA members occupy individual mobile home sites pursuant to separate lease agreements with the City. Contrary to assertions in the DEIR, most of the residents reside there on a full -time ' basis. Many have resided there for decades, and constitute a close -knit, longstanding community. The project would literally eliminate Marinapark, displacing all of the residents, most of whom are retirees and many of whom are of lower- income levels. Marinapark 1 would be replaced by an expensive private enclave, essentially an exclusive playground on public property. The project is in conflict with both the land use regulations of the City and conditions in the surrounding community. Despite a valiant attempt by the City's environmental consultants to portray the project as having no significant environmental impacts, that is far ' from the reality of the situation. We previously submitted comments in response to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation which preceded the DEIR, noting several environmental impacts which had not been identified, but those comments appear to have been ignored in the preparation of the DEIR. For that reason, and for the other reasons set forth below, the DEIR is legally insufficient to support approval of the project as proposed. IMwinapwk.Cou.CityNB.060404(DEIR) 130 Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 2 1. The Summary Section Does Not Adequately Identifv Areas of Controversy. The summary section of the DEIR is required to identify "areas of controversy known to the lead agency including issues raised by agencies and the public" (CEQA Guidelines Section I5I23(b)(2)). The Executive Summary of the DE1R contains only a cursory, two - sentence description of this, referring merely to "intensification of land uses" and "location of the tideland boundary" (page 2 -1). Comments previously submitted, both in writing and in public testimony, by NU IA and representatives of the surrounding community have identified numerous areas of controversy which are not identified here and, in some cases, are not addressed at all in the body of the DEIR, e.g., the eradication of the long -time, stable Marinapark community. 2. Certain Proiect Obiectives Are Misleadine and Will Undermine Agency Findings. The project description in the DEIR is required to include a statement of objectives, to aid the City in making appropriate findings or adopting a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b). The DEIR does include a list of project objectives (page 3 -8), but certain of these objectives listed are highly questionable on their face. The second objective is to "redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands," but it is a completely unsettled issue, as a matter of law, as to whether this project will be permitted under those restrictions. Similarly, the fourth objective is to "provide additional general fund revenues" for the City, but there is no credible evidence that the project will generate a level of revenue comparable to, let alorie in excess of, the amount currently generated by the Marinapark leases. The unrealistic nature of these objectives will undermine the validity of future determinations made by the City based upon this DEIR. 3. The DEIR Fails to Address the Proiect's Impacts upon the Existing Community. The DEIR is required to discuss, as part of the analysis of significant environmental impacts of the project, "changes induced in population distribution ... [and] human use of the land" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a)). Yet, the document virtually ignores this issue. Marinapark is an integral part of the larger community of the Balboa Peninsula, with approximately one hundred residents. For the vast majority of them, Marinapark is their primary residence, and many of them have resided there for decades. The mobile homes in which they reside, while legal structures, in most cases are no longer moveable as a practical matter and generally do not conform to the requirements applied to new residents in other mobile home parks. What the DEIR euphemistically refers to as the "displacement" of Marinapark would actually consist of the demolition of 56 homes and the uprooting of an entire community. The DEIR erroneously attempts to circumvent this issue by asserting that Marinapark is a non - conforming use at this site, and that it is not assumed to be a continuing source of housing in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan (page 1 -5). This misses a key point in the regulations governing the analysis contained in the DEIR. That analysis must Ki Ka K3 Marinapark .Com.CityNB.060404(DEIR) 131 1 Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach ' June 4, 2004 Page 3 ' use as a baseline "the existing physical conditions in the affected area" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) and Section 15125(e)), without regard to what the conditions may be at ' some time in the future. While the residences in Marinapark may indeed be non - conforming uses, they still are legally permitted uses as long as they remain there. The DEIR makes assertions to the contrary in the Introduction, but does not discuss the issue further in the body of the document. In addition to these direct physical impacts, there are economic and social effects upon the Marinapark community, most notably dumping of the residents into a housing market in which few of them would be able to find affordable replacement housing. Marinapark represents the last housing in the area which is affordable to low to moderate income households. The population of Marinapark includes a significant number for whom ' there are no alternative housing opportunities in the community, in the City as a whole or even in the surrounding region. While these effects may not be treated as significant environmental impacts in and of themselves, they may be used to determine the significance ' of physical changes caused by the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 1513l(a) and (b)). The CEQA Guidelines specifically use as an example a situation in which a development project physically divides a community, with the result that the social effects are the basis for determining that the physical effects of the construction are environmentally significant. Certainly, that rule must apply even more readily to the complete elimination of a i community, as proposed by the project here. Furthermore, in reviewing the DEIR, the City is required to consider "economic, social and particularly housing factors ... in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effect on the ' environmental identified in the EIR" and "in reaching a decision on the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(c)). The DEIR fails to acknowledge this issue at all, and consequently fails to take it into account in formulating mitigation measures or proj ect alternatives. We contend that the project as proposed cannot mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance and, therefore, cannot be approved by the City without a statement of overriding considerations, supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b)). 4. The DEIR Understates Inconsistencies Between the Proiect and Local Plans. ' The DEIR is required to discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the City's General Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d)). The DEIR notes that the General Plan designates the site as Recreational and Environmental Open Space, and lists a variety of uses permitted under that designation (page 5.4 -3). The text emphasizes that Marinapark is not consistent with the existing land use designation (page 5.4 -4), and implies that the project falls within the permitted uses, which it does not. It is not until 16 pages later that a passing reference finally is made to the need for a General Plan amendment to accommodate the project (page 5.4 -19). The General Plan expressly states that, if and when the Marinapark leases are terminated, the site is intended to be converted to "public use" (page 5.4- 4),but this inconsistency with the project also goes without further comment in the DEIR. Marinapuk .Cort.CityNB.060404(DEIR) K3 KIf 13;Z Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 4 In discussing land use compatibility, the DEIR notes that "the project site is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, recreational and institutional land uses" (Page 5.4 -7). This apparently is intended to justify the introduction of the project into the midst of an eclectic mix of land uses. What the DEIR fails to acknowledge is that. the current mix of uses constitutes a diverse community, providing housing, retail, employment and recreation opportunities. Marinapark is a vital component of that current mix. The project, by contrast, would have no relationship to anything in the existing community. It is conceived as an isolated enclave, providing short-term recreational opportunities for wealthy individuals from outside the community. It may as well have a moat around it and a "Keep Out" sign at the entrance, in light of its non - connection to the community around it. The DEIR quotes the General Plan Housing Element as requiring replacement of housing demolished in the Coastal Zone, where it has been occupied by low and moderate income households in the preceding year, and also requiring a permit for such demolition. It notes the need for the permit (page 5.4 -16), but entirely ignores the requirement for replacement of the housing which will be lost in Marinapark, much of which currently is occupied by low and moderate income households. The DEIR notes that a Mobile Home Park Conversion Permit will be required prior to demolition of Marinapark (page 5.4-16), but that provides no assurance that replacement housing will be available for the residents. The DEIR cites provisions of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan which call for maximizing public access, to be secured by means of dedicated easements (pages 5.4-16 and 5.4 -17). Rather than promoting public access, the private, exclusive nature of the project will deter such access. Furthermore, there is no mention of dedication of easements to secure public access. Even if there were, the sad history of such easements in other wealthy areas of the Southern California coastline indicates that private landowners commonly close them off and then aggressively contest attempts by regulatory agencies to reopen them. 5. Traffic Impacts Are Understated. The DEIR acknowledges that the project will result in an increase in vehicle trips to and from the site (page 5.5 -2), but attempts to minimize the significance of that. Even accepting the methodology employed in the DEIR, the conclusion is questionable.. Traffic generated by the largely retired population of Marinapark is negligible. The substantial increase generated by the project, on the other hand, would add a significant additional volume to Peninsula streets which already are overwhelmed during much of the year. At the very least, mitigation measures need to be identified to reduce that impact to a true level of insignificance. This increase in traffic, as well as the increase in the level of activity on the site in general, has another potentially significant impact, given the location midway along the narrow, densely populated Balboa Peninsula. It would impair implementation of and physically interfere with the City's plans for responding to emergencies on the Peninsula or carrying out an emergency evacuation of the community. Marinapark .Corr.CityNB.060404(DEIR) 1 1 r K4 1 t KS I 133 , Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 5 6. The DEIR Fails to Address Project Impacts on Cultural Resources. The Initial Study did not identify any impact on cultural resources, and the DEIR similarly fails to address this issue. Marinapark is a historical resource within the meaning of state regulations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)). Historically, the site was an early location of beachfront recreation/camping facilities predating the urbanization of the area, and the existing mobile home park has occupied the site for approximately a half century. It represents one of the last remaining examples of the coastal mobile home communities which once were a Southern California institution, and therefore possesses the distinctive characteristics that establish its historical significance. Development of the project would result in the complete demolition of this community and obliteration of its historical value, thereby causing a significant environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)). 7. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Address Geoloeical Conditions. The DEIR is required to analyze "significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a)). The CEQA Guidelines use as a specific example a project which places people in proximity to a seismic fault. The DEIR acknowledges that the site is within two kilometers of the active Newport- Inglewood Fault (page 5.1 -1). Inasmuch as the project proposes to more than double the number of people occupying the site, and to introduce substantially taller buildings than currently are located there, there is a significantly increased likelihood of exposing people and structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. Furthermore, as discussed above, in the event of a catastrophe such as a major earthquake, the increased number of people and vehicles introduced by the project would make emergency responses or evacuations significantly more difficult. 8. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Address Aesthetic Impacts. The DEIR includes an extensive discussion of the potential aesthetic impacts of the project, but fails to acknowledge one significant impact. It notes that the surrounding community is dominated by one- and two -story structures (page 5.8 -1), but ignores the fact that Marinapark currently is comprised entirely of single -story structures with flat roofs, thereby providing a significant view window both from the landward side and from the bay. By contrast, the project includes a number of two -story structures, up to 24 feet in height, as well as a central building 34 feet in height. Those buildings cannot help but result in a significant diminution of views across the site, in either direction. M f`7 i ; 9. The DEIR Fails to Provide an Adequate Discussion of Project Alternatives. The DEIR is required to discuss "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project," ' Muinapuk.Cou.CityNB.060404(DEIR) 13q FI Planning Department Attn: James Campbell, Senior Planner , City of Newport Beach June 4, 2004 Page 6 ' and evaluate the relative merits of the alternatives presented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). The DEIR does discuss three alternatives: a scaled -down version of the project, a slightly redesigned version of the project, and no development of the site. What is missing from this analysis is consideration of locating the project on an entirely difference site. Since , the greatest impact of the project would be the destruction of the Marinapark community, the only reasonable alternative capable of avoiding or lessening that impact, while still allowing project objectives to be met, is development of the project at a different location. The nature ' of the project does not require this particular location. Rather, it could be developed at numerous other locations along the Southern California coast, just as other projects of this kind have been developed in recent years. The failure to even consider this possibility renders this portion of the DEIR incomplete and inadequate. Conclusions. , For all of the foregoing reasons, MHA believes the DEIR not to be in compliance with the requirements of CEQA pertaining to preparation of such documents, and therefore , incapable of supporting a decision to approve the project. The most critical deficiency is the failure to address in any meaningful way the impacts of the project upon the existing Marinapark community. Given the massive conflict between the current use and the ' proposed use of the site, it appears that the only feasible solution is to relocate the project. Thank you for your consideration. , Sincerely, (�2'J Cary D. Lowe ' CDUsh cc: Marinapark Homeowners Association ' I 1 I Muinapark .Coa.CiryNB.060404(DEIR) I35� 1 Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on tiro Dreg EIR Responses, To Comments ' K. Marinapark Homeowners Association K1. The commentor has identified - in terms that are more graphic but generally similar - the only "area of controversy" that was revealed in the comments on the NOP and meetings conducted prior to the close of that comment period during - the change in ' land use from a mobilehome park to resort. The Draft EIR agrees with the commentor that the change in land use is the only real area of controversy and chose the term "intensification" to describe this issue in terms that relate more closely to environmental impacts and to focus the decision maker on environmental issues. ' K2. Please see response to comment B 23 regarding the tidelands boundary and permitted uses. Please see response to comments B 27 and G 4 regarding revenue generation from the existing and proposed uses. K3. The City's property manager reports that full-time residents occupy 23 or 24 of the mobile hone; spaces. We have no evidence to support the commentor's statement that full time residents are a "vast majority" or a residential community of approximately 100 residents. Implementation of the project will require removal of 1 all mobile hones.. The Land Use Element confirms the City's intent to close the mobilehome park. The mobilehomes do not constitute "affordable housing" for purposes of the City's ' Housing Element requirements because there are no covenants requiring the spaces to be affordable and no restriction on the incomes of households occupying them. We have no evidence to support the contention that permanent residents will be unable to ' find replacement housing in Newport Beach or the region and no evidence to support the contention that the project will physically divide a residential community. The comrnentor's quote from the CEQA Guidelines is taken out of context. Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines refers to circumstances when "economic or social information may be included in an EIR." In this case the factors referenced by the commentor wonld not be relevant because they would not "reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Michael Brandman Associates ' HAClica (PNJN)\0064m064ER20W&ER20_xrC 7 -1 smtdm ' ',% K4. The DEIR states that a General Plan amendment is required for project implementation in a number of locations, including Section 1.3 - Purpose of the EIR on page 1 -2; Section 3.4 - Intended Uses of the Draft EIR, Responsible Agencies, and Approvals, page 3 -9; as well as page 5.4 -19, as noted by the commenter. The Land Use Element's narrative regarding the project site is quoted on page 5.4-4. ' There is no statement or implication here, or elsewhere in the Draft EIR, that suggests that the proposed hotel is consistent with the existing Land Use designation. The need for a General Plan amendment has been known for years and discussed in many other City documents, including reports to the City Council on responses to the Request for Proposals in 2000, the agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality in 2000, and the Planning Commission's and City Council's initiation of a General Plan ' amendment in 2002, the amended agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality in 2003, and the Notice of Preparation of this Draft EIR in 2003. ' Because the project site is City property easements are not necessary to provide and ensure protection of public access. The site will not be privately owned, but leased to the hotel developer. One of the City's objectives for the project is to "enhance public i Michael Brandman Associates ' HAClica (PNJN)\0064m064ER20W&ER20_xrC 7 -1 smtdm ' ',% Mednapark Resort and Community Plan - Responaa to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments access and community facilities on the site..." and the lease will require maintenance of at least the four locations for public access to the beach shown on the site plan. K5. Trip Generation rates were derived from the TTE Trip Generation, 1h Edition, which forecasts trip generation rates base upon land use. The generation rates reported in the TTE, `"Trip Generation, 7th Edition," are based upon trip generation rates for resort hotels for the proposed land uses and for mobile home parks for the existing onsite land uses which will be displaced. TTE trip generation rates, which are the industry standard, are established in part, from the findings of multiple studies conducted throughout the United States. As identified in the City of Newport Beach's approved TPO, "Credit shall be given for existing uses on the Project site." The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project assumed a worst case scenario (full hotel occupancy and partial mobile home park occupancy) in applying credit for the existing onsite land uses and establishing the number of net new trips. According to the approved TPO, significance is based upon two conditions: 1)project- related peak hour traffic must meet or exceed one percent of background peak hour traffic on any one leg of a study intersection; and.2),project- related traffic must contribute enough traffic to cause or make an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS E or worse). As identified in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR, with the addition of project - related traffic, none of the study area intersections meet both conditions; therefore, the proposed project is considered to have less than significant transportation/circulation impacts. MBA solicited information from the various public service providers who are responsible for providing emergency response to the project site. As identified on page 5.9 -3 of the DEIR, "Access roads are required per the California Fire Code when any portion of the facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access. Continuous access roadways and public hydrants will be provided throughout the project site in order to allow adequate emergency access." Moreover, as identified on pages 5.9 -1 and 5.9 -3 of the DEIR, the Newport Beach Police Department and the Newport Beach Fire Department have indicated that they can adequately service the project site. Please also see response to comment K7 regarding emergency evacuations K6. According to Fifty Golden Years, written for the 50th birthday of Newport Beach, the site of the mobile home park began as a city campground in 1919. It was later converted to a trailer camp and renovated in 1956. The site has not been maintained in its original configuration or development, as it formerly accommodated 120 trailers and today has only 58 coach sites. Moreover, the site has changed from a campground to a trailer camp to a mobile home park where nearly half the spaces are occupied by full -time residents, rather than vacationers. The site is not associated with events significant to California's history, as it was one of many beach campgrounds/trailer camps that existed and still exist throughout the State. Neither is the site associated with the lives of persons important in our past. It clearly does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type or period, as it has changed over the years. The Historic Resource Inventory prepared by the Ad Hoc Preservation Advisory Committee in 1991 -92 does not include the Marinapark Mobile Home Park in its listing of 61 buildings and sites of potential historical Michael Brandman Associates H:V ,.s 1.m (M- 3N))OW\OWFR20`0WER20JtTC 7.1 5nal.doc // Marimpark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Waft EIR Responses To Comments ' significance. For these reasons, the City has not found that the mobile home park is an historical resource. Its removal will not cause an impact on cultural resources. ' K7. The seismic effect associated with the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.1.2 of the Draft EIR. It is noted that the proposed project will increase the number of ' people on the project site; however, as described, the seismic risk at the site is similar to many sites within Southern California and standard compliance with seismic design requirements outlined in the California Building Code would result in less than significant seismic effects. K8. The Draft EIR did not ignore the fact that the mobile home park is comprised of single -story structures. Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR, under the Photograph 1 Location 1 sub - heading on page 5.8 -3, clearly references the fact that the structures are single -story. In addition, Exhibits 5.8 -2, 5.8 -3, and 5.8 -5 show the existing mobile homes are single -story. Moreover, some of the mobile homes have pitched roofs as may be seen from the previously referenced exhibits. Section 5.8.2 of the Draft EIR thoroughly evaluated the potential impact of the proposed project from four key view locations and concluded that impacts were less than significant. The ' City does not have any established public or private view easements over the project site. Also, the heights of the proposed buildings are consistent with Section 20.65.040 of the City Zoning Code. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. K9. CEQA requires an EIR to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessens any of the significant effects of the project..." In this case, many of the project objectives are site specific and, as the commentor knows, there are no feasible undeveloped sites in this area for the development of a luxury resort. The City has used the "role of reason' in selecting project alternatives and omitting any consideration of alternative sites. 1 I 1] 1 1 Michael Brandman Associates �� 'H- Chem (PN- ]N)W64\0064ER2OW64ER20_ATC 7 -1 f=Ldw 7 U 7 li 1 1 I 11 V MRS. CAROL MARTIN 1824 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, California 92663 June 7, 2004 W. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 7 2004 PM 71819110 11111 ay 12 3141516 I wish to express the following concerns regarding the draft EIP, which is being submitted for NlarinaPark. It is inadequate in addressing certain areas. Drainage The increase in local impacts to drainage is not adequately mitigated. Table 5.2 -1 indicates significant increase in peak flow concentrations. Although the proposal' discusses a drainage plan it does not address the impact on traffic that will occur on Balboa Blvd., 18th street, and possibly 19th street as a result of excessive water. In addition, ITWQ -6 states .... "the project applicant shall demonstrate through a drainage plan that onsite detention basis will be constructed so that peak storm water flow concentrations to the existing 18th Street and 15th Street storm drains will not be increased from flow concentration..." with the following statement that the cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality would thus be less than significant. Since this document does not currently provide description of the mentioned plan, it is not possible to verify the validity of the assertion that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Thus the public is being denied their due opportunity to comment on this matter. 18th Street Traffic Flow The analysis of local ttaffic impact is inadequate. Vehicle access on I r Street is limited by the need for on street parking, the width of the street which results in slowing traffic flow for two way traffic, the succession of one -way streets existing in this area, and availability of left turn access from Balboa Blvd. for vehicles traveling eastbound. Thus the provision for hotel egress from 18th St. is unrealistic and an issue that is not adequately addressed in this document. Further, whereas this document states "primary access to the project will be via Balboa Boulevard and secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off of 18th Street' the applicant testified before the Newport Beach Planning Commission on June 3, 2004 that the access onto 18th Street would be limited to emergency vehicles. This inconsistency should be corrected and adequate provision should be shown for access routes that do not slow local traffic unassociated with the development. L1 L2-- 137 Traffic for Events Review of the floorplan of this hotel makes it apparent that its profitability is dependant upon events other than room rentals. It could be concluded that events such as weddings, graduation parties, school dances, Christmas Boat Parade L Parties, etc. will require additional traffic and possibly valet parking. This is not provided for. There is no analysis of where they will park cars with valet parking, which would be expected at an event at a Five Star Hotel. The traffic study offered does not include analysis of event traffic or parking. This is inadequate and no mitigation provisions are included. Traffic Study The "shoulder season" traffic analysis utilized here does not reflect the seasons of Christmas Boat Parades, Proms, or Wedding seasons. The exclusion of these L�'} differing periods of utilization of the facility leads to the traffic study being inadequate in respect to the neighborhood/local traffic impact. Accoustics/Noise This report's discussion of acoustical design is inadequate. It lacks consideration of how noise travels across water echoing as it progresses and does not L S include mitigation measures to prevent intrusion on Lido Isle and the Lido Peninsula This project's potential for creating periodic increase in ambient noise levels across the water (above levels existing now) does not comply with CEQA guidelines. Timeshare Ownership/Fractional Ownership indicates residential use on Public Tidelands. Approval for partial timeshare ownership sets a precedent should future requests be made for additional timeshare conversions. This results in residential use of public tidelands which is not adequately addressed in this EIR nor is it in compliance with State guidelines for the appropriate use of Public Tidelands. Thus it is inconsistent with the stated City goals for the project:" to redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands." It is inconsistent with the goals for utilization of open space/recreational public facilities and this aspect is also inadequately addressed. Metered Parking Lot on Balboa Blvd. at 18'h St.which is highly utilized is being eliminated resulting in the reduction of parking for the beach -going public and the neighborhood. The elimination of this 21 space lot and its replacement with a 41 space L shared lot for the use of hotel guests, Girl Scouts, and the Community Center does not continue to service the neighborhood and beach going public in the same manner. This is inconsistent with General Plan section 5.4.1 Policy C. This reduction of neighborhood and beach parking is not addressed and has a collective impact on the need to provide such facilities. Height of the Lobby Building At 34 feet the lobby area would be out of scale with the neighboring residences which are built to the 24/28 foot maximum height restriction of L the General Plan. The views from these residences (which conform with the General Plan) overlooking the former low rising Las Arenas Park, would be impacted. This is not adequately addressed. Nor is the visual impact from the Bay where this height is inconsistent with neighboring facilities adequately addressed. IqO I Open Space The loss of 8.1 acres of Newport Beach's Open Space Element in a ' Recreational Area requires mitigation. How will the loss of the Las Arenas Park and Beach be mitigated by equal open space elsewhere? This document fails to address this issue. Eel Grass This proposed development, adjoining a new eelgrass transplant area, offers no protective measures to prevent disturbance of this nursery even during construction or any proposal to relocate the eel grass transplant area to a safer area. This is inadequate. Fish and Recreation Area This proposed development is in an area where many young children learn the joy and techniques of fishing at the 19`h Steet dock. It is easily accessible, tranquil, and the success of catching a fish is encouragement to pursue such outdoor sports. This project threatens the proliferation of fish in this area of the bay where children have explored this form of recreation for more than 70 years. Though the EIR recognizes the damage that the fish population will incur, it does not address the cumulative impact incurred with the reduction of yet another source of recreation. This is a major inadequacy. Crabs The crab population is not even mentioned. It should be addressed. Halibut Though recognizing the damage that will occur to the halibut population of the area, this report provides no mitigation for the disruption of their habitat or provision for encouragement of their return to the area. Without such a plan a significant loss will occur and needs to be addressed adequately. Sincerely, Carol Martin L`i J—Jo Lit I LIZ L }3 Iql ' Aln"napark Resort and Community Plan - Reaporm to Comments on the Matt EIR Responses To Comments ' L. Mrs. Carol Martin proposed lobby structure includes a footprint that represents 3.7 percent of the total Ll . The potential impact on existing traffic conditions that could result from flooding ' its footprint being a small percentage of the total site as well as all proposed onsite events is a pre- existing condition that is not made worse as a result of the proposed buildings, the height of the proposed lobby building would not substantially affect project. For a discussion on recommended Mitigation Measure HWQ -6, please see ' response to comment HIT No further analysis is required. L2. The entrance into the luxury resort hotel is at the Balboa Boulevard/17th Street intersection. Please see response to comment Q4 regarding the gated entrance at 18th ' Street. U. The onsite ancillary facilities (i.e., ballroom, restaurant, cafd and retail space) are of ' sizes and designs primarily intended to serve the needs of the hotel guests. The proposed ancillary uses are not intended to accommodate large special events because the proposed facilities are too small. Also see to comment B53 relative to ' capacities and proposed uses of ancillary facilities. L4. As identified on Page 5.5 -1 of the DER the City of Newport Beach utilizes the ' shoulder season for traffic planning rather than the summer season because planning for the summer season would result in excessive roadway capacity during non -peak and shoulder seasons. In relation to analyzing the traffic impacts during the Christmas boat parades, while it is noted that traffic within the project area is ' increased during this period, this occurs only a few weeks out of the year and it is the intent of the EIR to examine the project's impacts upon daily activities that constitute the overall environmental setting. It is also noted that traffic within the project area ' increases ducting the summer months, and such increases are not limited to a couple of weeks (like Christmas boat parades) but rather extend throughout the summer season. Section 5.5 in the Draft EIR evaluated traffic volumes during the shoulder and summer seasons. Please see response to comment B61 regarding the traffic ' analysis prepared for the proposed project. ' L5. Please see response to comment H33 for a discussion of noise impacts from hotel activities. L6. Fractional ownership of up to twelve luxury resort hotel rooms does not constitute residential use of the property. The duration and usage restrictions on fractional units will ensure that occupancy is for intermittent periods and consistent with provisions of the tidelands trust. ' L7. As indicated in response to comment B52, 20 of the 41 spaces in the parking lot proposed near the comer of Balboa Blvd. and 1 Sth Street will be available to the general public during hours of operation of the Girl Scout House and Community Center. ' L8. The proposed lobby building would have a maximum height of 37 feet as described in response to comment U11. In addition to the hotel lobby, the proposed project includes various structures with maximum heights of 17 feet and 27 feet. The proposed lobby structure includes a footprint that represents 3.7 percent of the total ' project site area and 11 percent of all proposed building footprints on the site. Due to its footprint being a small percentage of the total site as well as all proposed onsite buildings, the height of the proposed lobby building would not substantially affect existing public views. Views from residences south of Balboa Boulevard are private Micheel Brandman Associates HhCliW "- M`M4\0 64ER7GW"ER20 -RTC 7 -1 5ual.dw �� AlarkWark Resort and Communky Plan — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments and are not considered public views. The City of Newport Beach has not established private view easements over the project site. L9. Neither Las Arenas Park nor the public beach will be lost due to the project. As noted on pages 1-6 and 5.4 -12 of the DEIR, all park facilities other than the basketball half -court will be replaced, and the beach will remain open and accessible to the public. The portion of the site on which the hotel is proposed is currently occupied by the mobile home park, and does not provide open space or recreational opportunities. Therefore, the project does not result in the loss of any existing open space. The Recreation and Open Space Element calls for the retention of the existing park facilities and beach, and notes that the site "...affords future opportunities for park, recreation, and aquatic facilities which are not yet fully planned." The Element does not indicate specific facilities that should be provided on the site. The project includes an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element, which would remove the reference to future opportunities at the project site. L10. Please see response to comment C5 regarding a best management practice (BMP) measure that would reduce potential impacts on the eelgrass restoration area during project construction activities. L 11. The boat dock associated with the proposed project is located adjacent to the existing American Legion Marina at 15 Street. The proposed boat dock will be 260 feet long as discussed in response to comment B20. The proposed boat dock is approximately 1,100 feet east of the 19th Street dock. The existing boat docks located west of the existing 19th Street dock have a greater potential for fish disturbance than the boats associated with the proposed dock due to proximity. The implementation of the proposed boat dock would not significantly affect young children learning to fish at the 19th Street dock or the existing fish population in the vicinity of the 19th Street dock. The implementation of the proposed boat dock would not significantly affect young children learning to fish at the 19th Street dock. L12. The existing crab population in Newport Bay is not considered a sensitive resource by the California Department of Fish and Game or National Marine Fisheries Service; therefore, the proposed project would not significantly affect the existing crab population. L13. Page 5.3 -5 in the Draft EIR states that halibut has a low to moderate potential to occur in the shallow waters of the project area because of the nature of the sand shoreline, and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. Page 5.3 -10 in the Draft EIR states that the long -term loss of the soft bottom habitat in the project area will result in a reduction of halibut nursery habitat. This loss of habitat (i.e., soft bottom habitat) is considered a locally significant impact as discussed page 5.3 -10 in the Draft EIR. To reduce the potential long -term impact on the loss of this habitat, mitigation measure BR -6 was recommended in section 5.3.5 of the Draft EIR. This measure has been modified (please see response to comment C2) to reflect the modified dock design recommended as a mitigation measure (see response to comment B20). Similar to the finding in the Draft EIR, after the implementation of the modified BR -6, no significant long -term impact on the soft bottom habitat would remain. Michael Brandman Associates , I HACEM (M- R�\OO6M1V0W4ER20WMER20_9TC 7 -1 fimldoc UI 1 06/07/2004 11:12 1 RAI 1 Recreational Advisors International June 7, 2004 1 Planning Department Via Fax: 949-644 -3229 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. cc: City Council Newport Beach, CA 92659 Harbor Commission John Corrough Re: EIR — Marinapark Project 1 While I can point out a wide range of technical deficiencies in the draft EIR, they will obviously be addressed by many who know and care about our ' harbor and have more direct knowledge of the specific issues. l What I wanted to address and underscore is the obvious failure of the report to properly outline and describe altematives to the proposed project. Many of us who have enjoyed this great harbor for many decades have ' great concern, ye, fear of the further loss of the dwindling assets that we , the public, own or control that are desperately needed to maintain the very environment that made Newport Beach great. 1 Before losing another jewel why doesn't the Council deem that the EIR is insufficient and direct the author to conduct surveys of the marine Industry locally ' to ascertain the variety of alternative uses for this property for the purpose of ensuring the continued vitality of our harbor. By that I mean not only shipyards and repair operations but visitor serving docks, showers, waterfront restaurant ' etc. Let us not be guilty of trading away one of our few remaining public assets for other than the highest purpose. I'm not just talking about revenue, as it may be that proper use of this land will not directly generate city income but may be insurance that our overall harbor economic health will continue. Sincerely, �aS ttave ns ' Chairman 3344E Caul Highway, Suite 314, Corona del Mar, CA 92825 (949)72J-9825 (949) 721- 1047FAX www.recad'Wsors.com N0.25e P02 1tiq Ist1 M *A&p rk Resort and Commaldty Plan - Response to Comments on do Drell EIR Responses To Comments 'M. Recreational Advisors International ' Ml. Section 7 includes three alternatives to the proposed project. Two of them address aspects raised by this comment. The Marine Recreation Alternative addresses the option of public, water-oriented and community facilities and boat slips. The ' Reduced Intensity Alternative includes a freestanding restaurant component. The purpose of selecting these alternatives is described on page 7 -1 in the Draft EIR. Please see response to comment B97 regarding selection of alternatives. Additional alternatives to the proposed project could be designed. However, given that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, additional alternatives would not mitigate or avoid significant effects of the project. The Draft EIR provides ' a reasonable range of alternatives, as required by CEQA, to assist in evaluating the proposed project. 1 [J 1 I f� Michael Brandman Associates HNCtiem (PN- JN)=MWMER2o`a06M1rilt —RTC 7 -1 final.dm ' 1 ' Campbell, James From: Jon Stearman [procs @pacbell.net] 'To: Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 12:00 AM jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND JAMMING THE PENNISUL4 ' IT APPEARS FROM ALL THE TRUE DATA THAT THE MARINA PROJECT WILL REALLY CREATE A ONE OF THE WORST BOTTLE NECKS AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND FLOW IN OUT OF THE PENNISULA. FURTHER, THE PROJECT WOULD FINANCIALLY HAVE A 'AND NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ALL THE BUSINESSES AROUND THE MAIN STREET AREA. GO +N� AHEAD, KILL OFF THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THAT IS LOCATED BETWEEN 18TH . 'STREET AND THE MAIN STREET AREA. ALSO, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS IN BOTH THE IN3 PEAK AND NON -PEAK SEASON WILL HURT RESIDENCIAL ACCESS. FURTHER, YOU WILL SEE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ACCIDENTS INVOLVING VEHICLES, N'+ 'PEDISTRIANS AND BIKES. AND, I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE WATER TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ACCIDENTS AND OTHER SAFETY ISSUES. N5 I AHEAD. PUT THE MARINA IN AND SEE ALL THE NIGHTMARES IT WILL REALLY 'GO CREATE. IT WILL TAKE THE CITY YEARS TO BAIL OUT OF THIS ONE. RESPECTFULLY, •► _'uM q6 Madnapark Resort &W Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Graff EIR Responses To Comments N. Mr. Jon Stearman NI. As identified in Section 5.5, Transportation/Circulation of the DER, the proposed project is not considered to meet or exceed the established City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance significance thresholds. The project creates a net increase of 24 AM and 32 PM peak hour trips. Compared to existing traffic, that is almost imperceptible and, as the traffic study reveals, less than significant. N2. This comment regarding the economic effect of the proposed project on the existing ' commercial businesses that are located between 18th Street and Main Street is noted. The proposed project includes a luxury resort hotel. Balboa Peninsula does not have a luxury resort hotel; therefore, the proposed project provides a different type of hotel t on the peninsula. There is no supporting evidence that the proposed luxury resort hotel would result in substantial fiscal effects on commercial businesses that are located between 18th Street and Main Street. Development of a hotel, especially one ' that could attract guests with significant disposable income, would likely have a positive rather than negative financial impact on existing businesses in the area. ' N3. Please see response to comment N regarding project traffic. N4. Please see response to comment N regarding traffic increase during the peak hour. As described, these increases would be imperceptible, and therefore, no substantial ' increases in accidents involving vehicles would occur from project implementation. N5. The proposed project with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (including mitigation measure LU -1 in response to comment B20 — modified dock design) would include a dock that provide tie -ups for six boats. The addition of six tie -ups for boats would not have the potential to significantly increase boat traffic in ' the Harbor. 1 H 1 Michael Brandman Associates ' H:CUM (PN- JN)M64`a064ER20U64ER20_RTC 7 -I fiml.dw June 8, 2004 City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' James Campbell, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport beach, CA 92658 -8915 Cl Subject. Comments on Draft EIF, Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Dear Mr. Campbell: The following are my comments: Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect (Section 7) Comments: Significant and logical alternatives were not considered, for example - (1) A plan for the subject property generated by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission of Newport Beach and submitted to the City Council circa 2000. (2) Removing some portion of existing improvements and allowing the property to become mainly open space. (2) A marine recreation alternative which includes a nautical museum and related facilities. Proiect Olyectives (Section 3.3) Comments: The list of project objectives is slanted and incomplete. Four of the seven objectives relate directly or indirectly to city revenue or capital costs, one deals with a legal issue and one relates to marine facilities. Only one objective deals with environmental issues: noise, glare, traffic. Other considerations which should be included are: (1) Impacts to residents in the vicinity other than noise, glare or traffic. (2) Impacts on those who pass the property, either on land or by water. (3) Optimi2ing beneficial use of the property by Newport Beach residents and the public in general. (4) Providing a sufficient amount of land to water access, and vice versa. (5) Impact to marine life. Very truly yours, //;% I Seymour Beek 528 S. Bay Front Balboa Island, CA 92662 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 8 2004 PM AM iI0111 X12 11 1213141516 01 O�?- ili8 Madnepark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EN Responses To Comments ' O. Mr. Seymour Beek ' 01. Section 7.2 in the Draft EIR provides for a marine recreation alternative that includes a marina component. This alternative includes 1.64 of parkland area, in addition to a Girl Scout/community center, tennis and basketball courts, and parking for the beach ' and boat slips. This Marine Recreation Alternative was developed by Planning Department staff in cooperation with Harbor Resources Department staff. The components of the Marine Recreation Alternative address needs such as public boat slips, boat launch, a docklmarina available for Charter Boats, tennistbasketball ' courts, and parking for chatters, vehicles with boat trailers, and the public. All of these uses have been identified by the Harbor Commission and City staff. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of alternatives. ' The PB&R Commission plan referred to in the comment was proposed in response to the City's RFP in 2000, and not selected by the City Council when they decided to ' work with the applicant. This alternative was not included in the list of alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR because it does not provide the aquatic facilities for which there is demand and which are noted as future facilities for this site in the Recreation and Open Space Element. 02. CEQA requires that the Draft EIR includes a "... statement of the objectives sought ' by the proposed project ". The objectives are required to help define a range of reasonable alternatives to the project and to help decisionmakers prepare findings, or a statement of overriding' considerations if needed. Project objectives need not, nor do they often refer to, environmental issues. ' Marinapark Resort (formerly Regent Newport) was selected by the City from among the proposals submitted for the project site because the project offered potential benefits to the City that the others did not. Accordingly, the potential benefits of the Marinapark Resort project that were the determining factors in its selection by the City for the project site have been restated as the project objectives. ' Potential impacts to residents "... other than noise, glare or traffic" and on "... those who pass the property, either on land or by water" are indicated in: Section 5.1.2, "Project Impacts"; Section 5.2.3, "Project Impacts"; Section 5.4.3, "Project Impacts"; Section 5.6.3, "Project Impacts"; and Section 5.8.2, "Project Impacts ". Section 7.2 of the Draft EIR identifies the Marine Recreation Alternative which may be accepted, in response to your comment, as "optimizing beneficial use of the property by Newport Beach residents and the public in general." ' Please see response to comment B22 regarding land to water access. Section 5.3, "Biological Resources ", of the Draft EIR includes analysis of potential ' impacts to marine life. Michael Brandman Associates ' R CUM ( PN- 1N)ND064\W64ER20`0064ER20jtTC 7.7 5mldx f A ' Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James ' From: JTNiemiec @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:21 PM ' To: jrampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Draft ER urgent comment ' Mr. Campbell, I am the owner of property at 1611 W. Balboa Blvd., directly across the street from the planned Sutheriand- Talla resort. My entire family is strongly against the massive development of this property. Noise pollution, ' increased traffic, parking, crime and excessive population numbers are not in anyway in keeping with the tradition of home ownership in Newport Beach. The EIR draft does not address property owners loss of bay views, loss of privacy, year round congestion (as if we didn't have enough already ) and how these negative impacts will affect year round residents and property P ' values ( our home is directly across the street from the proposed parking structure ) in the immediate future. The Niemiec family has enjoyed our home since 1940 and allowing this resort to replace existing MarinaPark and other recreational amenities is not in the best Interest of this small neighborhood. Please pass these very realistic negative comments on to the Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted this 8th day of June, 2004. James, Jan, Toni and Brook Niemiec 1 ' P�ti Pd M0 BY ENT y OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 B 2004 PM x'010110111112111213141516 I 11 1 i WOR/2004 1 Marinepark Resort and Community Plan - Respanee to Comments on the Draft JEW Reaponsea To Cammenis tP. James, Jan, Toni, and Brook Niemiec ' Pl. Except for the ground level bay views along Balboa Boulevard at 180' Street and 161' Street, there are no other views of the bay from Balboa Boulevard. There are views from 2nd and 3'd story residences south of Balboa Boulevard. However, the City has ' not established public view easements or policies for residences along Balboa Boulevard. The proposed suites and villas are set back from Balboa Boulevard approximately 260 feet from the residences south of Balboa Boulevard. Views from of? these suites and villas are impeded by the tennis courts, the 2 -story spa villa, and the 2 -story Girl Scout House/Community Center. The distance between the suites/villas and the residences south of Balboa Boulevard would limit privacy impacts and would be less than significant. ' Please see response to comment NI regarding traffic increase during the peak hour. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Michael Brandman Associates ' H.)CGew (PN- JM\OW\0064ER2G\OWER20JZ7C 7 -1 5nal.doc I 1 IJun 09 04 10:17a 1 ' June 8, 2004 0 1 Newport Beach Major & Council Members Newport Beach City Hall ' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dear Honorable Major and Council Members: USPS & FAXED Jam(( : q#q 4�4g 37U-7 P ` G��f Sod S a-ys , (cam P.1 As a long -time homeowner in the area adjacent to the proposed Regent Hotel Project, I am providing my comments on the Draft EIR. Of particular concern is the mis- characterization of the existing site throughout the document. Environmental "Impact" implies a comparison between the existing and proposed use of the site. If the existing use is not characterized correctly, then the comparison is of little value. Thank you for careful consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Craig Morissette PO Box 888 Newport Beach, CA 92661 -0888 949 - 675 -2237 Draft EIR Comments 1.3 Site History CEIVED BY P DEPARTMENT Cy WORT BEACH ,�IPN 41 2004 PM ap� 10121 718I�R�l. ill I 111123456 11 Page 1 of 3 This section does not correctly characterize the existing site by excluding key elements now available to the public. • Existing basketball court is excluded from the site description. I 01 1 15*-4 Jun 09 04 10:18a Morissette Draft EIR Comments June 8, 2004 p.2 Page 2 of 3 • Existing tennis courts were not characterized as 'lighted." This is a unique feature for public tennis courts available to Newport Beach residents. Existing small -boat sailing basin is excluded from the site description. "Public beach located in front of the mobile home park" does not correctly characterize 03 current use of the site. There is a widening of the channel which forms a unique sailing basin apart from the main channel frequently used by residents for sailboards and small sailing craft. 1.5 Project Description Wording in this section is vague with respect to the sentence that states "secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off 18t1 street." The motorized gate that QLf can potentially be used at the discretion of the resort posses the single greatest impact to residents with bedrooms on Vilelle Place. 1.8.1 Effects Not Found To Be Significant "Recreation" should not be listed in this section if existing recreational use of site is ' properly characterized to include a basketball court, lighted tennis courts, and a small- Q 5 craft sailing basin. 1.8.2 Effect Found To Be Potentially Significant ' "Recreation" should be listed in this section if existing recreational use of site is I �� properly characterized to include a basketball court, lighted tennis courts and a small- ' craft sailing basin. SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES, XIV. RECREATION, ' Existing Conditions This section mis- characterizes existing recreational use of site by excluding a basketball court, "lighted" tennis courts, and a small -craft sailing basin. Subsection "b)" states "However, project implementation will replace all of these Q$ ' recreational facilities" is not a correct statement if existing site is properly characterized. ' The section makes no mention of the impact the proposed 12 -boat dock will have on the size of the small boat sailing basin. During the summer when the beach that adjoins the Get ' site to the West is roped off for swimming, small boats, many of which are piloted by individuals learning to sail, will be forced into the main boat channel. All of these factors result in a significant impact on recreational use of the site. , I 1 11 1 1 i I 1 1 I Jun 09 04 10:18a p.3 Morissette Draft EIR Comments Page 3 of 3 June 8, 2004 XV TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION, Existing Conditions This section correctly states "Access to the site is currently provided from West Balboa Boulevard ", however, the description should also make clear that with the exception 010 of emergency services only, Vilelle Place is continuously blocked to vehicular traffic. Subsection "f) Result in inadequate parking capacity ?" addresses the parking space count, but makes no mention of how parking management at the proposed site can substantially impact adjacent existing parking -- especially permit parking on bay to the West of the site continuously used by neighborhood residents. If, for example, fees for parking at the proposed site exceed the rate of nearby metered parking, existing parking surrounding the site could be significantly impacted. Also, if inadequate employee parking is provided on -site or employees are charged by management to use on -site parking, employees will migrate to the adjoining permit lot on the bay or to median parking on Balboa Blvd. This potentially has significant impact on parking in the surrounding area. XI. NOISE, Existing Conditions Oil This section correctly characterizes Balboa Blvd. as an existing source of noise, but does not address the fact that the existing blocking of Vilelle Place to all vehicular ON- traffic but emergency vehicles at 18'b Street significantly reduces noise and vibration for homes to the West of the existing site. Subsection "c" does not specifically address the potential non - emergency use of the proposed "Motorized Wrought Iron Gate" on Vilelle Place at 18th Street. Resort management policy regarding use of this "motorized" gate could significantly impact the adjacent residential neighborhood. 013 1 1sq ' Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Reoponse to Commems on the DrmR EIR Responses To Comments Q Mr. Craig Morissette Q 1. This comment references the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed project. 1 However, the Environmental Setting discussion on page 4 -1 of the Draft EIR include the basketball half-court in the list of existing community facilities on the site. This discussion does not note that the tennis courts are lighted. However, the discussion ' of Aesthetics and existing conditions on page 5.8 -1 include reference to the tennis court lights. Q2. Please see response to comment Q 1 regarding the tennis courts. Q3. The City's Harbor Resources Division is unaware of a "sailing basin" in this part of Newport Bay. The channel in front of the project site is consistent in size from one end to the other, and there is no evidence of a basin. Q4. The summary of the Project Description is found at Section 2.1 in the Draft EIR, not ' 1.5 as noted by the commenter. To clarify the sentence regarding the gate at 18th Street, it is not for use by hotel guests, employees or deliveries; rather, it is intended for use by persons using the Girl Scout House and Community Center to ensure that ' parking is available for these uses without taking away from existing public parking. This limited use will not result in a significant impact to nearby residents. ' Q5. As stated on Pages 1 -6 and 5.4 -12 of the DEIR, the basketball half -court is the only recreational facility that w- ill not be replaced. All four tennis courts will be replaced, and four will be lighted. The sailing basin is in Newport Bay and is not part of the project, and will not be changed. Q6. Please see response to comment Q5 regarding the recreational use of the site. Q7. Please see response to comment Q1 regarding the tennis courts and response to comment Q3 regarding the sailing basin. ' Q8. The commentor is referencing the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed project and is located in Appendix A in the Draft EIR. Please see response to comment Q5 regarding the recreational use of the site. ' Q9. Please see response to comment Q3 regarding a sailing basin. The use of the portion of the bay between the 19th Street dock and the proposed dock by small boats would not be altered due to the implementation of the proposed project. The area adjacent ' to shore is currently and will remain available for public swimming. ' Q10. The proposed project does not propose alterations to vehicular access to Vilelle Place west of the project site. Please see response to comment Q4 regarding the onsite gate entrance at 18th Street. ' Ql 1. The project does not include metered or parking- for -fee spaces at the 41 -space lot proposed near the corner of Balboa Blvd. and 18th Street. Twenty-one of the 41 spaces will be indicated as reserved for visitors to the Girl Scout House and ' Community Center. The remaining 20 spaces will be available to the general public. Parking standards for a luxury resort hotel in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code were used to determine the required number of parking spaces for the proposed ' project, based on the number of guest rooms, which number includes allocations for Michael Brandman Associates ' H:` hm (PN- 1N)IOD64\0064ER20`,006 ERZO_RTC 7-1 5mLdw J Madnapark Resat and CommunRY Plan - Responm to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments employees, ancillary uses, and service vehicles. Details related to a parking management plan including accommodations for employee parking, if deemed necessary, will be determined at the project review stage that will follow the November election if the project receives voter approval. Q12. The existing mobile home park as well as the proposed project includes a gate at 18th Street across from Vilelle Place. The existing gate does not provide for vehicular through traffic; however, could be used for emergency vehicles. The proposed gate is intended to be used by persons using the Girl Scout House and Community Center as well as for emergency vehicles. Q13. Please see response to comment Q4 regarding the onsite gate entrance at 18th Street. Michael Brandman Aseoclatas I �� H:\ Chem( M- RN)'a064`0064ER20`0064ER20_RTC 7 -I f=IdW / ' IJune 9, 2004 R To Whom It May Concern: The following are my perceptions of deficiencies in the scope of the draft EIR concerning the proposed development of what is known as the Marina Park Area: 1. What is the noise impact if the ballroom doors are opened during parties, meetings or other gatherings? 2. What is the impact of the elimination of approximately 56 mobile homes (moderate income units) on the housing element? 3. The average daily trips for the development appear to be low. Each room could generate one ADT. Hotel workers for a five star resort would seem to add another 200 (maids, gardeners, management, bell hops, kitchen related staff, bar related staff, activities related staff, window washers, etc.), in addition to delivery vehicles. The public (who will continue to use the public areas — tennis courts, beach, marine activities) are currently a part of the baseline for the area. At the present, impacted intersections in the area are at LOS level "D" and this is peak during the "shoulder" months. Increasingly Newport Beach residents are concerned about impacts during summer months as related to development. 4. Ingress to the proposed development does not seem to have been adequately addressed. How many delivery vehicles can be accommodated at one time and duting.what hours? Is a left turn pocket east bound on Balboa Blvd. proposed, and are Costal Commission mandated parking spaces to be eliminated to accommodate vehicles entering the resort's front area? Is a traffic signal or stop sign contemplated to allow vehicles to enter the resort? I R1 M ¢Z3 5. The current fence height for the existing tennis courts is approximately 20 feet. The project envisions a 5 foot rise of parking structure topped by 10 feet �' S of tennis fence. Perhaps another 10 feet of fence will be needed, resulting in a 25 foot wall, three feet from Balboa Boulevard. Charles A. Remley, Jr. 101 East Balboa Boulevard Balboa, CA 92661 949 - 673 -8770 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 9 2004 AM 7 819110111Y2111213141516 /s7 Marinspark Resort and Community Plan — Response to Commends on the Waft EIR Responses To Comments, ' R Mr. Charles A. Remley, Jr. Michael erandman Associates ' -5 1 HXUC (PN- JN)W"W64ER20WMER20_RTC 7 -1 fimUlac R 1. Please see response to comment H33 regarding noise from hotel activities such as social functions. R2. The elimination of the 56 mobile home units on the project site do not affect low or moderate income homes identified in the housing element because these homes are ' not identified as low or moderate income by the State of California and are not referenced as such in the City's housing element. 1 the two intersections that currently operate at LOS D, the project will not contribute R3. As identified in Section 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the luxury resort hotel will have 110 rooms and is anticipated to generate 50 employment opportunities. Traffic generation rates are established by utilizing the generation ' factor identified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, which is the industry standard. Since the TTE generation rates forecast vehicle trips by land use, the calculations automatically account for trips generated by staff and deliveries, by calculating the overall usage of the project. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 640 trips, 520 of which will be new trips since, the existing mobile home park, which will be displaced as part of the project, currently ' generates 120 vehicle trips. As identified in Appendix E, Marina Park Resort and Community Plan TPO Traffic Analysis, of the Draft EIR, two of the intersections ' examined, Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard/Hospital ' Road operate at LOS D during the AM or PM peak hours respectively. The City of Newport Beach considers LOS D to be an acceptable LOS. The proposed project will contribute 3 vehicle trips to the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway in the AM peak hour and 16 trips to the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road in the PM peak hour. Michael erandman Associates ' -5 1 HXUC (PN- JN)W"W64ER20WMER20_RTC 7 -1 fimUlac According to the TPO analysis, the project must meet or exceed one percent of the projected peak hour background traffic on one leg of a study intersection and contribute enough traffic to cause an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS), which the ' City defines as LOS E or worse. While the project- related traffic contributes more than one percent to two intersections (Newport Boulevard/Via Lido and Newport Boulevard/32nd Street) both of these intersections operated at LOS B. Moreover, for the two intersections that currently operate at LOS D, the project will not contribute more than one percent to the existing traffic volumes. The project's contribution to surnmer weekend traffic is discussed on pages 5.5 -5 and 5.5 -6 of the Draft EIR. As noted in the response to comment B61, project - related traffic is expected to occur at ' times other than the peak hour, and in fact hotel patrons are expected to either be traveling in the direction opposite to the outbound beach traffic in the afternoons or traveling during periods other than that when there is peak traffic volumes exiting the peninsula. R4. The entrance into the luxury resort hotel is at the Balboa Boulevard/17th Street intersection. A portion of the median at 17th Street will be removed to accommodate ' left turn into the project site from Balboa Boulevard. No existing public parking spaces will be removed to accommodate left turns into the project site at this ' intersection. No traffic signal or stop sign are proposed or recommended at this intersection. Please see response to comment H7 regarding employee and delivery vehicle entrance to the project site. Michael erandman Associates ' -5 1 HXUC (PN- JN)W"W64ER20WMER20_RTC 7 -1 fimUlac Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - ' Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments RS. If the project receive voter approval, subsequent project review will include ' consideration of the fence proposed along Balboa Boulevard. I l_ I 1 I] 1 I 11 7I Michael Brandman Associates I HACU.W( PN- JK)\006Rll064P.R2dO064ER20_RTC 7 -1 Eaal.d. 5 ' June 9, 2004 Mr. James Campbell 1 I Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 6 Girl Smuts. Subject: Comments on Marina Park and Community Plan DEIR Dear Mr. Campbell Girl Scout Council of Orange County 1620 Adams Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 T 714 979 7900 F 714 850 1299 girlscouts@gscocorg RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 0 9 2004 718 X911 0 11 1 11 2 Il 121314156 The DEIR for the proposed Marina Park and Community Plan appears to address most of the concerns of the Girl Scout Council of Orange County. The proposed plan for the 110 room luxury hotel includes plans for a new Girl Scout building and Community Center in close proximity to the existing Neva B Thomas Girl Scout House. The Girl Scout Council understands that all costs associated with the demolition of the existing facility, development of the site and construction of the new Girl Scout facility would be bome by the developer. The proposed Girl Scout facility is slightly larger than the existing facility and includes all of the amenities of the existing site such as a commercial kitchen, stage, fireplace, fire ring, bathrooms, storage, office space and grounds for outdoor activities and up to 21 parking spaces. There was no mention of a long terns, no cost lease agreement between the City and the Girl Scout Council regarding the new facility. The Girl Scout Council of Orange County seeks to negotiate a long -term 50 year lease, so that we can continue to develop long range plans and make a financial commitment to upgrade the Newport Beach Scout House in order to provide quality affordable beach oriented recreational opportunities for our 39000 girl and adult members well into the future. While the Marina Park Recreation Alternative does provide for 1.92 acres for a new Girl Scout facility and Community Center in close proximity to the existing Neva B Thomas Girl Scout House. There is no mention of how the project would be funded, or what costs if any the Girl Scout Council would be required to bear to replace the existing facility if this or a similar alternative were selected. At this juncture it appears that the proposed Marina Park and Community Plan may be the preferred alternative to replace the Neva B Thomas Girl Scout House with a modern, Girl Scout Center. k9'r'te�_ ' Thomas Olivas Assistant Executive Director Property & Technology Girl Scout Council of Orange County ' cc: Jeannie Burns CEO GSCOC ' A Unllatl Way Agency si 60 \RCr \� \` a, t0 ' g :a. ' Madnapa* Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on dw Dreg EIR Responses To Commerda ' S Girl Scout Council of Orange County I I 11 I 1 1 S 1. Terms and conditions of a potential lease between the City of Newport Beach and the 1 Girl Scout Council of Orange County for the proposed Girl Scout House and the ' funding of proposed improvements for this use are not project characteristics that give rise to potential adverse impacts to the physical environment. It is anticipated, ' however, that should the project be approved by the voters in November, the City and Girl Scout Council will enter into lease negotiations that will address the issues raised ' in your comment letter. I I 11 I 1 1 Michael Brandman Associates HVIieM (PN-JN)=64\0064ER29W64ER20 -RTC 7 -1 Rmldoc 6 ' If this standard were applied to the remainder of the City's undeveloped or under- developed open space /recreational parcels the City would have little chance to ever construct a new baseball diamond or soccer field. The conclusion for the No Project/No Development Alternative is a perfect example of this: Since this alternative would have no additional environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project set forth in Section 3.3, and therefore, is considered not feasible. Why were the project objectives for this General Planned park site structured to preclude considering non - revenue producing recreational uses on the Marinapark/Las Arenas Park site? Why is the City's only bay front parcel suitable for public active recreational and aquatic uses being considered for hotel use? The General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element under Service Area Needs states in part: T ;2 T3 'W;� RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 9, 2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' To: James W. Campbell, Senior Planner JUN 0 9 2004 From: Don Webb 71819110i11112 il12i3i4 6 15 Subject: Marinapark Resort EIR Comments LaVonne mentioned that the minutes for the council meeting would not be ready by your ' June 9t° deadline so here are some of the items that I feel have not been covered in the EIR document and the site plan. The following two project objectives preclude Alternatives being considered equal to or superior to the proposed project unless they produce significant tidelands and/or general ' fund revenues: Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between tideland revenue and tideland expenditures. Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City minimize or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to the Newport Beach residents. If this standard were applied to the remainder of the City's undeveloped or under- developed open space /recreational parcels the City would have little chance to ever construct a new baseball diamond or soccer field. The conclusion for the No Project/No Development Alternative is a perfect example of this: Since this alternative would have no additional environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project set forth in Section 3.3, and therefore, is considered not feasible. Why were the project objectives for this General Planned park site structured to preclude considering non - revenue producing recreational uses on the Marinapark/Las Arenas Park site? Why is the City's only bay front parcel suitable for public active recreational and aquatic uses being considered for hotel use? The General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element under Service Area Needs states in part: T ;2 T3 'W;� Service Area 2 Balboa Peninsula: .... This area has little vacant land for development...... Unmet park needs can be satisfied via the renovation and upgrading of facilities such as those at Las Arenas Park.... Additional active park-facilities are desirable, along with support facilities such as restrooms, showers and drinking fountains. If Las Arenas Park is lost to a revenue producing hotel, where else on the Peninsula will this bay front property be replaced to help meet the "unmet needs" described in the Te—f Recreation and Open Space Element? How can the Recreation and Open Space Element be amended to reduce active park area when the City is deficient in active park sites in almost every service area in the City? It is understood that an EIR must consider a No Project/No Development Alternative which does not change the current use. It is also my understanding that the continuation of the mobile home park use on public tidelands will not be allowed by the State Lands Commission. Since the EIR's No Project Alternative would not be allowed by the State Lands Commission, why wasn't an additional No Project Alternative considered without the mobile home park and with active park uses as described in the Recreation and Open Space Element? In the past, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission suggested an alternative that provided more active park uses. What are the reasons, besides not producing revenue, that this alternative was not considered even though it met the goals of the General Plan? In at least two public hearings a No Project Alternative was requested that met the park, recreational and aquatic needs without the continued mobile home use. Why wasn't this Alternative considered? Site Plan Concerns: The project provides a four foot wide sidewalk along the Balboa Boulevard frontage. Balboa Boulevard in this area is designated a Primary Roadway in the General Plan's Circulation Element. The typical section for this classification provides a 10' wide parkway. Depending on the volume of pedestrian traffic, sidewalks ranging in width from a minimum width of 4' to 10' are provided. Usually the minimum width for a sidewalk next to a curb in a light pedestrian area is 5'. With the pedestrian uses in this area the sidewalk should be at least 6 to 8 feet. The remainder of the parkway is usually landscaped to enhance the adjoining landscaping in the setback areas. The proposed tennis court/underground parking will create a 15 foot high fence /wall with in 7 feet of the curb. Today the tennis court fences are buffered with mature trees and landscaping in a 14 to 20 foot wide strip. The proposed 3' landscape strip will not allow for significant trees or landscaping to be planted to soften the massiveriess to the fence. At the very least the front yard setback for the area should be maintained between the back of sidewalk and fence. I don't know if this is 5 or 10 feet. This is public property and the City should hold the developer to the same standards of providing landscaped -"5 T6 T'? /�3 1 II I1 buffers along main roadways that we would any where else in the City. Particularly when the landscaped buffer exists today. We should get more landscaping not less along the roadway. On 18`h Street the Admin/Storage building appears to have a 0 setback. Because of the building mass the set back should be at least 5 feet and preferably 10'. The plan for the entrance shows that the median parking and median will not be 1 modified. If this is the case, the only way for eastbound traffic to get into the main entrance will be to make a U -turn at 15`h Street. This is quite an inconvenience for the hotel patrons plus it may create a hazard at 15`h Street. If it is the intent to modify the 1 median in front of the hotel, the loss of on street parking and impacts of creating a left turn lane need to be considered. I1 I will look forward to the response to these and other comments you will receive. Don Webb 1 1821 mariners Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 (949) 646 -3133 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 'T'7 T'S T9 1 16Y Madrmpark Resort and Commanily Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft SR Responses To Commems ' T Mr. Don Webb TI. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of the alternatives to the proposed project. 72. Marinapark Resort (formerly Regent Newport) was selected by the City from among the proposals submitted for development of the project site because the Marinapark proposal offered potential benefits to the City that the others did not, including generation of significant revenues to the City's General Fund. Accordingly, the ' potential benefits of the Marinapark Resort project that were the basis for its selection for the project site have been restated as the project objectives. ' T3. The project luxury resort hotel concept for this site was first presented to the City in 1999 in response to a Request for Proposals sent by the City of Newport Beach to potential developers of the Marinapark site. Marinapark Resort (formerly Regent ' Newport) was selected by the City from among the proposals submitted because the project offered potential benefits to the City that the others did not including generation of significant revenues to the City's General Fund and rebuilding of community facilities (Girl Scout House and Community Center) that did not require expenditure of public funds. Please see response to comment B27 regarding other potential benefits associated ' with the proposed project. T4. Please see response to comment L 9 regarding loss of park and open space. The ' decision to amend the Recreation and Open Space Element is a policy decision, to be made by the voters of Newport Beach in this case. T5. CEQA requires that the No Project alternative be one that does not include any changes to the existing use of the site. Section 7.2 in the Draft EIR includes an alternative without the mobile home park and with a park use as described in the Recreation and Open Space Element. T6. The proposed project includes a 4 -foot wide sidewalk. This width of sidewalk is a site plan issue and not an environmental issue. T7. If the General Plan Amendment necessary to accommodate this project receive voter approval, subsequent project review will include consideration of street -side setback at the tennis courts and the landscaping in this setback. T8. Please see response to comment B60 regarding the Administration building setback. T9. Please see response to comment R4 regarding the provision of left turns from Balboa Boulevard onto the project site. Michael Brandman Associates HACUe ( PN- iN)10064`AW4ER20`ao64ER20_RTC 7 -1 fiml.doc ) / U 'RECEIV`ED By p W:41 � DEPARTMEN NU -vENT ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT lTy �F MEWPORT BEA by JUN 0 9 2004 Elizabeth C. Bonn PM Elliott A. Bonn ' 7�g�9�10�11�12�1�2�3�E� 1607 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' The following contains comments and questions concerning the Draft Environment Impact Report for the Marina Resort & Community Plan. ' SECTION 1.6, Recreation: The DEIR states that the project will not create a demand for recreational services or facilities. COMMENT: The project has been described by its developer as a yachting destination and includes 12 boat slips with four designated for public use. Further, the project consists of 110 rooms, potentially 110+ visitors. How are these facts consistent with the above claim? ' There appears to be the potential for a significant increase in visitors and use from the present conditions. The project appears intended to increase the demand for recreational use and facilities. The DEIR needs to reconcile these facts with the claim. ' SECTION 1.6, Recreation: The proposed project will replace all of the recreational facilities except the basketball half -court because it is not widely used (See 5.4, page 5.4 -12). COMMENT: There is nothing in the report that I could find to support the statement that. the half -court is not used. My 14 year -old disputes this. There are many times when he and his I)-1L friends have gone to use it but have found it in use. The DEIR needs to provide the support via a survey, including the time period in which any survey was done, or provide the City's information for this claim. We agree with the assessment by EQAC on this point. 1 SECTION 2. 1, Project Description: The proposed project includes 12 timeshare units. ' COMMENT: How does the tideland "boundaries" impact the timeshares? Will there be a resolution of the tideland boundary as recommended by EQAC. Further, the June 3, 2004 ' discussion with the Planning Commission, we are confused whether the timeshares are for a full year or only for a portion of a year. The statement made by Mr. Sutherland regarding the use seems to indicate that the timeshares are only for a portion of the year. The DEIR should clarify ' resolve the tideland boundary issue and the plan for time share use. ' SECTION 2.1, Project Description: The DEIR identifies the access to the project by the general public, including Balboa Boulevard. I COMMENT: In prior discussions of the project, there has been mention of a traffic signal off of Balboa Boulevard. Has this been eliminated? Will there need to be a left turn lane into the project from the boulevard? These issues impact the traffic, circulation, and noise analyses. The DEIR needs to clarify this and how that will impact traffic, circulation and noise in addition to any other impacts. I 1 SECTION 3.2, Project Characteristics, 3.1.2: The project will include four lighted tennis courts that will be five -feet higher than Balboa Boulevard. The courts will be enclosed by a chain - linked fence. The courts are atop the parking structure. ' COMMENT: There is no mention if the walls of the parking structure that is above the ground and below the court are open or solid. Walls that are open to the exterior potentially add noise in the area and should be included in the analysis. The DEIR should describe the structure in more detail and include in its analysis any noise impact a parking structure with open sides would have. In addition, what is the noise impact of car alarms going off in either a fully closed or partially open parking structure? That impact could be substantial upon the residents in the immediate area. SECTION 3.3 Project Objectives: The DEIR lists seven objectives. COMMENT: The DEIR needs to identify the source of the objective and if those objectives are listed in the order of their importance. It is our understanding following the discussions at the Planning Commission meeting of June 3 that the city provided the list. This should be stated in the DEIR. and in the order of what the city believes is important. The report should also include the financial information that is anticipated to be received including lease payments and taxes. We agree with EQAC that there should be an economic analysis. SECTION 5.1, Geology and Soils: The DEIR identifies the potentially significant hazard of liquefaction but states that the impact is local and does not contribute to cumulative impacts. The DIER states that a geotextile fabric material will be used to mitigate the effects. COMMENT: The description of the "local' impact is not clear nor why liquefaction on this site would not have any cumulative effect. There is no description of how the mitigation works to prevent collapse of any of the buildings in a seismic event strong enough to result in liquefaction of the peninsula. There should be some mention of how it works and if the inclusion of the material at the project negatively impacts the nearby residences in a significant seismic event. 167 1 1 I SECTION 5.2, Hydrology and Water Quality 1 COMMENT: We agree with the concerns stated in the EQAC response. While the DEIR provides mitigation measures, there is nothing mentioned about enforcement of any plan U 7 for any failure to comply with post - construction mitigation measures. The DEIR only mentions the potential use of plans or policies but not how to ensure compliance. Who will be cleaning up ' the docks from the anticipated trash and debris? ' SECTION 5.3, Biological Resources 1 COMMENT: We agree with the concerns stated in the EQAC response particularly in I U $ the use of out -dated studies. . ' SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR notes that the Land Use Element 1 intends to build on the existing "groupings of villages" and to ensure harmonious groupings of land use. ' COMMENT: The proposed plan is described as "Mediterranean Villa" This is not consistent with the construction of the surrounding area which is primarily beach cottage. The U �( DEIR fails to accurately describe the surrounding area and should describe it. This issue impacts ' the aesthetics section of the DEIR. ' SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR notes that the project is presently "Recreation and Open Space" and that as adopted, is "intended to maintain a recreation and open space system which meets the recreational needs of the citizens of the City and which enhances the unique recreation and environmental resources of the City." 1 COMMENT: The DEIR does not state how this element is met with the proposed project. There is no analysis of how the project meets the recreational needs of the citizens of the City or how it meets the open space needs of the City. Wouldn't the site meet this intent if it ' was a grassy area from Balboa Boulevard to the beach rather than a resort for noncitizens or if it was alternative 7.2 or some form of 7.2? UVO 1 SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR reports that a project will have a significant impact on land use if it creates substantial land use incompatibilities. i 16S 1 I SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR reports that the two -story project is ' consistent with "unique residential areas that border the harbor. ' COMMENT: As stated above, the DEIR fails to provide any support why the project is consistent with the beach cottages across the street. ' SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The project will include 12 boat slips of which four will be for public use. COMMENT: The DEIR does not address how this inclusion is consistent with the policy , to meet the recreational needs of the citizens of the City under the Recreational and Open Space u �� Element. Two - thirds of the slips are for the resort, not for the citizens of the City. The DEIR ' should address this inconsistency. 1 SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: Policy C COMMENT: We concur with EQAC's request for further study on the parking demand of the project. V 167 1 ' COMMENT: The DEIR does not adequately assess how the project is a compatible use. As stated above, the project is described as "Mediterranean Villa" but the surrounding area is not. The DEIR focuses upon the access to the beach at the bay, the boat slips, and the 11 Oil , replacement of the tennis courts, Girl Scout House, Community Center and tot lot. The report describes the areas adjacent to it, the hotel, and the parking lot but does not address the residences across the street on Balboa Boulevard. The DEIR should address this area and how a , Mediterranean Villa Resort with heights of 27 and 34 feet is compatible with two story beach cottages. 1 SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: Under "Impacts Related to the Physical Division ' of an Established Community" the DEIR states there is no potential for the project to divide the. community. ' COMMENT: There is no analysis of how a project which adds to the density of the structures on the property, as well as substantially adding to the height of what presently exists on the property, does not act to divide the community. The effect of the project is to eliminate U �' the feeling of openness of what presently exits. The project will have the effect of closing up the open space, both across its surface as well as the air above. The project will increase the density of what is on the land which acts to divide the community. ' SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The DEIR reports that the two -story project is ' consistent with "unique residential areas that border the harbor. ' COMMENT: As stated above, the DEIR fails to provide any support why the project is consistent with the beach cottages across the street. ' SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: The project will include 12 boat slips of which four will be for public use. COMMENT: The DEIR does not address how this inclusion is consistent with the policy , to meet the recreational needs of the citizens of the City under the Recreational and Open Space u �� Element. Two - thirds of the slips are for the resort, not for the citizens of the City. The DEIR ' should address this inconsistency. 1 SECTION 5.4, Land Use and Planning: Policy C COMMENT: We concur with EQAC's request for further study on the parking demand of the project. V 167 1 CJ 1 ' SECTION 5.5, Transportation/Circulation: The DEIR addresses seven intersections for 1 study. COMMENT: The DEIR report does not address or survey Balboa Boulevard at 18a', 1 17', 16' or 15'x' Streets. The surveys were done during the "shoulder season" but there is no adequate survey of the traffic during the summer months, particularly between noon and 3 p.m. on the southbound/eastbound side of the boulevard and between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on the `� 1 northbound/westbound side on Saturdays and Sundays. We agree with EQAC that further study V is necessary. The DEIR does not address the impact of the recent reconfiguration and signaling of Balboa Boulevard at 21" Street (McFadden Square). During earlier discussions of the project, 1 mention was made of a traffic signal at the main entrance at 17`h Street. If the signal is still being considered, the DEIR should address its potential impact. Is there any plan or consideration of constructing a turning lane from Balboa Boulevard into the project? If this is a consideration, its 1 impact needs to be considered. ' SECTION 5.5, Transportation/Circulation: The DEIR considers two resort hotels as the basis for the traffic counts, one in Del Mar and the other in Bel Air. 1 COMMENT: The DEIR has not included in its consideration the new resort in Laguna Beach. That resort is better suited for this analysis since it is more similar to the proposed 017 project than the resort in Bel Air. 11ie DEIR should include a study of trips generated from that resort and the traffic impact it has on the PCH and surrounding area. 1 SECTION 5.7, Noise: The DEIR considers the noise generated on the project site. ' COMMENT: We agree with the EQAC response that a noise study should evaluate the noise impacts on the nearby residents. The DEIR should also include a study of the noise generated by the guests of the resort as pedestrians traveling through the residential U 1 neighborhood on their way to and from the beach at the ocean. This area of study was requested be included in the DEIR at the October 2003 meeting. SECTION 5.7, Noise: The field survey was conducted in February, 2004. COMMENT: There was no survey undertaken during the summer months. The report should contain a through analysis of the noise levels in the summer which may be more with V increased vehicular traffic and music emanating from vehicles with open windows. Vehicle ►70 I windows are generally closed during winter. There may be a significant increase in noise during I U I the summer, an impact that is not captured in the DEIR. SECTION 5.7, Noise: The DEIR includes off -site noise levels at several areas. 1 COMMENT: The report should include the project area, not remote areas. I U?10 1 SECTION 5.7, Noise: The DEIR concludes that any outdoor hotel uses will be well ' outside the noise constraint zone of 65 dBA CNEL. COMMENT: The DEIR should include a study of the noise generated by the guests of the resort as pedestrians traveling through the residential neighborhood on their way to and from t) 02� the beach at the ocean. This analysis was requested be included at the October meeting. SECTION 5.7, Noise: The DEIR reports that most hotel recreational uses are oriented toward the bay. COMMENT: The DEIR should include the basis for this statement and why there is no consideration of any uses toward the ocean. SECTION 5.8, Aesthetics: The DEIR reports that the project will enhance public views. COMMENT: The DEIR does not set forth how the project will enhance public views. SECTION 5.8, Aesthetics COMMENT: The DEIR does not address the impact of the project on the surrounding community. At present, the structures and facilities on -site are one story and there is generally a feeling of openness. Many residents across the street from the project have some view of the bay from their homes. The two story structures are higher in elevation than what presently exist and the lobby area even higher. The project will not only eliminate the open feeling but will restrict what views residents do have. The project is described as "Mediterranean Villa" but the surrounding area is not and is probably best described at beach cottages. There is no discussion in the DEIR on this aspect of the project's impacts. The massive nature of the project has an impact on the surrounding area that should be included in the report. 1 i, I P;Z3 1 1� ua4r 1 1 1 71 � 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SECTION 7.1, No Project Alternative COMMENT: We agree with EQAC concerning the advancement of economic goals as not an appropriate environmental goal. SECTION 7.2, Recreation Alternative COMMENT: We agree with EQAC that the DEIR lacks any analysis of the alternative. The DEIR does not address any variation of this alternative, such as a recreation alternative without a boat launch which could change traffic, hydrology, parking and noise impacts, possibly others. We also agree with EQAC that alternatives to an impervious parking surface were not addressed. SECTION 7.3, Reduced Intensity Alternative COMMENT: The proposed project includes a restaurant. Given that the alternative has fewer units and both the alternative and the propose project have restaurants, how does the alternative generate more trips? The DEIR needs to address how the alternative increases the daily trips, noise and demand for public services from the proposed project. Aren't both restaurants open to the public? The DEIR needs to more clearly state the differences and the bases for the conclusion. ' CONCLUSION It is our hope that the DEIR will be revised and re- circulated for review and comment as ' suggested by EQAC. Many issues have been addressed here, by EQAC, at the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004 and by others such that a period for review of a revised document is necessary. 1 1 i 1 Gig /.may C)a7 1 ►�z 1 Mannapark Resat and Community Plan - Resoonse to Comments on the Draft EIR ' U Elliott and Elizabeth C. Bonn To Canmenta ' U6. Liquefaction impacts are site specific and newly built structures are required to reduce liquefaction impacts on these new structures to less than significant. Liquefaction impacts associated with the project site would not cumulatively add to ' liquefaction impacts associated with the related projects identified in Section 4.2 in the Draft EIR because liquefaction impacts are site specific as stated above. These impacts need to be mitigated on a project -by- project basis. Furthermore, liquefaction ' impacts associated with the related projects would not increase liquefaction impacts on the project site. U 1. Please see response to comment B54 for a discussion on the half basketball court. impacts for structures that are built above the material. The material provides U2. The proposed project may include 12 fractional ownership units. The fractional units ' U7. The hotel operator, as all owners of docks within Newport Harbor, will be required to would not be occupied by residents and could be placed in the resort rental pool when not occupied by the owner. The nature of the occupancy of the fractional units would clean up the proposed dock by removing trash and debris. The City's Harbor not be significantly different than the resort units in terms of a possible Practices within the Harbor. environmental impact. Also see response to comment B 17 regarding the State Lands ' Commission staff on the proposed resort hotel. U3. A traffic signal at the project entrance (Balboa Boulevard and 17th Street) is not part of the project and is not required as a mitigation measure. Please see response to comment B62 regarding left turns into the project site from Balboa Boulevard. U4. As noted in Section 3, Project Description of the Draft EIR, the parking structure is ' subterranean and will be below 5 feet below grade and 5 feet above grade with the tennis courts at grade. The noise analysis evaluates the noise impacts based upon the traffic projections. Once project - related traffic has entered the project site, the noise ' impacts have essentially been captured onsite, since cars will be traveling at reduced speeds and for limited periods of time within a confined area. Noise impacts such as car alarms are considered a nuisance but they are not representative of the general noise environment. Noise emanating from car alarms is temporary and random. It would be speculative to determine how often or how long car alarms are activated to include in the noise analysis. U5. The objectives are not listed in order of importance. Evaluation of the importance of each objective relative to another is subjective. Project objectives are required by CEQA to help define a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The objectives ' were used by the City to develop the Marine Recreation Alternative and were included in the Draft EIR that was circulated for public comment on April 26, 2004. ' U6. Liquefaction impacts are site specific and newly built structures are required to reduce liquefaction impacts on these new structures to less than significant. Liquefaction impacts associated with the project site would not cumulatively add to ' liquefaction impacts associated with the related projects identified in Section 4.2 in the Draft EIR because liquefaction impacts are site specific as stated above. These impacts need to be mitigated on a project -by- project basis. Furthermore, liquefaction ' impacts associated with the related projects would not increase liquefaction impacts on the project site. Michael Brandman Associates ' HACRed (FN- 1N)0064X0064ER20\W64ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fieel.dw The inclusion of a geotextile fabric material within the soil reduces liquefaction impacts for structures that are built above the material. The material provides stability. The inclusion of this material would not affect surrounding properties. ' U7. The hotel operator, as all owners of docks within Newport Harbor, will be required to clean up the proposed dock by removing trash and debris. The City's Harbor Resources Division currently enforces the implementation of Best Management Practices within the Harbor. U8. Please see response to comment B43 regarding the use of 30 -year old fish data. Michael Brandman Associates ' HACRed (FN- 1N)0064X0064ER20\W64ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fieel.dw Madnapark Resod and Community Plan - , Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments U9. Please see response to comment U24 regarding architectural styles of structures on Balboa Peninsula. U 10. Please response to comment L9 regarding recreation opportunities. The Marine Recreation alternative likely would meet more recreation needs, but it sbould not be assumed that these would be exclusively the needs of citizens. The State Lands Commission staff has taken the position that a majority of the property is State tidelands, and it is appropriate for it to be used by a broader group than just the residents of Newport Beacb. Ul 1. Please see response to comment B75 regarding revisions to the Draft EIR to clarify the proposed structural beights. The majority of botel buildings are proposed to be one and two stories, and therefore compatible witb the surrounding area. The hotel lobby building alone is proposed to be 37 feet high (i.e., to the peak of the roof), and is proposed with a setback from Balboa Boulevard of approximately 186 feet, which will diminisb its impact to less than significant. U12. Please see response to comment B49 for a discussion on the division of a community. The proposed project would result in approximately 33 percent of the project site being covered by buildings, including the subterranean parking structure. Excluding the subterranean parking structure, this coverage ratio drops to 25 percent of the project site being covered by buildings. The remainder would be open and improved with parking and landscaping. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. U13. Please see response to comment U 11 regarding building beigbt and compatibility with the surrounding area. U 14. Please see response to continent B20 regarding a modified boat dock design. This modification includes the provision of six boat tie -ups; two for the public, two for visitors to the botel, and two for hotel use. The provision of boat tie -ups for the public as well as the rebabilitation of the existing public recreational activities on the project site would provide facilities for recreational activity, and therefore, would be consistent with the City's policy regarding recreational needs within the City. U15. Please see responses to comments B50, B52, and Ql 1. U16. Please see response to comment B62 regarding project traffic along Balboa Boulevard at 15th Street, 16th Street, 17tb Street, and 18th Street. The traffic analysis did not address the reconfiguration and signaling at Balboa Boulevard and 21st Street because this intersection is not one of the intersections to be evaluated according to the City's TPO. Furthermore, the project is expected to contribute a maximum of 14 vehicles per hour (vph) to the southbound lanes during the AM peak period and a maximum of 13 vph to the northbound lanes during the PM peak period. These volumes are not expected to result in significant impacts to the Balboa Boulevard and 21 st Street intersection during the shoulder season. Please see response to comment U3 regarding the provision of no traffic signal at 17th Street and Balboa Boulevard and response to comment B62 regarding left turns into the project site from Balboa Boulevard. Michael Bmndmen Associates x1Clie%"_JN)\00"M1 OW4ER20`0004ER2A_RTC 7 -1 finstdoc ' ' Marfnepark Rosort and Communhy Plan - Responm to Cmnn ms on the Drek EIR Rospooaas To Commw ' U17. The Montage Resort and Spa in Laguna Beach would not provide a comparable alternative since this hotel is designed to cater to both business and vacation travelers as well as providing a forum for large special events. Additionally, the Montage Resort and Spa provides 13,860 square feet of indoor and 18,650 square feet of outdoor meeting and banquet space, in comparison the proposed project offers 3,603 square feet of ballroom space, which is not intended to be utilized as meeting space. Therefore, since the Montage Resort hosts business functions that would generate weekday traffic trips, the traffic characteristics of this hotel would likely differ ' between the weekdays and weekends. U18. Guests of the proposed hotel will have direct access to the beach from the hotel; however, some guests may choose to visit other beach locations and in doing so travel through nearby residential neighborhoods. Presently, beach goers do travel to and from the beach via the adjacent neighborhoods, and the addition of hotel guests would not result in a perceptible increase in pedestrian traffic. Furthermore, ' generally pedestrian traffic is not considered to be a source of significant noise generation, however, if pedestrians create loud and unreasonable noise, this type of noise is regulated by the City's Municipal Code. Since vehicle trips are the primary ' source of noise within the project area and will be the primary source of project - related noise generation, Giroux and Associates prepared a noise analysis based upon the traffic distribution patterns. As indicated in Section 5.7, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project will not result in noise levels that exceed the 65 dB CNEL residential and hotel exterior standard. Please refer to response to comment B -68, for additional information pertaining to noise impacts upon the residential neighborhoods on the north and south sides of Balboa Boulevard. U19. Please refer to the response to continent H33 for a discussion of summer noise impacts. ' U20. The noise analysis prepared for the project includes an evaluation of Balboa Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Other roadway segments that are not adjacent ' to the site, but in the project vicinity, were evaluated to assess the noise impacts from project vehicles entering and exiting Balboa Peninsula. As shown in Table 5.7 -5 in the Draft EK project - related traffic noise would increase a maximum of 0.1 dB on the analyzed roadway segments during the summer and winter. This increase is well below the 3 dB increase needed to represent a substantial noise increase. U21. Please refer to the response to comment U18 for a discussion of pedestrian - related noise. U22. The hotel recreational uses referenced in the last paragraph on page 5.7 -11 in the ' Draft EIR refer to the boating available for hotel guests and the use of the hotel pool. Both of these recreational amenities offered to hotel guests are located on the Bay side of the hotel. ' U23. Please see response to comment B73 for a discussion regarding enhancement of existing public views from Balboa Boulevard. U24. The City addresses the impacts of development on public views, but not private views. Many of the proposed buildings would be higher than existing structures on the site, but they would be similar to other buildings in the vicinity. Even though ' lower than the proposed buildings, the existing buildings extend across the length of Michael Brandman Assoclatm I ' HhCtieW( PN- JM\OD64\W64ER20\0064ER?A_RTC 7 -I fmldm Mednepark Resort and Community Plan - ' Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments the site and do not afford many public views of the Bay. Exhibits 5.84 and 5.8 -5 , show that public views will be increased if the project is implemented. Beach cottages may be the prevalent structure type directly across Balboa Boulevard from ' the project site, but development on the Balboa Peninsula includes a wide range of architectural styles, including Mediterranean, beach cottages, California ranches and contemporary styles. The City does not have design guidelines for its residential districts, and this architectural diversity is likely to continue. ' U25. Please see response to comment B95 regarding the inclusion of economic goals in the project objectives. ' U26. Please see responses to comments B97 through B98 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative. U27. The Reduced Intensity Alternative includes a 4,500 square-foot restaurant and the proposed project includes a 1,124- square-foot restaurant. The restaurant proposed as part of the alternative would generate more traffic trips because it is larger and would serve more visitors. Michael Brandman Associates H:VCtieM (PN- JN)\W64`a064ERWM64ER20 -RTC 7 -1 fivatdm Campbell, James From: JonV3 @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 12:32 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Marinapark EIR Hi Jim, Jan Vandersloot here. I would like to ask that the EIR for Marinapark consider the following alternatives: Page 1 of 1 ' 1. The PBR Commission Alternative. This alternative is referenced by Sharon Wood in her March 14, 2000, and May 9, 2000, "Report To The Mayor and City Council." You might contact her for the details of these reports and V include them in the EIR. Unfortunately, my scanner is on the blink right now and I can't send them to you by email attachment. ' 2. An alternative that provides for the entire property to be public open space as envisioned by the current General Plan, to be used as a greenbelt park and window to the bay from Balboa Blvd. As stated in Sharon ' Wood's Report to The Mayor and City Council on March 14, 2000, last paragraph: "The General Plan designates V the Marinapark site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space, and indicates that its ultimate use is to be for aquatic facilities, expanded beach and community facilities." This site is the last opportunity for our present and future generations to have a substantial bay water view from a public road such as Balboa Blvd. 3. A plan that includes a ramp for trailered boats such as mine, a 20 foot Bayliner Trophy boat, so that I have a I V 3 boat launching area on the bay, and so other boat owners in Newport Beach have a place to launch their boats in Newport Beach on the bay (the Dunes launching area is in the County and is far away). Thank you. 1 1 X77 06/09/2004 Sincerely, ' Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 2221 East 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' (949) 546-6326 1 1 X77 06/09/2004 ' Madnapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments V Ms. Jan D. Vandersloot ' VI. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission alternative was one of eight that was submitted in response to the City's request for proposals for the subject property in February 2000. The City Council did not select that proposal. The DEIR includes three alternatives that comply with the requirements of CEQA, including the Marine Recreation Alternative.. V2. The Marine Recreation Alternative is an alternative that proposes the entire project site as open space and recreational facilities, consistent with the current General Plan Land Use designation of Recreation and Environment Open Space designation, and consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element plan for the site. Please see ' response to comment B97 regarding the selection of the alternatives. V3. The Marine Recreation Alternative includes a boat lunch ramp that could ' accommodate 20 -foot long boats. 1 1] I I I I I i I Michael Brandman Associates RI I ' CE.=(PN- JMW64IDOM ?OW64ER20 —RTC 7 -1 finaldoc 1 JUN -1T -2004 WSW FROA-KOGLE- IRELAND 5 1 \ ^ '9495530935 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutiae June 3, 20.04 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. T -010 P.002 /013 F -494 rap T of 23 INDEX ROU CALL Commissioners F_aton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and All Present .Tudw, STAFF' PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Asslstard City Manager Flobert Burnham, City Attorney Patricia L Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant. Cigr Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner GingerVarin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: P6S7INt3i OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May. 28, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of ITSM NO.1 May 200 2004. Approved Approved as written and ordered flied Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Alas -ant: None p !UN -17 -2004 09:59AM FROMFNOGLE- IRELAND Noes: ITEM NO.4 None Absent None Abstain: .0710812004 None 9495530935 T -010 PAWNS F -494 rugs a ut LM SURACT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft ITEM NO.4 Environmental Impact Report (PA2003 -218) PA2003 218 Continued to Review of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed .0710812004 IWadnapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan (formerly known as the Regent Newport Beach), The - project applicant, Marinapark LLC, proposes to remove andior demolish existing structures on the properly and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that would !no[ ude a 'lobby and registration area, a cam, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four ionnis courts, a new two-story Community Center and ON Scout facility, and a tot lot. Chairperson McDaniel noted that tonight, the- Commission would be providing direction to staff and the applicant. Senior Planner, Jim Campbell noted the following: • Both the Draft. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project itself will be reviewed to provide direction to both staff and the consultants for the upcoming hearings. % Schedule - July 8th the Planning Commission will be hearing this item; City Council will be holding hearings on July 13th and 27th. • The City Council has decided to put this project on the November 2004 ballot. . At tonight's meeting and'the one on July 8th, staff hopes to be able to formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the EIR as well as any proposed changes to the project. . Staff wants to provide an open forum for public input that will be provided, at these two meetings. . At the conclusion of the meeting, staff would like to have arty requests for additional data or questions that the public or Commission might have, for response at the next meeting. So ' JUN -17 -2004 MOW FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 8485530835 T -010 P- 003/021 F -405 ■ At Commission inquiry, he noted that the last date for response to comments on the EIR is June 8th. Any comments to be made ' should be submitted by the 9th in order for staff to respond. The following City consultants were in attendance: ' David Lepo from Hogle Ireland, the project manager, Mike Houlihan and Jason Brandman from Michael Brandman, ' Associates, the preparers of the Environmental Impact Report; Joe Foust, the traffic engineer. ' Stephen Sutherland, Marinapark Resort project manager, noted that this August marks the dth year since the first site plan was drawn. He them made a Power Point presentation highlighting the project noting: ' . 'The project is the 'Madnapark Resort and CommunKy Plan% and will encompass an area on Balboa Peninsula from 713th Street to 18th Street and Balboa Boulevard to the public beach. ' ■ The architecture will be a Mediterranean villa style with a' ' yachting resort theme, ■ Accommodations will be made for sail boats from Lrdo 14's up ' to vintage Americas Cup and sailing will be an activity for guests to enjoy. ' . He then pointed out the proposed site plan in relation to the American Legion facility that is not involved in the project, the boat slips that will not be beyond the American Legion line of ' slips; and the tennis courts that will be m -built over a subten anean parking %allity for 100 cars. ' . He then displayed where additional surface parting will be noting the existing public lot on 18th Street (to be refurbished by the applicant) with 21 metered stalls. ' ■ There will be a shared access for the Girl SeoutlCommunity facility when it is not in use. ' . The existing tot lot will be moved nerd to the Girl Scout facility and will be separated by a wall. ' . The new Girl Scout fatality will be larger and the grounds will be doubled with landscaping/gazebo/fire pit areas provided. The Interior will be fully ADA accessible and have a modem commercial style kitchen; will have a stage and air conditioning, and will be outCrtted with a security system. All of these ' arrangements are being made at the request/direction of the Girt Scout Council. ' files• MAU1ew........ %nnn4%n ^q .-. 181 JUN -17 -2004 10:03AL1 FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 . There will be a spa building built next to the Scout facility and the buildings will be similar in style and two stories high. • The spa will be for hotel guests but will also be available residents and the public. . The dock area will have a concrete weYkway and will not impede public access. There will be twelve Slips, some wider than others, and will be operated for the yachting and rowing dub. Four of the slips will be available as v1sithrs' doclking. . The number of guest rooms is 110. It is being designed as a five star level hotel. He noted his background In resort design with fifteen years experience in Europe and Mexico as well as in America. • The 110 guest rooms will be located In sbkileen, one and iwo story villa style buildings. The buildings for the most part are lower than the surrounding homes. The density Is less than the existing residential neighborhood. Many of the private homes in this area are about two square feet of structure for every square foot of land. We are at one third of square foot of structure for every square That of land. . The traffic studies have shown that the added cars on the road from this project compared to the existing mobile home park is below what triggers the 'Measure S' threshold. . There are BO spaces in the mobile home park, two of the mobile homes have been removed. Out of the remaining 58, two are management WT"s. There are currently 58 residents in the park. . He then presented before and after visual impact simulations an 18th Street; GIN Scout lot; 17th Stmt and Balboa Blvd.; and, views tam the water. . The villas on the waterfront are one story except the one by the American Legion property, which is two story. . The Girl Scout facility will have a second story for community use and will be just over 2,000 square feet enclosed plus an outdoor terrace area of about 200 square lest. This building will be built and paid by the applicant, but will be turned over to the City. • The main resort lobby two story structure will have water fountain elements. MI - I ff II- • -.. .. - P.004/021 F-495 ' A �.. +v.w 18z ' JUN -17 -2004 10:04AM FROM-NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P- 005/021 F -495 11 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 . The environmental advantages will reduce traffic on Balboa Blvd., the existing zoning allows public open space and marine recreational facilities. The Improvement of water quality is based on a number of Issues such as underground vaues on the property that will, capture new rainfall and skim the oil and debris from the parking lots, landscaping areas, etc. before It enters the bay, There will be an underground tank storage area and when there is flooding during the winter storms, the skimmed water will stay in the tanks unfit the tide is down and/or the storm drain recovers and then it will be put into the system. The other issue Is the State tidelands low, a hotel is considered a public use and visitor serving and is permissible in State tidelands. Community improvements include the beautification of the Balboa Peninsula-, and an agreement to fund a minimum of $5009000 to remodel the American Legion facility on approval. The tennis courts are being re-bullt and will remain open to the public. The City Recreation and Senior Services Department will run adultichild programs in these new courts and the new community center. . There are two restaurants proposed on the property, one is the 'All Day Cafe' and is 515 rot square feet and the specialty restaurant will be 1,100 square feet and will be open and available to residents, they both will have waterfront views. . Residents will have full access to the grounds and resort. . There will be improved access to the beach. There will be two public view corridor on .each side of the lobby. . This is publicly owned property and should benefit the residents. With this proposed use, we feel 0 does. These benefits Include upwards of three million dollars in total revenue annually to the City of Newport Beach, and property values for the surrounding area will increase. The plan has been referred to as a gem and a shot in the arm that this area of the peninsula needs and is'a landmark in waiting'. The following questions were asked by the Commissioners and answered by the applicant Commissioner Toerge asked: ' t' lie .•!lKlf• \P1wnr�....+..17M�1nFn� i._ 193 JUN -17 -2004 10:04AM FROM-HOGLE- IRELAND rlaUAUUg wJWUWDAVAA AAA w D --I 9495590995 T -010 P.006 /021 F -495 What are the proposed site access control measures on 18th Street? . Please review the availability of parking for the public. Will the parking structure be available for the public. Commissioner Sellah asked: . What Is the Am of the lounge and ballroom and how do they compare to other hotels? . What percentage of the property is tidelands? Commissioner EMn asked: . WO there be a cap as to how many of the units will be time share? Commissioner Cole asked: . The height of the villas, does the lobby extend higher? . In the photos that were shown, what is the height of the residential buildings? Mr. Sutherland answered: . There will be no controls to get into the driveway to aces either the public parking lot or the Girl Scout parking area. Beyond that there is a fire access gate that is permanently closed. There will be no access at all from the hotel to that driveway on 18th Street. Employees and deliveries will access the property from the 15th Street alley behind the American Legion under the tennis courts to the parking structure; the loading dock is right next to the tennis courts. There is nc access at all for the hotel from 18th Street, that is only for emergency purposes or the public lot or Old Scout lot. . The parking structure is not available for the public who use the beach, It will be available for a flee to the public that goes onto the resort grounds . . The lobby lounge is 1,100 square feet; the ballroom is on the second floor of the lobby and is 3,605 square feet Comparing that to the Marriott, it is less than 10% of their public meeting space area. Comparing it to the 5t. Regis in Monarch Beach, this proposed project has just over 3% of the meeting/convention space as the St. Regis has just over W1 Wz �W3 W4 161 1 tJUN -17 -2004 10:04AM FROMFHOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.007/021 F-495 1 oo,000 square feet, which is almost the same size as this entire project. . It is proposed that twelve suites will be dedicated as interval shares, a minimum of 1/8 but most likely 1/4. For example, if we have a three month Interval, then that suite would be sold for that three month time period. Mr. Burnham added: This is the appocant's proposal for the time shares, but the City Council will have to approve this interval shares issue through the lease negotiations. The tidelands have not been determined. The State Lands Commission staff believes that approximately 65% to 70% of the parcel is tidelands. There has been no adjudication of the mean high tide line and the opinion of the State Lands Commission staff is based on meander surveys and some old aerial photographs. It is still undecided. Continuing, Mr. Sutherland answered: . The building height of the lobby is 34 feet. It is stilt two stories, but it has a higher ceiling area. When you first walk into the lobby, you have a 34 foot high ceiling; then a grand stairwell that goes upstairs along with an elevator to the lobby upstairs. . Then: are marry three story buildings in this neighborhood. Public comment was opened. Chairperson McDaniel addressed the audience noting that the Commission is looking only at environmental issues tonight. Louise Fundenberg, President of the Central Newport Beach Association, noted they would like to go on record that this area has always been General Plan Open Space Recreational. This is the last open space on the peninsula, She noted the concerns of the members who live across the street from this proposed project that their view would be wiped out. At the annual meeting this project was discussed and the residents want this to stay open space. They looked at the EIR and saw an aRemate plan for a marina, but that marine was in there to make the hotel look good. A different plan for a marina might be a better one than the one alternate put in the EIR. Commissioner Kiser noted that the association members are concerned about the loss of open space at the project site. What open space that is on the project site would be lost? 1 1"- 195- JUN -17 -2004 1O:O4AM FRO*- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 7-010 P.009 /021 F -495 ' Ma, Fundenberg answered that the strip of beach, even though the applicant stakes it will be open to the public, the members feel that once a hotel is put in there, the public will not came In to use that beach. It will not be available to the general public, it will be blocked. It is a matter of access to the public beach and the need for more open space than Is currently proposed. Tim Collins, resident of Balboa Peninsula, noted: • The project is characterized as a resort hotel with docks. • He would Ike to see the water side of the tidelands and the bay and harbor impacts studied in more detail in the EIR. This analysis is relevant to the environmental impacts of the project overall. • The altemative contained in the EIR as exhibit 7 -1 is a better alkemative, but by no means the best altemative for the bay. • There could be better design and more visitor serving boating. • It could have more revenue potential and have less environmental impacts as the docks designed and presented in the EIR. • A better design would be more suited to the real demand far the public from ttx: water side. It would accommodate larger and more boats, and with ample guest docks could be overall better serving. • The applicant commented he sees this as a yachting resort, I don't think that 28, 30 foot boats as configured in these dodos will allow it to meet the objective as a yachting destination. • There is a potential to improve the financial viability. • The protection of the environment is going to be a 'function of how successful this property is. In his opinion, this dock area would be a loser when you consider the cost to build it and the fees that should be paid for the tidelands use. • He suggested that the applicant should be asked to challenge its consultants and study aftematives, submit market research and analysis to support those altematives. • Exploring said options could reduce the environmental Impact for example, dredging. And a re- designed dock would be more responsive to the Harbor Element of the General Plan as to which the original scoping of the EIR was lacking. file: //FF:\P1anrnmmV)MA1Atn-2 w.... 186 1 JUN -17 -2004 10:05AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 a An A% W LUA44LlJA In AAuwa U WIAUUT T -010 P.009 /021 F -405 ,Cage 1 U W LS ' . This property Is the gem of the peninsula and we need to get it right, ' At staff inquiry, the speaker clarified that he is speaking to both types of dock, those as part of the resort hotel and what Is described in the ' marine recreation alternative in the EIR. The alternate is preferable and the docks as designed as part of the hotel resort are not the beret public use of the waterfront. ' John Corrough, resident of Balboa Island, noted he agrees with the comments made by the previous speaker adding the following: ' . An analysis of the EIR shows that the presumed attainment of the various Harbor and Bay Element sections is not supported ' by the facts or analysis or conclusionary statements that are in the EIR. ' . One of the most basic aspects of this project that is linked to the Harbor and Bay Element that needs to be discussed is this is not in fact a water dependent use. This is a water enhanced use under the definition of the Harbor and Bay Element and under the definition of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCP), it is not a coastal dependent use. ' The hotel Is the primary use on the site and by itself does not meet the criteria of those two important documents (Harbor and ' Bay Element and the LOP). It is dependent on a very small marina for its water dependency. . You do not get Americas cup boats in 30 foot or 26 That slips. - You do not get a lot of revenue out of this project when the cost to create is somewhere between 8 to 10 times the cast per slip of the typical high value marina such as the one recently constructed in front of the Balboa Bay Club. i. Somewhere there is going to have to be a lot of costs to make up in the way in which that facility is either subsidized or in some ' other way justified. . With all of the money expended for the public good on site, the project is burdened by these costs as well as the marina costs. a This situation can be solved by further analysis of a marina t opportunity and potential so that it is less environmentally damaging and producing revenue to the City, tidelands fund and the resort. ' Commissioner Selich asked if the speaker Is suggesting that the MI- - - - -... la7'-? M ►87 JUN -17-2004 10:05AM1 FROMFNOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 marina component be larger and if you are, are you saying it should extend more into the bay or along the beach? l Mr. Corrough answered that any or all of those optlons should be explored. However, none of those were examined as alternatives. There is not enough analysis shown or documented in the EIR to justify that Commissioner SeDoh noting that the pier head tine does not go to out to the and where the slips are proposed, asked as part of this project is the pier head line going to have to be moved and adjusted? Ms. Wood answered that staff will have to find that out. Mr. Burnham noted that on the Issue of deep water slips or a substantially larger marina, the City is required to develop alternatives that could mitigate any potential impacts and also achieve project objectives. Some of • the things that went into developing the alternatives in the EIR is to minimize the Impact of the marine facilities on the public use of the beach and public access. Also minimizinig the extent to which dredging or any alteration of the marine environment Is necessary. The types of facilities the previous speaker referred to would have a substantially greater Impact on the subtidal zone than the alternatives, that was a consideration. Marie O'Hara, resident of the peninsula, noted her concern of the bay that Is already compromised. The 10th Street beach was closed one out of every two days in July and August of last year. It does not have anything to do with storm runoff. I don't know what is polluting the bay, but the addition of a 100 plus guestrooms plus the additional traffic of people using the bay makes it more dense. I don't understand how a strudure of this sort will reduce traffic. Parking on the peninsula is very troublesome. Concluding, she added that by having the election to approve this plan with the national election disenfranchises all the summer home owners who are taxpayers in Newport Beach and not able to vote for or against this project because they are voting in their own communities. Commissioner Kiser asked if her concerns of density and parking considered the fad that there would be 80 mobile home oacupandes removed from the site. his. O'Hare answered that 100 guests are being added. This Is being used as a destination resort, people will drive to it. She added that she has a sailboat that draws 6.2 feet and there are sections over by Lido where we barely skim the bottom. So whatever dredging that you are going to have to do in this area will be considerable. Commissioner Tucker asked how many bedrooms there are in the i+ la. JJ1 .Y• \Al....,........- J.��1MNnrnn , . P.910f921 F -495 1 W q 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1, ((A) 1 r� r! 1 t i r� l L/i 1 /g8 1 ' JUN-17 -2004 1O:O5AM FROM- KOGLE- IRELAND p]2nnwa k:ommrssurn RIMM ; uuauaisw» 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 9495530935 T -010 P -011 /021 F -495 existing trailer park facility. Is there any way to find out how many? Ms. Clauson stated that staff is in the process OF preparing a relocation Impact report and are gathering information about the mobile homes for purpose of finding alternatives for relocation of them N the park Is closed. We may have more blfonnation with regards to the bedroons and also information on how many of them are second hams or summer vacation type residences versus permanent. She added that the rental agreement prohibits the subletting of the mobile homes. Commissioner Tucker stated that it would then be people showing up for the summer to use their facilities and guests while they were there. How many parking spaces are presently In the trailer park? He asked that this information be supplied at the next meeting. Ms. Clauson answered that parking is limited to the roadway access each of the units. She will get the information far the next meeting. Mr. Burnham added that any resident who is registered to vote can vote in any election. The rational the City Council had In wanting to schedule this issue for voter consideration was to maximize the tumour It is fair to say this is going to be a fairly contesled presidential election, there are a lot of other issues on the ballot that will draw people to the polls in November. Historically the presidential election gets about 75% of voter participation as opposed to 10-15% far a standard/speolal election. Commissioner Tucker then asked who is going to awn the Girl Scout House after it is completed? Ms. Clauson answered that the City owns and maintains the facility and currently has an annual lease with the Girl Scouts for that ptaperty. This lease will be negotiated for the use of the new fedlity once it is completed. Mr. Burnham added that the lease would require the lessee to maintain the property to a very high standard. Commissioner Tucker then asked about the views. People across the street that have views over the public land, are those public views that are protected? Mr. Burnham answered that the view from a third story of a residence would not be considered a public view, even as it looks across public property. Commissioner Tucker then asked about water dependency. If the P174ed is approved by the voters, we still have to go through the IW11 wAa JUN -1T -2004 10:05AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 7-010 P.012/021 zoning on the project. Would this be zoning that is water dependent or like a planned community text where the basic zoning would be tailored? is the water dependency element relevant or not? Ms. Wood answered that the zoning for this project will be a Planned Community text and staff already has a draft. It Is a General Plan issue, more so than a zoning issue because the zoning implements the General Plan. She then introduced the consultant team in attendance: Davit Lepo from Hogle Ireland, the project manager, Mike Houlihan and Jason Brandman from Michael Brandman, Associates, the preparers of the Environmental Impact Report, and Joe Foust, the traffic engineer, Seymour Beek, resident of Balboa Island, noted the following: .. • A yachting resort in the sense that people will come in their boats and use the marina, they don't really need a hotel. • The use of waterfront and slip area is not well thought out • Where did the project objectives come from, where are they listed, and who thought them up? Mike Houlihan, Michael Brandman Associates, answered that the project objectives are listed in Section 3, page 3-8. These objectives were set out by both the City and the project applicant. Through CEQA, project objectives can be set out by an applicant as well as the lead agency. Mr. Burnham added that this August the project will be 5 to 6 years in process. The City issued requests for proposals in 1999 for the redevelopment of the Marinapark and received 8 responses, went back to public hearing and received input and narrowed those to 4 proposals that Council wanted more Information about. There were more public meetings and comments, meetings with community groups and these project objectives are a distillation of what staff heard over a " year period as the interest and objectim of the community, City Council and others that participated in that process. It is typical for Staff and the EIR preparer to develop project objectives based upon the history of the particular project taking into account vhmd the project proponent wants. Ms. Wood added that this Is an unusual project as the City is the property owner and so has a special interest that it wouldn't have on private property. Jan Vandersloot, resident of Newport Heights, noted the following: Asked that the project objectives be considered leaving the area I W 4-5 File :h'Fr•1P1m,rn....nt'fMAtrune t..._ F -495 ' 170 1 1 JUN -17 -2004 10:06AM FROAFHOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.D13/021 F -495 planning Com'msswn ivnaases vawrZ.uuw _o. _ .... 1 open space. 1 • The property is zoned Recreational and Environmental Open �3 Spqlce and that zoning should remain intact. He does not see an alternative that uses that zoning as a pr*ct objective. ' • We should look at the benefit of public views from the stwft. W �� The citizens own that property and should be able to view the 1 water. • The Parks Commission submitted an altemative to the City 1 Council but that Is not listed in the EIR and it should be. • We are a wealthy City and should be able to keep the property 1 that we own as open apace for future generations. • Some of the other i npacts would be the kiss of foraging habitat, 1 and some of the specifics of where the mitigation areas would go have not been defined. Mr. Burnham noted the property Is zoned PC and is designated as 1 recreational and environmental open space in the General Plan and that designation in the land Use Element authorizes a wide range of 1 uses. WIN 7 -1 attempts to take the Land Use Element designation for for the site and parcel out portions of the parcel parkland, portions for beach and slip parking, it retains the Girl Scout and community center. It is the implementation of the General Plan designation for 1 the site. Us. Wood noted that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission 1 alternative was one of the S proposals subri ted to the City Council in response to the RFP. When the City Council made the decision to work exclusively with Sutherland Talle now Marinapark, LLC, at that 1 tirne they simply rejected that proposal. Since the General Plan Amendment is something that Is going to the voters, then the people have the opportunity to decide whether it should be changed to allow it should remain open space. If the the hotel development or whether decision is to remain open space then more detailed plans of what that means in terms of future development will need to be discussed. Public comment was closed. 1 Commissioner Eaton noted his concern with how the marine recreation alternative was treated, specifically that it is not the environmentally superior altemative based in large part on a W�c, 1 conclusion that it would generate more traffic without any data at all to back that conclusion up. Because of that you assume it has more negative impacts In terms or traffic, air quality and noise than the 1 proposed project. Is there some basis upon which that conclusion JUN -17 -2004 10:06AN FMHOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 r'i...... 4% 1 .... +:.%'.:'3 i�LYi�vJ Vv ,,4. , was drawn? T -010 P- 014/021 F -495 Mr. Houlihan answered information will be provided in the response to comments. GDmmissioner Eaton then commented about the altematve section. EOAC has made a comprehensive report on the EIR and the responders should respond and make additions where necessary and appropriate to the EIR where that can be done without requiring a recirculation. CEQA guidelines state that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. As an environmental professional that has been writing and reviewing EIRS for over thirty years he has never seen an EIR that declared the project as the environmentally superior alternative. In his opinion, the project is not an altemative, it Is the project. The marine recreation alternative can easily be the environmentally superior project if the basis of the baffle is because they have created such a huge parking lot to serve such a huge water and entry point. Then the marine alternative could be reduced slightly so that it does not have those extra impacts which might also reduce the hydrology and water quality impact as well. You don't need to go through the manipulations to make that alternative less than an environmentally superior alternative. The project Is strong enough, it is a handsome project and maintains virtually all the existing open space uses which are on the property now, you don't have to say it is the environmentally superior project as well. It Is dearly an economically superior project. To create an open space project on this property, the City would lose ail its revenue it gets now from the mobile home park, it would cost a lot of money to build it and to maintain it where, this project will provide stronger revenues to the City without any of the costs incurred. The project itself can stand on its own as the economically superior project and not manipulate the marine, recreation alternative into something other than the environmentally', superior project or altemative but which would cost the City a lot of money. The EIR would have stronger viabRity and the City would have stronger credibility If it admits that the open apace madnel recreation altematve is ttte environmentally superior attemative. Mr. Burnham noted that he attended some If not all the meetings daring which the marine recreational alternative was discussed, Its not accurate to say there was a manipulation of that alternative. Rather what staff and the EIR consultant attempted to do was identify the needs within the general area, and the needs the harbor has for additional parking for charter boat activities; a slip component that was greater than the project slip component to address some of the marine recreation issues directly; there is a park land component because that is consistent with the Recreation and Environmental Open Space; and, then we expanded the Girl Scout and Community Center parking - ..fl- . - v_ w 1 (,)15 iiJifo 112 1 ' JUN -17 -2004 10:07AM FROM- ROGLE-IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.015/021 F -495 ..w a P g vWnW01A11,AVAA IWAU MA VWV Jl WWl •..gr •.....d.. area and provided adequate parking far an expanded public park use, which Is what we have heard some people in the community favor. It was an attempt to take the site and assign certain uses to that site that would meet needs that currently exists within and around the harbor. One of those Is a need for additional parking for beach visitors, for bay visitors and for people who are using the harbor for recreational activities. That was the rational for developing this particular alternative, we did not attempt to came to an altemative that Increased the environmental impacts, it was designed to meet the needs that currently exists. Commissioner Tucker asked: . How many more ADT's would have to be generated to trip the 1% analysis requirement at Newport Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway in the P. M. peak and Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road in the A. M, peak. Those are the two locations closest to Level of Service (LOS) E. People are making claims about traffic generation numbers that have been used in the study. I would Ike to know haw much latitude still Is there to be able to say It really wouldn't make a difference if there was 50% more traffic. There is some number that gets to that point where the two dosest nearby Intersections would require further analysis. It would be helpful to have by the next meeting the responses to the EQAC letter. Their conclusion is that the document needs to be revised and recirculated and they have raised some interesting issues. There are a few things in the letter that need to be brought out. At the next meeting we have on this, we will spend time setting the record. I would like to have more lead time on responses to comment on the EQAC letter. . The parking issue and how deanery and service vehicles and where the employees park were big items at the public cooping meetings. The trip generation rates assume all the additional staff functions. The response to comments should be handled in detail. Commissioner Toerge asked: In the Draft EIR on page 2.1 - the last sentence of one of the paragraphs reads, '....;m all the proposed project Will include 352,962 square feet of development on 8.1 acres.' That is 8.1 acres, so what is the number supposed to be? Mr. David Lepo of Hogle Ireland noted that number should be 110,000 square fleet total. w17 ' 73 JUN -17 -2004 10:07AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 7-010 P.015/021 F -495 Continuing, Commissioner Toerge asked: On Page 2.1 - We do not know the location of the tidelands, yet in a number of meetings I have listened to and participated In, the location of the tidelands has been used as the reason why we can't maintain the mobile home park. The proposed project includes twelve units available for fractional ownership. How is this allowed if the mobile home are not? It is a matter of ratio, not location? How would the City participate in the sale of these fractional ownership share units? How will the buyers be determined? . On Page 2.11 - 520 daily trips Is not considered slgnftant, how is that determined and what amount would be significant? . On Page 3,8 - In my view the project does not serve to maintain a recreation and open space system that meets the needs of the recreation needs of the citizens as it Is stated in the report. It may serve the paying public, but not the citizens. . On Paige 5.4-8 - The proposed project conflicts with the General Plan, specifically the Land Use Element, the Harbor and Bay Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element. . On Page 5.4-12 - under the Recreation and Open Space Gement analysis, the project reduces recreational opportunities for the public It states it in the E1R. At this opportune time, the City should be attempting to increase parks and related recreational facilities rather than reducing them. . Under the City's Municipal Code 5,4.19 - the project proposes to change the existing General Plan designation from Recreation Environmental Open Space to General Plan designation Recreation Marine and Commercial. Other than to accommodate the proposed project, why would the City do this? . Under 7.5 project alternatives - the conclusions in 7.2.3 claims that it is not known if marine recreational alternative Is economically viable. I feel we should know whether the only alternative proposed in this EIR Is economically viable. No studies have been presented to this Commission that support the economic viability of the proposed project Where is the analysis? • Land Use Element page 28 - recreational and open space is defined, nowhere in this recreation and open space land use designation is there reference to the suitability of this zoned for a hotel. 1 don't see that. When I hear recreation, I don't think hotel. I hope that is explained. wig W101 LWINTAR Lli k i IRq ' JUN -17 -2004 10:08AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P -017 /021 F -495 A ,.,.., P4t. ...............-- .......,, �_ - _. - -- - - - [I 1 u [_I I 1 I I 1 Page 42, the major land use proposals for each area in our existing land use dement, under Statistical Area D1 under Marinapark it is Indicated that the existing mobile home park will be allowed to continue. The land is proposed to be used for aquatic facilities and expanded beach and community facilities, again no mention of a hotel or similar land use. The Harbor and Bay Element, page 3 - proposed project is not consistent with goal H &1, specifically policy HB- 1.1.2. Whereby the goal is to preserve the diverse uses of the harbor and water front that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Bay and provide needed support for recreational boaters and visitors and residences with regulations limited to those necessary to protect the interest of all users. Further, the policy states that when reviewing proposals for land use changes the City shall consider the impact on water dependent and water related land uses and activities and the Importance of providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential to the operation of the harbor. This shall include not only the proposed change on the subject property but also the potential to limit existing land uses, activities, facilities and services on adjacent properties. I feel the proposed project is not consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element. The Recreation and Open Space Element, page 2-4 and 2 -5, the citywide needs are expressed as community pool facilities and boating facilities, no mention of a hotel. In the service area needs for Service Area 3, which is the Balboa Peninsula, it suggests that there is very Tittle vacant land for recreational opportunities. The Recreation and Open Space Element states that unmet park needs can be satisfied via renovation of facilities such as Los Arenas Park, the very property that is the subject of this application. Objective 4 an page 3401 policy 4.2 discusses the need for boat launching facilities, marine sanitation facilitIM guest slips, showers, restrooms, drinking fountains, junior lifeguard facilities, no mention of a hotel. Page 3 -11 of the Recreation and Open Space Element mentions maximizing the opportunities 1br launching and beaching of small boats. I don't see that opportunity In this plan. In the Description of Planned Facilities on Page 4.5 of the Recreation and Open Space Element, under Marinapark - the Marinapark area encompasses the existing Los Arenas and Veterans' Memorial Park, the American Legion Hall, Balboa Community Center and the Girl Scout Base, the Marinapark, the mobile home park and the public beach from 15th Street to 19th wa.a W a3 way was f7rP.' //�r'��19nnnMw, \OAAA{ALfl9 L.� I JUN -17 -2004 10:08AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P.018 /021 F -495 ' Street. In addition to retention of such existing facillties as the public beach and the four tennis courts, the area for Its future �a5 opportunities for park, recreation and aquatic f6cilities are not yet fully planned. Seems to me the project Is not consistent with this. He concluded asking that these issues be addressed as well as the suitability of this project as it relates to the existing General Plan at our next meeting. Mr. Burnham answered: State Lands Commission staff has taken the position that approximately 70% of the existing parcel is tidelands. A substantial portion of the site that is currently devoted to the mobile home use is, according to State Lands Commission staff, tidelands. Then: has been no final detennirtation as to where the actual tidelands boundary is. Throughout the bay, the majority of the tidelands boundaries were established by court decree in the late 1920's and early 30's and do not actually reflect the precise location of the Me of mean We when Califomia was admitted to the Union. The only way to determine a boundary line is through legislation, litigation or boundary line agreement. In preliminary discussions with the State Lands Commission staff, they will support the use of 30% of the site for ran - tideland uses. They Community center is not a tideland use, the Girl Soout Willy is not a tideland use, the tennis courts are not a tideland use. The State Lands Commission staff have indicated that they well have no speollic problem with the twelve time share units, but they would have a huge problem with any greater nwnber. The revenue derived from this site he suspects will be designated entirely for tidelands purposes. The sale of the units would be determined through lease negotiations regarding receiving the TOT equivalent from each of those units and making sure that if other units are used for marketing purposes that the City receive full TOT when those rooms are occupied as well. Nis. Wood added that a hotel is not part of the existing land use designation, that is why there is a request to change the land use designation with this proposed project. Gommissioner Sellch noted that the Commission's job is to review the Environmental Impact Report and the alternatives, and make sure that wee have an adequate SIR. A lot of things that Commissioner Toerge refers to are policy issues and that is exactly what Is going to the voters to decide, the policy issues. w a-& file .• //I�- \pla�+.•...•.«.��nne�nem �.— ( ! � ' JLIK -17 -2004 1O:O8ALI FRO*- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T -010 P- 019/O21 F -495 a .uyr...•t......--........... —.—I - — - - ' Ma. Mod noted staff and the consultants can take another look at the areas Commissioner Toerge mentioned and we if we need to add anything to the environmental analysis with regard to those comments. It is correct that in so far as they are policy issues, that is what the City Council has decided to put to the voter's. Commissioner Selich asked about the no project development alternative 7.1 an page 7 -2. The description of the alternative states ' the existing mobile homes and recreation facilities would remain. N 70% of the property is tidelands, is that a correct description of that alternative? Did the State Lands staff ever develop a sketch, or working map? Mr. Burnham noted it is a correct description of the assumption that you need to make under the no project, no development alternative. ' There is always the possibility that there is no redevelopment of the site. There is some legislation processed sometime in the future that ' relieves the land from the restrictions on use that are associated with tidelands such as was done with Beacon Bay. That is not the desire of the City Council nor the State Lands Commission staff. For ' purposes of this altemative we assumed no project, no development, na change in the existing land use on site. ' Continuing, Mr. Burnham answered that what they have done was to review the old meander surveys that were conducted in the 1880's and 1890's and those have been overlaid onto the site to try and ' determine roughly what the tideland boundary was as of that time, and then assume it had not changed much since California was admitted to the Union, which is the perfect definition of the tideland boundaries. ' Looking at those surveys, aerial photos and the site today, 70% is roughly that percentage of the site that falls between the bayward extent of the property from the meander survey line. That line ' meanders from the We comer of the site and comes about a third of the way down the easterly boundary and then proceeds on a diagonal to a point much closer to Balboa Blvd on the west side of the site. ' GDmmissioner Tucker noted; . The decisions will end up being made at the Council level. Commissioner Toerge's comments on the land use and planning section of the EIR need to be included in the response to comments. . The issue of parks is interesting. I think we have miles of park in ' that area, it is called the beach. . CEQA looks at the physical impacts of a project to the environment. The economics objective in the EIR does not fit in W dL7 ' with the concept of physical impacts to the environment ' flip- inn- %Plewn�lIMA ACM L� 117 JUN -17 -2004 10:09AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 1'131Iri171g I OMW2§WVU XULL AM VVIV:71tVVT 9495530935 7-010 P.020/021 F -495 ' . At the next meeting, we will go through the process of examining the EIR; and assuming there are lour of us who believe it coven: everything, then we will certify that document. . That means we have come to a conclusion that the EIR fairly discloses what the consequences are of the project It is entirely possible we may reach that conclusion even if all of us think it is a rotten projecL . Whether you like it or not, what we are being asked to do is review the EIR for adequacy and what we will be looking for at the next meeting is substantial evidence. . It becomes a technical exercise when it comes to the certification per• He noted that any comments to be received at the next meeting should reference the page number in the EIR document itself as it would be helpful for clarification. Ms. Wood noted that the Planning Commission would to recommending to tha City Council whether or not to certify the EIR. At Commission inquiry, she noted that for the voter approval, the General Plan Amendment will include some amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element and staff will look at others previously mentioned. The Amendment will be one that would maintain consistency. Commissioner Eaton asked f there was going to be a fiscal Impact analysis and if the terms of the lease would be provided. Mr. Burnham noted that there will be a fiscal impact analysis; however, the lease itself will certainly have a bearing on the ultimate arnount of revenue received by the City. The contemplation will be an option to lease pending issuance of all permits and satisfaction of other conditions as was done for the Balboa Bay Club, or the lease itself would be subject to satsfacdon of certain conditions. That probably would be done some ten days prior to City Council action on this item and would not come to the Planning Commission. It will be available to the public when they vote. Commissioner Selich asked if the City Council had to certify the EIR before they can decide to put the General Plan Amendment an the general ballot and what is the last date they can do that? Mr. Burnham answered yes. The only exception would be ff the measure came to the City Council pursuant to an initiative petition and in that case the City Council has the mandatory duty, if the signatures are adequate, to place the measure on the ballot. Otherwise, after the Sierra Madre case, the City Council has to cerMy an appropriate environmental document prior to placing the measure on the ballot Iq8 1 JUN -1T -2004 10A9AM FROM- HOGLE- IRELAND 9495530935 T-010 P.021/021 F-495 ' o_ -_ -- - ' Tne last regular meeting of the City Council to take that action would by July 27th. Commissioner Cole noted: The Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council at the July 8th meeting. ' ' . In the area of recreation there is need for more facts and analysis. There seemed to be a lot of conduslons drawn without support and seem more like an opinion. t. In the land use section, the parking analysis needs to have more fads and analysis particularly as it relates to comments related ' to the project parking demand. a The marine recreational alternative needs to have more clear ' analysis on how you came up to the conclusions, The reduced intensity alternative should also be addressed ' more in detail. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to ' July 8, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cale, Toerge, McDaniel, Seltch, IGser and Tucker ' Nues: None Absent None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL ' a. City Council Folhu -up - Ms. Temple noted that Council initiated BUSINESS an amendment to Districting Map and Specific Plan for Lido ' Marina Village; hearings on the Code Amendment to change the Districting Map for that lot on the corner of Clay and Grange Streets, an update of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan ' that was voted to approve and forward to the Coastal Commission; and, the Planning Commission action on The Newport Technology Center action was sustained. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - No meetings. ' Marinapark Resort and Community Plan — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments 1 W. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, June 3, 2004 ' W l . The parking structure will not be available to the public. Please see responses to comments B52, L7, and Q 11 relative to the availability of ' parking for the public. "Analysis ", W2. As indicated on page 5.4-11 of the Draft EIR under up to twelve (12) resort hotel units will be available for fractional ownership. ' W3. The villas are one and two story. The maximum heights of the one -story and two- story villas are 17 feet and 27 feet, respectively. The maximum height of the lobby is t37 feet as described in response to comment U 11. W4. The residential buildings located on the south side of Balboa Boulevard have a ' maximum height of 27 feet as described in response to comment Ul 1. W5. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion ' that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. W6. Please see response to comment B20 regarding the inclusion of a mitigation measure to modify the size and location of the proposed boat dock and reduce the amount of ' bayfloor excavation. W7. Please see responses to comments G1 and 68 relative to the fact that the proposed ' project is not a water - dependent use and to G 15 as to coastal dependent use. W8. Please see response to comment G2 regarding the Harbor Commission's suggestion ' that the project slip plan be revised to mitigate potential impacts. W9. The project slip plan has been modified and the pierhead line will not be moved. Please see response to comment H 13. ' W 10. The 110 -room hotel will generate a net increase of 520 average daily trips (ADT) and 24 and 32 trips in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. While this is an increase in trips, the magnitude is so modest as to be imperceptible relative to existing traffic conditions. This project will not reduce traffic; nothing in the Draft EIR indicates a reduction. The Draft EIR and the traffic study conclude that the increase is small ' enough to be less than significant although there is an actual increase in traffic. W l L Most of the coaches in Marinapark are double -wides and presumed to have three ' bedrooms each, or a total of 168 bedrooms (56 X 3) total. "striped" W12. Approximately 56 parking spaces are located on the Marinapark Mobile Home Park site. An additional 16 "unstriped" spaces interspersed among the coaches ' were identified. W 13. The Marine Recreation Alternative included in Section 7 of the Draft EIR assumes ' the General Plan designation for the project site remains Recreation and Environmental Open Space. A majority vote by the Newport Beach electorate in favor of the proposed General Plan Amendment that would change the designation ' for this site from "Recreation and Environmental Open Space" to "Recreational and Michael Brandman Associates HACGent(PN- JI)b06TA064ER20)D ER20 -RTC 7- 15neldw g 00 Marinapark Resort aW Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Dreg EIR Responses To Comment Marine Commercial ". Please see response to comment H12 regarding identification of project objectives. W14. Please see response to comment D13 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative further increasing coastal views. W15. Please see response to comment B96 regarding the trip generation associated with the Marine Recreation Alternative. As discussed, this alternative would generate more trips compared to the proposed project. Since more trips would be generated, more air emissions and noise would be generated compared to the proposed project. W16. Please see response to comment B97 regarding the selection of alternatives, the potential alterations to the Marine Recreation Alternative, and further modifications of the potential impacts. W17. The Newport Boulevard /Coast Highway intersection would require an additional 131 AM peak hour trips at the southbound left -tam prior to the intersection reaching LOS E. The Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road intersection would require an additional 931 PM peak hour trips at the southbound through prior to the intersection reaching LOS E. W 18. Please see response to comment B 17 regarding the tidelands issue. Please see response to comment U2 regarding the fractional ownership units. Comments relative to the City's anticipation in the sale of the fractional ownership units and the determination of the buyers do not raise environmental issues. W19. Based upon the City's own criteria, a project would have to first generate sufficient traffic to exceed one percent of the volume on any leg of an intersection and add enough traffic to cause the volume -to -capacity (v /c) ratio (expressed as an Intersection Capacity Utilization value) to exceed 0.900 (upper limit of Level of Service "-D ") before the increase in volume would be considered significant. W20. As stated on page 7 -5 in the Draft EIR, it is not known if the Marine Recreation Alternative is economically viable because a economic analysis was not conducted for this alternative. However, this alternative was included because it was expected to be able to be economically viable and a feasible alternative to be analyzed in the EIR. As stated in Section 7.2.3 in the Draft EIR, the Marine Recreation Alternative meets many of the objectives of the proposed project. W21. Please see responses to comments H 5 and T 4 regarding amendments to the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan to allow the proposed hotel. W22. Please see response to comment G9 regarding Policy HB -1.1.2 — Land Use Changes of the Harbor and Bay Element. W23. Please see responses to comments H 5, L 9 and T 4, which indicate that the project includes an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element. W24. Please see response to comment W21 regarding amendments to the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan to allow the proposed hotel. The Marine Recreation alternative was designed to show the impacts of Michael Drandman Associalea N:VCliem (PN- 1N)\A064\OM4ER20`OWEP8 20-tTC 7 -1 fimldw got Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments providing the facilities listed in Objective 4 of the Recreation and Open Space Element, so that the electorate can compare it to the proposed project. ' W25. The project is not consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element, and an amendment is part of the project. ' W26. Please see responses to comments W18 through W25 regarding various tidelands, traffic, visual, alternative, and policy issues. The suitability of the proposed project is ' determined by decision makers while the EIR provides information regarding the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project. W27. It is correct that the environmental analysis conducted for the EIR is based on the ' physical conditions in the project area. The project objectives are goals that have been set for the proposed project. These goals can be set by a project applicant or a lead agency. 1 1 11 1 Michael Bmndman Assodates ^ O� ' H:VCUM (PN- ni)=64U64ERWW64ERM-RTC 7 -I fine]. M P/ti 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 09 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS CON11 100 Howe Avenue, Sulte 100 -South Sacramento, CA 95625 -6202 PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Offfcer (916) 5741800 FAX (818) 5741810 caftmte Relay Smim From Too Phona 1.600 -735 -2922 ham Votes Phone 1400-735-2929 Contact Phone. 916 - 574-1227 Contact FAX: 916 - 674-1324 June 14, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMY* Ref: G09 -02 James Campbell, Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach Planning Department JUN 2 1 2D04 3300 Newport Boulevard PU Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 17 819110111112111213141516 Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. Please accept my apology for the lateness of this comment letter. As currently written the EIR does not adequately address the special conditions placed on portions of the project area. Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) would like to emphasize the necessity, as stated in 2.2 Areas of Controversy /Issues to be Resolved, for resolution of the boundary and title status as well as land use restrictions involving filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands subject to the public trust doctrine. California became a state on September 9, 1850, and thereby acquired nearly 4 million acres of land underlying the State's navigable and tidal waterways. Known as "Sovereign Lands ", these lands include tidal and submerged lands adjacent to the entire coast and offshore islands of the State from the ordinary high water mark to three nautical miles offshore. The SLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. The SLC has certain residual and review authority for tide and submerged land legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Public Resources Code §6301 and §6306). All tide and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc., are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. Restrictions on the use of tide and submerged lands apply in order for the State to maintain commerce, navigation, fisheries, water - oriented recreation, and preservation in their natural condition, or other recognized public trust uses. The California Legislature, by statute, has granted in trust to the City of Newport Beach the State's interest in filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands involving portions of the project area, pursuant to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978, as amended with minerals reserved to the State. Any proposed uses involving granted tidelands must be consistent with the public trust and the granting statute(s). Acceptable trust uses include, but are not limited to, uses that promote water- oriented or water - dependent X.0 203 06/23/2004 12:02 J. Campbell June 14, 2004 Page 2. 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 10 ' recreation and commerce, navigation, fisheries, public access and the preservation of the land in its natural condition. XL The boundary separating the City owned uplandp from City public trust lands within the project area has not been fined and requires a formal agreement or litigation between the City and State. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number referenced above. Sincerely, Grace Kato Public Land Management Specialist cc: Steve Jenkins 20q 1. Mmineperk Resort and Community Plan - Response to Commenta on the Dreg EIR Responses To Commems ' X. California State Lands Commission ' X1. This comment regarding the need to resolve the tideland boundary is noted. Please see response to comment B20 regarding an addition of a mitigation measure that would modify the proposed dock so that no bulkbead, groin wall, or fill would be required. II II II l II Ifl I 1 1 2 O Michael Bmndman Aaaoeiates ' x xXHM (PN-JMI006410064P.R20\0064ER20 -RTC 1 -1 fiml.dm 2 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 06 *a California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Terry Tam 11nm Sa- ftlyfor Envimnowwd Proleedon June 15, 2004 3737 Main Boom Sind: 500, Rhwside, Cafif mia 92501 -3348 (909) 762 -4130 • Pax (909) 7514MB Wri 11ww 3mb.ea.SM /Mvb6 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 JUN 17 2004 HOUSE A+nnld Schwaraenegger Gourrwr Cif G -4•oq loth DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN, SALBOA PENINSULA; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, SCH #2003111021 Dear Mr. Campbell: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed the April 23, 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding this project. The project consists of construction of a luxury resort hotel and related buildings, a parking structure, 12 boat slips, and other community recreational facilities on.8.1 acres. We have the following comments. 1. The proposed project location is on the north side.of West Balboa Boulevard between 191 and 15"' Streets on the Balboa Peninsula, immediately adjacent to both Lower Newport Bay and the Rhine Channel.. Both these water bodies have been identified as Impaired, water quality under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d). Consequently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established several toxics maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Liwver Newport Bay and,the Rhine Channel on June 14, 2002. The DEIR indicates that the project ' will likely discharge storm water and dry weather runoff into Lower-Newport Bay, thereby possibly affecting the water quality of these already -impaiired:waterbodies. The project will need to demonstrate that it will not contribute to the existing impairment and will comply with the toxk:s TMDLs. Prior to the discharge of any runoff from the project into Newport Bay, the discharge must be monitored to characterize the..runoff water quality. If monitoring indicates that water quality exceeds the TMDLs, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) may issue an individual permit-ftx-the discharge. Further: infornation can be obtained by contacting the RWQCB's Regulations Section staff at (909) 7824130. 2. The construction of the subterranean parking structure (and perhaps other project components) may require long -term dewatering. Dewatering activities, including groundwater extraction and discharge into Lower Newport Bay, are regulated through y oZ this office. If the project will have dewatering discharges to surface waters of the state, Waste Discharge Requirements are necessary (General de minimus Permit, Order No. RS- 2003 -0061, NPDES Permit No. CAG998001). For information, please review Omer No. R8- 2003461 under the Adopted Orders link for 2003 permits at the Region 8 websfte (www.swrcb.ca.aovhwacb8) and contact our Regulations Section at {909) 782- 4130. 3. The project will require coverage under the General Permit For Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction Activity ( NPDES Permit No. CAS000002). This permit is �/ 3 required for individual projects occurring on an area of one or more acres. A Notice of California Environmental Protection Agency O 0 RecyckdPaper 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING James Campbell - 2 - PAGE 07 e ' J June 15, $004 Intent (NOI)`with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under.thls Permit must b tted te submio the SWRCB at least 30z days prior to the initiation of oonstruclron activity at the site. Additionally, in cooperation vritit the laity of Newport Beach, the project must `comply, with the Areawide Urban Storm Water' Runoff Permit tor-the County of Orange, "Orange County plood Control Diablo, and Incorporated Cities-of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region (Order No. Ra -2002 -0010, NPDES No. CAS61 S030). information about this permit program can be found at httpJ/ www. swrob. ca .Om/ /stormw.tr/oonetruakn.html. 4. The turbidity and dissolved oxygen water quality objectives listed In the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Plan (1995) must not be exceeded as a result-of any activity of the proposed operatior% including docic.insiafiabon. Board staff believes that the EIR should focus on protecting and supporting the beneficial uses identified for Lower Newport Bay by the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Plan (1 9M (Basin Plan). 5. The project.DEIR specifies that a marine water quality management plan will be prepared, identifying mitigation measures to.alleviafe the several environmental impacts listed under Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 5.2). ' The mitigation measures would Include the Implementation of best management practices for the control of pollutants (w items fi.d. and.e.). 6.. Because it appears that the boat slip dredging portion of airs construction may fail within the jurisdiction of the United States Awry Corps of Fnglneers. (Corps), the project may need to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 perrimRfrom the Corps. Before the Corps can issue the SeWon.404 permit, the Regional Board has to certify and condition pursuant to Section 401 that the proposed project and operation will; not adversely affect water quality standards, i.e., will provide safeguards for water quality objectives and Wrieficlal uses: Information concerning a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification) can be found at.www.swrdb.ca.QM/rmd*ATtmV40l.htmI d*ATtmV401.htrnl. on the Regional Board's website. Please contact Adam Fischer of our office at (909) 320 -6363 for infomiation regarding this issue, and early consultation Is strongly suggested. Additionally, a. When you submit the EIR, you may concurrently'submit an application for a 401 Cert'rfication.for this project, provided you have first congaed the Corps concerning the need for a Section 404 permit. b. Appropriate BMPs must be developed and implemented to control the discharge of pollutants both during construction and for the fife of the project. Post - construction BMPs must address all pollutant loads carried by dry weather runoff and fiirst -flush stormwater runoff from an entire project. TheEPAwebsfte- www.epa.Uovinpdes/.menuofbmps/post.htm contains information on construction BMPs. (if a Section 404 permit is not required, then the criteria for permitting will be reflected in coverage under the general storm water permits discussed above and a variety of source - control, structural and non - structural BMPs and non -point source (NPS) pollutant management measures must also be applied.) California Environmental Protection Agency baled Paper 1 ly3 ' Yet , Y5 � 1 Y6 Y7 , yg r ao7 ' 06/23/2004 12:02 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 06 1 . I C] James Campbell - 3 - June 15, 2004 C. Mitigation of unavoidable Impacts must, at a minimum, replace the full function and value of water quality standards that, apply to the impacted .water body. The f. issuance o a 401 Certification represents a determination by the Executive Offk6r that :d lscharges�of waste to waters of the U.S. that are associated with the referenced project will comply with the, applicable provisions of Sections 301 (Effluent Limitations), 302 (ureter Quality Related, effluent Limifatlons), 303 (Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans), 306 (National Standards of Performance), 307 (To)dc and Pretreatment " Effluent Standards) of the Clears Water Act, and with other applicable requirements of State law. d. The DER states that the project will not conduct constriction activities resulting in cc: Scott Morgan - State Clearinghouse 0: Planpmg/GrobeAs/t etten3/CEQFWEIR- Alty of Newport Beach- MerinaPark Yq ('Y30 Y11 California Environmental Protection Agency O Irkd Paper the:spread" of Cauhmpa taxifoifa- {Q),•an invasive madne �Iga... Aa. r, prior to ' initiation of any construction activities associated with the dredging of Newport 114 the 40f" Certification will require that the project survey for pr ng stands of Ct If Ct is found, the California Department of Fish and Game or the ' National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration must be notified so that the Ct is removed prior to proceeding with construction dredge activities. e. The California Department of Fish and Game will likely require that you obtain a ' Streambed Alteration Permit. ' If you have any questions, please contact Glenn Robertson at (909) 782 -3259 or me at (909) 782-3234. " Sincerely, Mark Adelson, Chief '. Regional Planning Programs Section cc: Scott Morgan - State Clearinghouse 0: Planpmg/GrobeAs/t etten3/CEQFWEIR- Alty of Newport Beach- MerinaPark Yq ('Y30 Y11 California Environmental Protection Agency O Irkd Paper Marinapark Resort and Community Plan - Re%wnae to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments ' Y. California Regional Water Quality Control Board ' Y 1. This comment regarding characterizing the runoff water quality is noted. Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce water quality impacts on the Bay. Mitigation measure HWQ-4 on page 5.2 -14 in the Draft EIR includes the development and implementation of a water quality monitoring program for the Storm Water Pollution Control Plan and the Water Quality Management Plans. Y2. Mitigation measure HWQ-1 on page 5.2 -10 in the Draft EIR includes a discussion of construction dewatering and the requirement to obtain an approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. ' Y3. Page 3 -10 in the Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed project will require an approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. ' Y4. The mitigation measures in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR are expected to achieve the objectives listed in the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Plan. ' Y5. This comment acknowledges the best management practices that are listed for the Marine Water Quality Management Plan in Mitigation Measure HWQ -3 on page 5.2^ 13 in the Draft EIR. Y6. This comment acknowledges the potential need to obtain a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit and a Regional Water Quality Control Board Section ' 401 Certification. These approvals are fisted on page 3 -10 in the Draft EIR. Y7. This comment regarding the 401 certification process is noted. ' Y8. A listing of best management practices (BMPs) for various water quality plans is provided in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR. It is acknowledged that a final list of ' BMPs would accompany each plan. Y9. The implementation of the proposed mitigation measures fisted in Section 5.2.5 in the Draft EIR is intended to meet the water quality standards set forth by the Regional ' Water Quality Control Board. Y l0. This comment regarding a 401 Certification requirement of pre-construction survey for Caulerpa taxifolia, an invasive marine alga is noted. As discussed on page 5.3 -12 ' in the Draft EIR, this species is not currently present at the proposed boat slips. ' Y l 1. This comment regarding a Streambed Alteration Agreement is noted. At this time, the California Department of Fish and Game has not indicated a need to obtain this permit. 1 1 1 Michael Brandman Assml&w iy ' HX1imt ( Pfd- JN)tO061t0064RR2010064ER20 —RTC 7 -1 final.dw O 7 06/15/2004 11:26 9496443229 CNB PLANNING JUN -10 -2004 1436 OPS EAST END 714 560 5880 1 enaavDaDlaECTaRS June 10, 2004 1 MVRW r. Ksm"ylom 046"M'l James Campbell Senior Planner 1 V'"4;habrnsn CRY of Newport Beach planning Dept. 4oNUr r 3300 Newport Boulevard 1 ��` Newport Beach, CA 93558.8915 Oxetkr a"Vo Sub0a: IMarfinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental Director Impact Report 1 rNn � Dear Mr. Campbell: ?,&AmB W. N16on Q * U1un aftwmlt &.offl&18 L&CUPYEOffiCE 1 amwrl. Y D�fOmCtrtlrY ouN1ar 1 1 i 1 1 PAGE 02/02 The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report and has the following comments: OCTA POrl0dlcally reviews and updates transit services to ensure effective and atflo9ent services are provided to Orange County residents. OCTA's bus stop locations and turnouts are continually adjusted to take advantage of new and developing areas that would benefk from enhanced public transit. Adjustments may include the addition of bus turnouts. bus stops, or the relocation of existing amentibes. The proposed project could generate additional demand for Improved transit service in vicinity of the project, OCTA may request for future transit Improvements to be Incorporated Into the scope of the proposed project in order to provide adequate service in this area. OCTA would like (i.e. turnouts, bus pad, etc.) to discuss the need for additional transit amenities with the City s Newport Beach as the project moves forward. Please send OCTA a copy of the Preliminary projed plans when they become available. OCTA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on' this environmental document, If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at (714) 550 -5715 or at grobinson@octa.net. Sincerely, Gordon Robinson Senior Transportation Analyst c: Bill Batory, OCTA Christopher Wright. OCTA s6p sD„m NrsNr steer /Pa BOX 14184 1 �r�n•cwfarte, OmrtgB /CaR(ornf° A28BS - Mq /f7141560,OCTA fR9R71 TOTAL z1 210 P.02 swfwAW -WeAme De.emr 1 a* ftrby Dkomr MOO/ A. 1 Dfeclw kV& Jrmss W swo Oftwor UMIA s V. SmNn 1 D�4Clor DNA R. &'W&, ANWwle DWo fte 1 ANenmis Me=r n" P'" ?,&AmB W. N16on Q * U1un aftwmlt &.offl&18 L&CUPYEOffiCE 1 amwrl. Y D�fOmCtrtlrY ouN1ar 1 1 i 1 1 PAGE 02/02 The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report and has the following comments: OCTA POrl0dlcally reviews and updates transit services to ensure effective and atflo9ent services are provided to Orange County residents. OCTA's bus stop locations and turnouts are continually adjusted to take advantage of new and developing areas that would benefk from enhanced public transit. Adjustments may include the addition of bus turnouts. bus stops, or the relocation of existing amentibes. The proposed project could generate additional demand for Improved transit service in vicinity of the project, OCTA may request for future transit Improvements to be Incorporated Into the scope of the proposed project in order to provide adequate service in this area. OCTA would like (i.e. turnouts, bus pad, etc.) to discuss the need for additional transit amenities with the City s Newport Beach as the project moves forward. Please send OCTA a copy of the Preliminary projed plans when they become available. OCTA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on' this environmental document, If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at (714) 550 -5715 or at grobinson@octa.net. Sincerely, Gordon Robinson Senior Transportation Analyst c: Bill Batory, OCTA Christopher Wright. OCTA s6p sD„m NrsNr steer /Pa BOX 14184 1 �r�n•cwfarte, OmrtgB /CaR(ornf° A28BS - Mq /f7141560,OCTA fR9R71 TOTAL z1 210 P.02 ' AferinWark Resort mW Community Plan - Response to Comments on the Drell OR Responses To Commerce ' Z. Orange County Transportation Agency 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 Michael Brandman Assocletes I t H:VUM (PN- IM\0064W64ER20`00648a20JtTC 7 -1 smtdm 11 ZI. The proposed luxury resort hotel is not expected to result in any significant increase ' in demand for bus services. The proposed reconstruction of the existing recreational facilities on the project will not increase in bus services. The City will forward a copy of the preliminary plans to the Orange County Transportation Agency if the ' project receives voter approval of the proposed General Plan amendment in the November general election. 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 Michael Brandman Assocletes I t H:VUM (PN- IM\0064W64ER20`00648a20JtTC 7 -1 smtdm 11 M kwprkRaamtandCommadyPlan- Rmponm to Coammo on bps DnQ EN Appendix 1: Hazardous Materials Database Review MkImWBmm*n Aasoo/a m IL-WHM 7 -1 fiut&c The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck® ' Newport Beach Regent Hotel West Balboa Boulevard/15th St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Inquiry Number: 10979603s December 12, 2003 ®; Environmental Data Resources, Inc. The Source For Environmental Risk Management Data 3530 Post Road Southport, Connecticut 06890 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone: 1 -800- 352 -0050 Fax: 1- 800 - 231 -6802 Internet: www.edrnet.com TABU OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------- ES1 OverviewMap ----------------------------------------------------------- 2 DetailMap-------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Map Findings Summary ---------------------------------------------------- 4 MapFindings-------------------------------------- ---------------- - - - - -- 6 Orphan Summary --------------------------------------------------------- 67 Government Records Searched /Data Currency Tracking-------------------------- GRA GEOCHECK ADDENDUM Physical Setting Source Addendum----------- ------------------------- - - ---- A -1 Physical Setting Source Summary ------------- ------------------------- - - - - -. A -2 Physical Setting Source Map---- -------------- ------ -- ---- --- -- A -7 Physical Setting Source Map Findings- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A-8 Physical Setting Source Records Searched- - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . A -12 Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1 -800- 352 -0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer Copyright and Trademark Notice This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. Entire contents copyright 2003 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TC1097960.3s Pagel J J CUTIVE SUMM�IAY A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527 -00. Search distances are per ASTM standard or custom distances requested by the user. ADDRESS WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD /15TH ST. ' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COORMNATFS Latitude (North): 33.608400 - 33'36'30.2" ' Longitude (West): 117.923200 - 117° 55' 23.5" Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 11 UTM X (Meters): 414351.9 UTM Y (Meters): 3716926.2 ' Elevation: 6 ft. above sea level ' Target Property: 33117 -EB NEWPORT BEACH OE S, CA Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index ' TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. �I ' TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government ' records either on the target property or within the ASTM E 1527 -00 search radius around the target property for the following databases: ' FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL------------------- - - - - -- Proposed NPL-------- - - - - -- National Priority List Proposed National Priority List Sites CERCLIS--------------- - - - - -- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information . System CERC- NFRAP---------- - - - - -- CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned CORRACTS------------ - - - - -- Corrective Action Report t RCRIS- TSD------------ - - - - -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS - LOG ----------------- - Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ERNS------------------ - - - - -- Emergency Response Notification System ' STATE ASTM STANDARD ' AWP------------------- - - - - -- Annual Workplan Sites �I ' TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .; Cal-Sites --------------------- Calsites Database Notify 65-- - - - - -- Proposition 65 Records Toxic Pits-------------------- Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites SWF /LF-- - - - - -- Solid Waste Information System WMUDS /SWAT----- -- -- -----. Waste Management Unit Database CA BOND EXP. PLAN- - - - - -- Bond Expenditure Plan UST_____________ __ ___________ List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities VCP ------- - - - - -- Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties INDIAN UST_____ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land CA FID UST__________________ Facility Inventory Database FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT__ ------------------- Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees ROD___________________ _ _ _ ___ Records Of Decision Delisted NPL---------- - - - - -. National Priority List Deletions FINDS -------- - - - - -- Facility Index System /Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report HMIRS_____ ____________ ______ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System MILTS- - - - - -- - Material Licensing Tracking System MINES--- ---- ---------- - - ---- Mines Master Index File NPL Liens____________ _ _ _____ Federal Superfund Liens PADS----------- ---------- --- PCB Activity Database System DOD------- ------------- - - - - -. Department of Defense Sites US BROWNFIELDS ---------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites RAATS------ ----------- - - - - -- RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System TRIS___ ____ __________________ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA ------- - - - - -- Toxic Substances Control Act SSTS---- ---- ----------- - ----. Section 7Tracking Systems FTTS INSP_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST -------------------------- Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities CLEANERS - - -, Cleaner Facilities CA WDS--- ------------ - - - - -- Waste Discharge System DEED ------------------------ List of Deed Restrictions NFE-------------------------- Properties Needing Further Evaluation NFA_________ __________ _ _____ No Further Action Determination EML----------- -------- -- - - -- Emissions Inventory Data REF- -------------------------- Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency SCH-------------------------- School Property Evaluation Program Orange Co. Industrial Site - -- List of Industrial Site Cleanups BROWNFIELDS DATABASES US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites VCP___ ___ _______ ___ __________ Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified. TC1097960.3s EXECUTNESUMMARY2 ' EXECUTl1l`; SUMMARY Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property. Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold Italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESOGs): generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SOGs): generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LOGs): generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste from the generator off -site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. A review of the RCRIS -SOG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 09 /10/2003 has revealed that there is 1 RCRIS -SOG site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. EquaUHigher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page SEA SPRAY BOAT YARD 226 21ST ST 1/8 - 114 WNW 86 10 STATE ASTM STANDARD CHMIRS: The California Hazardous Material Incident Report System contains information on reported hazardous material incidents, i.e., accidental releases or spills. The source is the California Office of Emergency Services. A review of the CHMIRS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12131/2002 has revealed that there are 31 CHMIRS sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal /Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page Not reported 634 LIDO PARK DR. 1/4 - 1/2 NNW C9 13 Not reported 151 SHIPYARD WAY, LIDO 1/4 - 1/2 NNW 10 14 Not reported 2270 NEWPORT BLVD 1/4 - 1/2 WNW 11 15 Not reported 711 LIDO PARK DRIVE 1/4 - 1/2 NNW 12 16 Not reported 2806 LAFAYETTE AVENUE 1/4 - 1/2 NW D13 17 Not reported 3010 LAFAYETTE AVENUE 1/2 - 1 NNW 17 19 Not reported 2902 NEWPORT BLVD 1/2-1 NW 18 20 Not reported 3206 MARCUS STREET 1/2 - 1 NW 21 26 Not reported 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. 1/2-1 NW F24 30 Not reported 2101 WEST COAST HWY 1/2-1 NNE G25 31 Not reported 2101 W. COAST HWY 1/2-1 NNE G26 32 TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Equal/Higher Elevation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page t Not reported 925 VIA LIDO SOLID 1/2-1 E 27 33 Not reported 3300 MARCUS AVENUE 1/2-1 NW 28 34 Not reported 3412 VIA OPORTO 1/2-1 NNW H30 37 Not reported 313 33RD STREET 1/2-1 NW 31 38 Not reported 3366 VIA LIDO 1/2-1 NNW H33 40 Not reported 3432 VIA OPORTO 1/2-1 NNW H34 41 Not reported 3450 VIA OPORTO 1/2-1 NNW H35 42 Not reported 3500 NEWPORT BLVD, LIDO 1/2-1 NNW 136 43 Not reported 3531 NEWPORT BLVD. /SHOR 1/2-1 NW 39 49 Not reported 2751 WEST COAST HWY 1/2-1 N J42 51 Not reported 7TH STREET / WEST BALBO 1/2-1 ESE 43 52 Not reported 3199 PARK CENTER 1/2-1 N 44 53 Not reported 3101 WEST COAST HWY. 1/2-1 N K45 54 Not reported 3300 W. COAST HWY 1/2-1 NNW L49 58 Not reported 2702 BAYSHORE DRIVE 1/2-1 ENE 50 59 Not reported 503 EAST EDGEWATER 1/2-1 E M51 60 Not reported 503 EDGEWATER 112-1 E M52 62 Not reported 406 SNUG HARBOR ROAD 1/2-1 NE 53 63 Not reported 230 NEWPORT BLVD 1/2-1 NNW 54 64 Not reported 3912 RIVER AVENUE 1/2-1 NW 55 65 CORTESE: This database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with USTs having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The source is the California Environmental Protection Agency /Office of Emergency Information. A review of the Cortese list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 17 Cortese sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page DELANEY'S - MC CULLOUGH FAMILY TRUST PROPE NIR MARINA PARTNERS GERMANAUTOS UNOCAL #5310 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA SEA NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL NEWPORTIMPORTS WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION CHEVRON #9 -7100 PORT CALYPSO CALTRANS CHEVRON N9 -9706 DOUD COMMERCIAL OFFICE BL JERRY'S MARINE FUEL (FORM NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA Not reported 634 LIDO PARK DR 1/4 - 1/2 NNW C7 10 2810 VILLA 114 - 112NW D15 19 2809 NEWPORT BLVD 1/4 - 1/2 NW 16 19 3000 NEWPORT BLVD 112-1 NW E19 21 3001 NEWPORT BLVD 112-1 NW E20 24 1931 COAST 1/2.1 NNE 22 27 3300 NEWPORT BLVD 112-1 NW F23 28 1200 COAST 112-1 NE 29 35 3401 112-1 NW 32 39 3531 NEWPORT BLVD W 112-1 NNW 137 44 2633 COAST 112-1 N 38 46 3600 NEWPORT BLVD 1/2-1 NNW 40 50 2801 1/2-1 N J41 50 3100 COAST 112-1 N K46 55 3333 COAST 1/2-1 NNW L47 55 12 BALBOA COVES 112-1 NNW 48 55 503 EDGEWATER 112-1 E M52 62 TC1097960.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1 ' TC1097960.35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System. 1 A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/02/2003 has revealed that there are 2 LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID MOBIL N18 -HG7 1500 BALBOA BLVD W 1/8 - 1/4 ESE A4 Page 7 DELANEYS 634 LIDO PARK 1/4 - 1 /2NNW C8 11 HIST UST: Historical UST Registered Database. A review of the HIST UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that there is 1 ' HIST UST site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page ' 2117026 EDWARD M. KIM 1500 W BALBOA BLVD 1/8 - 1/4 ESE A3 7 ' STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CA SLIC: SLIC Region comes from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. A review of the CA SLIC list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 CA SLIC site within ' approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal /Higher Elevation Address Dist/ Dir Map ID Page ' NEWPORT PLATING 2810 VILLA WAY 114 - 112NW D14 18 HAZNET: The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year ' by the DTSC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000 - 500,000 shipments. Data from non - California manifests & continuation sheets are not included at the present time. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD ID, ' waste category, & disposal method. The source is the Department of Toxic Substance Control is the agency A review of the HAZNET list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 2 HAZNET sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. ' Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page MOBIL STATION #18 -HG7 1500 WEST BALBOA BLVD 1/8 - 1/4 ESE A2 6 tPENINSULA SHIPYARD INC 22621 ST ST 1 /8- 1 /4WNWB5 9 PROPRIETARY DATABASES ' Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may ' be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative A review of the Coal Gas list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 Coal Gas site within I 1 ' TC1097960.35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTNE SUMMARY approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page SOUTHERN COUNTIES GAS CO. BALBOA STREET AND 18TH 1/8 - 1 /4WSW 1 6 TC1097960.35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXEGUTNESUMV4 Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name Database(s) LORAL AEROSPACE AERONUTRONIC PADS, RCRIS -LOG, RCRIS -TSD, FINDS, CORRACTS, CERC -NFRAP RITZ CLEANERS CLEANERS 3333 PACIFIC COAST HWY CHMIRS, HAZNET OFFSHORE SEAL BEACH CHMIRS, EMI HILL'S BOAT SERVICE LUST, Cortese SOUTH BASIN OIL CO WELL H1 CERC -NFRAP NEWPORT TERRACE LF SWF /LF COYOTE CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL SWF /LF NEWPORT LANDING SITE 1995 LUST HUGHES NEWPORT BEACH LUST NEWPORT LANDING FUEL DOCK UST NEWPORT LANDING MARINE FUELS UST BISBEES MARINE FUELS INC UST NEWPORT MARINE FUEL SERVICES CA FID UST DON FWEfT HAZNET NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRI HAZNET NEWPORT AUTO CARE CENTER HAZNET NEWPORT IMPORTS, INC HAZNET GRAY TRUSTIWELLS FARGO BANK HAZNET HORN BLOWER CRUISES & EVENTS HAZNET BLACK DIAMOND MARINE HAZNET LEADING EDGE YACHT SERVICES HAZNET HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL HAZNET OLYMPIC BOAT CENTERS HAZNET NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Orange Co. Industrial Site DEWATERING, NEWPORT BEACH CA WDS NEWPORT HARBOR SHIPYARD, INC. EMI TC1097960.35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY or equal to the target property Oil & Gas pipelines EM Areas of Concern • Sites at elevations lower than 100-year Mood zone the target property 500_year Mood zone Coal Gasificafion Sites i Sensitive Receptors Federal Wetlands National Priority List Sites Landfill Sites Eaj Dept Defense Sites TARGET PROPERTY: Newport Beach Regent Hotel CUSTOMER: Michael Brandman Associates ADDRESS: West Balboa Boulevard/15th St. CONTACT: Kara Palm CITY /STATEIZIP: Newport Beach CA 92663 INQUIRY #: 1097960.3s LAT/LONG: 33.6084 /117.9232 DATE: December 12, 21103 12:10 pm MAP F1 'Y' Target Database Property FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL Proposed NPL CERCLIS CERC -NFRAP CORRACTS RCRIS -TSD RCRIS Li Ouan. Gen. RCRIS Sm. Ouan. Gen. ERNS AWP Cal -Sites CHMIRS Cortese Notify 65 Toxic Pits State Landfill WMUDS /SWAT LUST CA Bond Exp. Plan UST VCP INDIAN UST CA FID UST HIST UST FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT ROD Delisted NPL FINDS HMIRS MILTS MINES NPL Liens PADS DOD US BROWNFIELDS RAATS TRIS TSCA SSTS FTTS �3 L� l �•7:i t•Zd:�:63 P b'19 � 7 � 4?.14 ;11:P AST Search Distance (Miles) Total < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 1.000 0 0 5 26 NR 31 1.000 0 0 3 14 NR 17 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0.500 0 1 1 NR NR 2 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TC1097960.3s Page4 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY < 1/8 Search Target Distance Database Property (Miles) CLEANERS 0.250 CA WDS TP DEED TP NFE 0.250 NFA 0.250 EMI TP REF 0.250 SCH 0.250 CA SLIC 0.500 HAZNET 0.250 Orange Co. Industrial Site TP EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES Coal Gas 1.000 BROWNFIELDS DATABASES NR US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 VCP 0.500 < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1 /4 - 1 /2 1/2-1 :> 1 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR 0 0 1 NR NR 0 2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 1 0 0 NR NOTES: AQUIFLOW - see EDR Physical Setting Source Addendum TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR Total Plotted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 i TC1097960.3s Page 5 Lj �1 iu 1 TC1097960.3s Page 6 Map ID II.,.:, MAP FINDINGS. ' Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number ' Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number 1 SOUTHERN COUNTIES GAS CO. Coal Gas G000000977 ' WSW 1/8 -1/4 BALBOA STREET AND 18TH STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 N/A 746 N. Relative: COAL GAS SITE DESCRIPTION: Higher 1929 Site is on the east side of 18th Street and the north side of Balboa St. 8 e north by Marina Park St., approximately 1/3 black to the east. 1945, no chang Actual' to n @Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. A2 MOBIL STATION #18 -HG7 HAZNET 5103631829 ESE 1500 WEST BALBOA BLVD N/A 1/8 -1/4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 921 k. Site 1 of 3 in cluster A Relative: Higher HAZNEf: ' Actual: Gepaid: CAL000055896 TSD EPA ID: AZD982"1263 9 N. Gen County: Orange Ted County: 99 Tons: 1.8000 Waste Category: Other organic solids Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: MOBIL Telephone: (703) 846 -5734 Mailing Address: PO BOX 142667 AUSTIN, TX 78714 - 2667 County Orange ' Gepaid: CAL000055896 TSD EPA ID: CAD099452708 Gen County: Orange Ted County: Los Angeles Tons: 1.2510 ' Waste Category: Aqueous solution with less than 10% total organic residues Disposal Method: Not reported Contact: MOBIL Telephone: (703) 846-5734 Mailing Address: PO BOX 142667 AUSTIN, TX 78714 - 2667 County Orange Gepaid: CAL000065896 TSD EPA ID: CAT080011059 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: 1.2510 Waste Category: Aqueous solution with less than 10% total organic residues Disposal Method: Recycler Contact: MOBIL Telephone: (703) 846 -5734 Mailing Address: PO BOX 142667 1 AUSTIN, TX 78714 - 2667 County Orange �1 iu 1 TC1097960.3s Page 6 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS A3 2117026 EDWARD M. KIM Cross Street: ESE 1500 W BALBOA BLVD Not reported 1/6.1/4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Reg Board: 921 ft Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Site 2 of 3 In cluster A Local Agency: Relative: Case Type: Other ground water affected Higher UST HIST: Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved Facility ID: 39364 Facility Status: Actual: Total Tanks: 4 Region: gill. Owner Name: MOBIL OIL CORPORATION Box Number: Pollution Char: Owner Address: 612 S. FLOWER STREET Remed Action: 5/21/90 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 Not reported A4 ESE 1/8 -1/4 921 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 9 ft. MOBIL p18 -HG7 1500 BALBOA BLVD W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 Site 3 of 3 in cluster A L LJ EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number , HIST UST 0001577425 N/A Not reported STATE Not reported I I LUST S105774115 ' N/A State LUST: Cross Street: 15TH STREET Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083000618T Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Pump and Treat Ground Water - generally employed to remove dissolved contaminants, Vapor Extraction Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 6/111/87 Prelim Assess: 6/18/87 Pollution Char: 611/90 Remed Plan: 6/1/90 Remed Action: 5/21/90 Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 10/17/2000 Release Date: 01/21/1997 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 06116/1967 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Ent Type: Waming/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 08/28/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim: Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: 01/01/1965 Max MTBE GW : 218 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: MTBE Detected. Site tested for MTBE & MTBE detected Priority: 28 Loral Case # : 87UT166 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : RS GW Qualifier: _ Max MTBE Soil: 0.5 Parts per Million Soil Qualifier: < TC1097960.3s Page 7 MAP FINDINGS,, - EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number MOBIL#18 -HG7 (Continued) S105TT4115 ID Map ' t Directi on Distance Distance (ft.) ' Elevation She MAP FINDINGS,, - EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.3s Page B LJ MOBIL#18 -HG7 (Continued) S105TT4115 Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 01/21/1997 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyJOHNNY MEDRANO RP Address: 3700 W 190TH ST TPT2 ' Global Id: T0605900496 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 2 Mtbe Fuel: 1 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street: 15TH STREET Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 87UT166 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: ROSE SCOTT Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved she, Vapor Extraction, Pump and Treat Ground Water - generally employed to remove dissolved contaminants Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 6/18/87 Prelim Assess: 6/18/87 Pollution Char: 6/1/90 Remed Plan: 6/1/90 Rented Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 10/17/2000 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 06/18/1987 Enforcement Dt: Not reported Enf Type: Waming/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes COO and CAD) ' Enter Date : 0812811987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported ' How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lai/Lon : 33.6071486 / - 117.9206492 Leak Cause: Not reported ' Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: 1/1/65 MTBE Tested: YES Max MTBE GW : 218 GW Qualifies Max MTBE Soil: .5 TC1097960.3s Page B LJ Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number MOBIL #18 -HG7 (Continued) 5105774115 Soil Qualifies: < Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyJOHNNY MEDRANO Well name: LPA REPORTED PRIMARY SOURCE Distance From Lust: 17128.841331229398751809238869 Waste Disch Global Id: W0608900228 MTBE Class: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: 4500228 - OOIGEN Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: 70605900496 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 3700 W 190TH ST TPT2 MTBE Concentration: 2 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 0830006187 Water System Name: OUTPOST, THE Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: 2B State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: GASOLINE Staff: ROSE SCOTT Case Type: O Summary: Not reported B5 PENINSULA SHIPYARD INC HAZNET 5103981392 WNW 22621 ST ST N/A 1/8 -1/4 NEWPORT BCL, CA 92663 1311 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster B Relative: Higher HAZNET: Gepaid: CAD982470718 Actual: TSD EPA ID: CAD000088252 9111t. Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .2085 Waste Category: Unspecified solvent mixture Waste Disposal Method: Transfer Station Contact: Not reported Telephone: (000) 000 -0000 Mailing Address: 226 21 ST ST NEWPORT BCL, CA 92663 County Orange TC1097960.3s Page 9 1 PENINSULA SHIPYARD INC (Continued) TSD EPA ID: Map ID ' Direction TSD EPA ID: Distance Tons: Distance (ft.) Orange Elevation Site `. MAP FINDINGS I 1 I LI I I I I I I I Gepaid: PENINSULA SHIPYARD INC (Continued) TSD EPA ID: Gepaid: CAD982470718 Orange TSD EPA ID: NVT330010000 Tons: Gen County: Orange Oxygenated solvents (acetone, butanol, ethyl acetate, etc.) Tsd County: 99 Contact: Tons: .4000 (000) 000 -0000 Waste Category: Off- specification, aged, or surplus organics Disposal Method: Not reported Orange Contact: Not reported Telephone: (000) 000 -0000 Mailing Address: 226 21 ST ST NEWPORT BCL, CA 92663 County Orange I 1 I LI I I I I I I I Gepaid: CAD982470718 TSD EPA ID: CAD000088252 Gen County: Orange Tsd County: Los Angeles Tons: .2293 Waste Category: Oxygenated solvents (acetone, butanol, ethyl acetate, etc.) Disposal Method: Transfer Station Contact: Not reported Telephone: (000) 000 -0000 Mailing Address: 226 21ST ST NEWPORT BCL, CA 92663 County Orange EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5103981392 B6 SEA SPRAY BOAT YARD RCRIS -SOG 1000258586 WNW 22621 ST ST FINDS CADM470718 1/8.1/4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1311 ft. She 2 of 2 In cluster B Relative: Higher RCRIS: Owner: PAULETTE PAPPAS Actual: (714) 675 -1155 9 ft. EPA ID: CAD982470718 Contact: PAULETTE PAPPAS (714) 675 -1155 Classification: Small Quantity Generator TSDF Activities: Not reported Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information system (RCRAINFO) C7 DELANEY'S Cortese 5102428705 NNW 634 LIDO PARK DR N/A 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1456 ft. She 1 of 3 In cluster C Relative: Higher CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Actual: Fac Address 2: 634 LIDO PARK DR 13 ft. ITC1097960.3s Page 10 Map ID MAP FINDINGS, Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site Database(s) CS NNW 1/4 -1/2 1456 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 13 fL DELANEY'S (Continued) DELANEYS 634 LIDO PARK NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Site 2 of 3 in cluster C 1 EDR ID Number EPA ID Number , 5102428705 LUST 5102428707 ' N/A State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 083001822T Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Diesel Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency : 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 9/6/90 Prelim Assess: 9/6/90 Pollution Char: Not reported Flamed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 02/1811993 Release Date: 03/23/1993 Cleanup Fund Id :Not reported Discover Date : / / Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date: 03/30/1991 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Nct reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTSE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Not reported Loral Case #: 90UT225 Beneficial: Not reported Staff: NOM GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin p: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm: Loral Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 03/23/1993 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyLEVON GUGASIAN RP Address: 17 RIDGELINE DRIVE Global Id: 70605901362 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 TC1097960.3s Page 11 I I 1 I I L I I u 1 I I I LJ 11 I I Map ID MAP.FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site DELANEYS (Continued) Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S102428707 LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12034 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 9OUT225 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: NANCY OLSON MARTIN Lead Agency: Locat Agency Local Agency: 30000L Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 9/6/90 Prelim Assess: 9/6/90 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 02/18/1993 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt : Not reported Ent Type: Waming/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes COO and CAO) Enter Date : 03/30/1991 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6153253 /- 117.9272593 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRQ Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin N: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible Partyl-EVON GUGASIAN Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 17252.523408178507042604829191 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: ` Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605901362 How Stopped Daze: Organization Name: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 12 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number I DELANEYS (Continued) 5102428707 Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 17 RIDGELINE DRIVE MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083001822T Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED ' Substance: DIESEL Staff: NANCY OLSON MARTIN Case Type: O Summary: Not reported LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 90UT225 Site Number: RO0002362 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Ground water Chemical: Diesel Date Closed: 02/18/1993 Current Status: 9 Facility Status: 02 C9 CHMIRS 5105651022 NNW 634 LIDO PARK DR. N/A ' 114.112 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 0 1456 tL Site 3 of 3 In cluster C Relative: Higher CHMIRS: , DES Control Number. 97 -1699 Actual: Chemical Name: Diesel 13 ft. Extern of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 97 -1899 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal k Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal k Of Fatalities: 0 Reap Agncy Personal F Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 13 MAP FINDINGS - EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) Map ' Direction Vehicle Make/year : Distance Distance (ft.) Vehicle License Number: Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS - EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.3s Page 14 (Continued) 5105651022 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Not reported Waterway Involved : Yes Waterway: Newport Harbor ' Spill Site: Cleanup By: Ship/Harbor /Port Let evaporate Containment: Yes What Happened : Found by deputies patroling area, a sheen about 50 yds by 50 yds. Will not be boomed, will let evaporate. Type: PETROLEUM Other : Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2 : Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date rime : 5/12197 Evacuations : 0 10 CHMIRS 5105659654 NNW 151 SHIPYARD WAY, LIDO SHIPYARD NIA 1/4.1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1494 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Numbef: 99 -4211 Chemical Name: oil substance Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 12 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 99 -4211 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area : Not reported Estimated Temperature : Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported ' Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Not reported Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: 0 ' Responding Agency Personal p Of Fatalities: Resp Agncy Personal N Of Decontaminated: 0 Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make/year : Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 14 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS. -- - - - EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5105658854 Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA(DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : Not reported Report Date : Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Waterway Involved: Yes Waterway: Newport Harbor Spill Site: Ship(Harbor/Port Cleanup By: Unknown Containment: No What Happened : Sheen is 75 yards X 50 yards. Source and cause unknown. Rainbow sheen Ref DR #99 -46877 Type: PETROLEUM Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemica12: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date rime : 10/4/99816 Evacuations: 0 11 CHMIRS 5785644562 WNW 2278 NEWPORT BLVD N/A 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 8 1856 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 15185 Chemical Name: sanding dust Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 18 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed : Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number : 15185 Time Notified: Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : NO Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: NO Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 15 I 1 I Map ID '- MAPFINDINCaS' ' Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number ' Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) S105644562 Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA(DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number : Not reported Waterway Involved: Not reported Waterway: newport harbor Spill Site: OTHER Cleanup By: dissipating Containment: What Happened: YES boat was sanded without protection of a plastic tarp at the soutllcoast boat yard. Type: OTHER Other: Chemical 1 : Not reported Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Datelrime : 1224 17Aug96 Evacuations: NO 12 CHMIRS S100276955 NNW 711 LIDO PARK DRIVE N/A 1/4.1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 2144 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Equal DES Control Number: 9100856 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Extent of Release: - Not reported 6 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 02- SEP -91 1 Date Completed: 02- SEP -91 Time Completed : 2304 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 115362 ' DES Incident Number: 9100856 Time Notified : 1253 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature : Not reported ' Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported 1 Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 ' Others Number Of Decontaminated : Others Number Of Injuries: 0 0 Others Number Of Fatalities, 0 Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State : Not reported Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 16 Map ID II " MAP FINDINGS', Direction 4 CAIDOT /PUCACC Number: Distance N/A Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5100276955 Vehicle id Number: Not reported CHMIRS 5100221547 CAIDOT /PUCACC Number: Not reported N/A Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: B/C A.J. WAGNER Report Date: 07- OCT -91 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved: Not reported 9099533 Waterway: Not reported Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Not reported Containment: Not reported 15- SEP -90 What Happened : Type: Not reported Not reported , Other: Not reported 910 Chemical 1 : Not Reported 30055 Chemical 2 : Not Reported 017630 Chemical 3 : Not Reported 9099533 Date/Time : Not reported ' Evacuations : Not reported Not reported D13 CHMIRS 5100221547 NW 2806 LAFAYETTE AVENUE N/A 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 2334 ft. Stte 1 of 3 in cluster D Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9099533 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 7 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 15- SEP -90 Date Completed: 15- SEP -90 Time Completed: 910 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 017630 DES Incident Number: 9099533 Time Notified : 903 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: U More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agnoy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year: Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 17 i ... MAP FINDINGS Map ID ' Direction CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Distance Distance (ft.) Not reported Elevation Site ... MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100221547 (Continued) NEWPORT PLATING FINDS CADS82360356 CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported NPL Status: Reporting Officer Name/ID : A.J. WAGNER, B/C 11/01/1987 Report Date : 08- OCT -90 Completed: Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment : Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type : Other : Not reported Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2 : Not Reported ' Chemical 3: Not Reported DateTme : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100221547 D14 NEWPORT PLATING FINDS CADS82360356 NW 2810 VILLA WAY 1/41/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NPL Status: 2360 ft. Completed: 11/01/1987 Completed: SBe 2 of 3 in cluster D Completed: Relative: Not reported Higher CERCLIS - NFRAP Classification Data: Staff: Location Code: Site Incident Categorylot reported Actual: Non NPL Code: NFRAP 7 ft. Ownership Status: Private CERCLIS - NFRAP Assessment History: Assessment: DISCOVERY Assessment: ARCHIVE SITE Assessment: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RCRIS: Owner: NOT REQUIRED ' (415) 555 -1212 EPA ID: CAD982360356 Contact: Not reported Classification: Small Quantity Generator ' TSDF Activities: Not reported Violation Status: No violations found EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100221547 ' FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Resource Conservafion and Recovery Act Information system (RCRAINFO) RCRIS -SOG 1000348895 FINDS CADS82360356 Facility ID: CERC - NFRAP CA SLIC Federal Facility: Not a Federal Facility NPL Status: Not on the NPL Completed: 11/01/1987 Completed: 04127/1989 Completed: 04 /27/1989 ' FINDS: Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site: Resource Conservafion and Recovery Act Information system (RCRAINFO) ITC1097960.3s Page 18 SLIC Region 8: 1 Facility ID: 76 Type: Soil and Groundwater Region: 8 Facility Status: Lead Agency: Additional Characterization Underway Regional Board Cross Street: Not reported Sub Release: METALS Staff: Location Code: Ann Sturdivant, Tel 909 - 782 -4904, LAND DISPOSAL NB -11 ITC1097960.3s Page 18 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS . EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT PLATING (Continued) 1000348895 Thomas Bros map( ?) Program: SLIC CAD Number: 87 -111 ACL Number. Not reported Permit Number: Not reported Complexity: C Comments: CONTAMINANTS PRESENT: CYANIDE, CADMINUM, CHROMIUM, NICKEL, COPPER, AND ZINC. ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT WORK NEEDED D15 MC CULLOUGN FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY Orange Co. Industrial She S101126353 ' NW 2810 VILLA Cortese N/A 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 2366 ft. She 3 of 3 In cluster D Relative: Higher CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Actual: Fac Address 2: Not reported ' 7 ft. Industrial She: Case ID: 871C16 Open Date: 04111/88 Closed Date: 04/21/94 Haz Mat: Plating Waste -other metals/or combination of metals Region: ORANGE ' 16 N/R MARINA PARTNERS Cortese S101307823 NW 2809 NEWPORT BLVD N/A 1/4 -1/2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 2601 ft. Relative: CORTESE: - Higher Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 2809 NEWPORT BLVD Actual: aft. Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 2809 NEWPORT BLVD , 17 CHMIRS S1100277054 NNW 3010 LAFAYETTE AVENUE N/A 1/2-1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 2667 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9101124 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: EMent of Release: Not reported ' 7 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 16- DEC -91 Date Completed: 16- DEC -91 Time Completed: 1247 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 121876 DES Incident Number: 9101124 Time Notified: 1149 , Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported TC'1097960.3s Page 19 I� J .. - *FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Map ' Direction Distance More Than Two Substances Involved? : Distance (ft.) 1 Elevation Site .. - *FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ITC1097960.3s Page 20 (Continued) 5100277054 More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities : 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : Vehicle Makelyear : 0 Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : BIC A.J. WAGNER Report Date: O"AN -92 Comments : Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved: Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time : Not reported Evacuations : Not reported )� 18 CHMIRS 5105660505 NW 2902 NEWPORT BLVD WA 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 2862 ft. CHMIRS: Relative: Higher DES Control Number: 99 -3288 Chemical Name: glycol Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 8 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported 1 Agency Id Number : Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 99 -3288 Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Not reported Not reported Estimated Temperature : Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Special Studies 1 : Not reported Not reported ITC1097960.3s Page 20 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) MAP FINDINGS Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal p Of Injuries: Responding Agency Personel p Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal p Of Decontaminated', Others Number Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Injuries : Others Number Of Fatalities Vehicle Maketyear : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State : Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3: DateTme : Evacuations Database(s) Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Yes Pacific Ocean Industrial Plant Unknown Yes Pump broke at Newport Brewing Co. Company employees attempted to flush substance down storm drains. Investigation ongoing CHEMICAL Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 8/5199936 0 EDR ID Number EPA ID Number S105660505 E19 GERMAN AUTOS UST 0003784517 NW 3000 NEWPORT BLVD LUST N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Cortese 3144 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster E Relative: Higher Slate LUST: Cross Street: 30TH STREET Actual: Oly Leaked: Not reported 9 ft. Case Number 0830010167 ' Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Waste Oil Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Soil only Status: Case Closed Review Date: Not reported Workplan: 6/30/88 Confirm Leak: Not reported Prelim Assess: 6/30/88 , Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Flamed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 08/05/1988 TC1097960.3s Page 21 Map ID :..... MAP FINUIWCn5.. ' Direction Distance Distance (ff.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number GERMAN AUTOS (Continued) 00037845t7 Release Date: 0813t/t988 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 06130/1988 Enibmement Dt : Not reported Ent Type: Waming/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAO) Enter Date : 08/3 t /1988 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Not reported Local Case # : 88UTt24 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : PAH GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: VAN LINGEN, THEO Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 08/3t /t988 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyTHEO VAN LINGEN RP Address: 3000 NEWPORT BLVD Global Id: T0605900804 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported ' Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported ' Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12035 Cross Street: 30TH STREET Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 88UTt24 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Qly Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Workplan: 6/30/88 Confirm Leak: Prelim Assess: Not reported 6/30/88 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 22 L Map ID II MAP FINDINGS Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number GERMAN AUTOS (Continued) 0003784517 Close Date: 08/05/1988 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date : 06/30/1988 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Waming/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes COO and CAD) Enter Date: 08/31/1988 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6150953 / - 117.9301324 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRO Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies : Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualities: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: VAN LINGEN, THEO Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyTHEO VAN LINGEN Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 18075.693990597731882785702694 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Soil only Global ID: T0605900804 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 3000 NEWPORT BLVD MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 003001016T Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: WASTE OIL Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Case Type: S Summary: Not reported CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fee Address 2: 3000 NEWPORT BLVD State UST: Facility ID: 8183 Region: STATE TC1097960.3s Page23 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number GERMAN AUTOS (Continued) 0003784517 Local Agency: 30000 E20 UNOCAL #5310 LUST 5101588955 NW 3001 NEWPORT BLVD Cortese WA 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CA FlD UST 3183 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster E Relative: Higher State LUST: Cross Street: Actual: Oty Leaked: 9 ft. Case Number Reg Board: Chemical: Lead Agency: Local Agency Case Type: Status: Abate Method 30TH STREET Not reported 0830004317 8 Gasoline Local Agency 0 Other ground water affected Remedial action (cleanup) Underway Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Remove Free Product - remove floating product from water table Review Date: 03116/1989 Confirm Leak: 03/16/1989 Workplan: 3/2189 Prelim Assess: 3/2189 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: 5/16/96 Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Release Date: 04/16/1999 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 03/16/1989 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 06[10/1989 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: 02127/1996 Max MTBE GW : 2600 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: MTBE Detected. Site tested for MTBE & MTBE detected Priority: 1 B Local Case # : 89UT089 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : NOM GW Qualifier: _ Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: ED WANISS Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 04/16/1999 Stop Date : Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyDAN CARRIER RP Address: 376 S VALENCIA AVENUE Global ld: T0605900346 TC1097960.3s Page 24 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number UNOCAL#5310 (Continued) 5101588955 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 2 Mtbe Fuel: 1 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Cross Street: 30TH STREET Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 89UT089 Facility Status: Remedial action (cleanup) Underway Staff: NANCY OLSON MARTIN Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site. Remove Free Product - remove floating product from water table Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: 3/16/89 Confine Leak: 3/16/89 Workplan: 312189 Prelim Assess: 3/2/89 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 03116/1989 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 06110/1989 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6150293 / - 117.9304954 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: 2/27/96 MTBE Tested: YES Max MTBE GW : 2600 GW Qualifies: _ Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: ED WANISS Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyDAN CARRIER Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 18185.7229 982 04261 650461 00 394 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: C TC1097960.3s Page 25 'MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number UNOCAL #5310 (Continued) 3206 MARCUS STREET Map 1 Direction NEWPORT BEACH, CA 270 Distance Distance (ft.) ' Elevation Site 'MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S101588955 CHMIRS S105654972 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 26 UNOCAL #5310 (Continued) 3206 MARCUS STREET Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 270 Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605900346 How Stopped Date: Relative: CHMIRS: Organization Name: Not reported Higher Contact Person: Not reported 98 -3591 RP Address: 376 S VALENCIA AVENUE Chemical Name: Engine Oil Mixture MTBE Concentration: 2 Actual: Extent of Release: MTBE Fuel: , 8 ft. Case Number: 083000431T Not reported Not reported Water System Name: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Time Completed: Agency Name: Not reported Priority: 1B State Expatriation: REMEDIAL ACTION UNDERWAY Not reported M Substance: GASOLINE Agency Incident Number: Not reported Staff. NANCY OLSON MARTIN DES Incident Number: Case Type: O Summary: Not reported Not reported CORTESE: Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature : Not reported Not reported Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3001 NEWPORT BLVD FID: Facility ID: 30000591 Regulate ID: Not reported Reg By: Active Underground Storage Tank Location Cortese Code: Not reported SIC Code: Not reported Status: Active Facility Tel: (714) 836-8550 Mail To: Not reported 911 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 10 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Contact: Not reported Contact Tel: Not reported DUNS No: Not reported NPDES No: Not reported Creation: 10/22/93 Modified: 00 /00 /00 EPA ID: Not reported Comments: Not reported S101588955 CHMIRS S105654972 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 26 21 NW 3206 MARCUS STREET 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 270 3600 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 98 -3591 Chemical Name: Engine Oil Mixture Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 8 ft. Property Use: Incident Date: Not reported Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported M Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 98 -3591 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature : Not reported Not reported S101588955 CHMIRS S105654972 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 26 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation She (Continuer) MAP FINDINGS Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3 : Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities Rasp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Fatalities Vehicle Make/yew : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUCACC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Waterway Spill Site: Cleanup By; Containment: What Happened Type: Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: DateTme : Evacuations: 22 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA SEA NNE 1931 COAST 12 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3606 ft. Relative: CORTESE: Higher Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported Actual: 22 tL Database(s) Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Yes Newport Harbor Ship /Harbor /Port Reporting Party Yes Vessel was sinking, allowed oil mixture to rise out of engine area. Contained with booms. PETROLEUM Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 8/7/98 0 EDR ID Number EPA ID Number 5105654972 Cortese 5102425585 N/A TC1097960.3s Page27 r I I LJ I I Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site F23 NW 1/2 -1 3690 ft Relative: Higher Actual: eft. NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Site 1 of 2 In cluster F EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number LUST 0001577422 Cortese N/A HIST UST State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 093000199T Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 8/9/88 Prelim Assess: 8/9/88 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 06/19/1991 Release Date: 07/05/1991 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: / / Entoroement Dt : Not reported Ent Type: Warning/natice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 12/31/1986 Funding: Not reported Staff Inifials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Dale: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case # : BSUT142 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : PAH GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 07/05/1991 Stop Dale: ! ! Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyDONALD SIMPSON RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD Global Id: T0605900150 Org Name: Nat reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 1 TC1097960.3s Page 28 i P, Map ID II MAP FINDINGS - Direction 4 Distance 80066t9 Cross Street: Not reported Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL (Continued) UOOt5T7422 Water System Name: Not reported PATRICIA HANNON Well Name: Not reported ' Distance To Lust: 0 30000L Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Orange LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 80066t9 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 88UTt42 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 8/9/88 Prelim Assess: 8/9188 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 06/19/t99t Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date: t2/3t/t986 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported LaVLOn: 33.6167772/-1 t7.930t394 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date : Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyDONALD SIMPSON Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 17826.9972487294687136475255 t5 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: ' Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605900t50 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported TCt097960.3s Page 29 I I I I I I I I Map ID Direction Distance Distance (k.) Elevation Site MAP F- JNDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL (Continued) 0001577422 TC1097960.3s Page30 RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 083000199T Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: GASOLINE Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Case Type: O Summary: Not reported CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD UST HIST: Facility ID: 57040 Facility Status: Not reported Total Tanks: 1 Region: STATE Owner Name: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Box Number: Not reported Owner Address: 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 - 8915 F24 CHMIRS S100276595 NW 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3690 k. Site 2 of 2 in cluster F Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9100116 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported e k. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 06- FEB -91 Date Completed: 06- FEB -91 Time Completed: 830 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 102238 DES Incident Number: 9100116 Time Notified : 801 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature : Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported TC1097960.3s Page30 I Map ID II : MAP FINDINGS Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) S100276595 Vehicle License Number: Not reported CHMIRS S105661284 Vehicle State: Not reported N/A Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT/PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : AJ WAGONER ' Report Date : 06- FEB -91 Comments: Yes 99 -2472 Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved : 714 644 -3103 Not reported ' Waterway: Not reported Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Not reported Cleanup By : Not reported Not reported Containment: Not reported Not reported What Happened : Not reported Not reported Type : Not reported Not reported Other : Not reported Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported 99 -2472 Chemical 2 : Not Reported Not reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Not reported DateTme : Not reported Not reported Evacuations: Not reported ■ G25 CHMIRS S105661284 NNE 2101 WEST COAST HWY N/A 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 3737 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster G Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 99 -2472 Actual: Chemical Name: Brown Liquid Substance 15 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 99 -2472 Time Notified: Not reported Surrounding Arse: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Injuries: Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Maketyear : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 31 I I r+l I I I I I Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUCNCC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name/ID: Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type : Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Date/rime: Evacuations: EDR ID Number Detabase(s) EPA ID Number Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Yes storm drain Road Newport Hazmat Unknown Unknown type of brown liquid substance flowing at 100 gallons a minute. Unknown when flow began. Flowing into Udo Channel storm drain which flows to the ocean. Attempting to trace source of flow. UNSPECIFIED Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 6/10/99851 0 5105661284 ITC1097960.3s Page 32 G26 CHMIRS 5100221373 NNE 2101 W. COAST HWY N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3737 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster G Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9099353 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 15 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 16- JUL -90 Date Completed: 16- JUL -90 Time Completed, 2117 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 013314 DES Incident Number: 9099353 Time Notified : 2020 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 ITC1097960.3s Page 32 �J Map ID (I MAP FINDINGS Direction y Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Databasel;s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5100221373 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported ' Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT/PUCACC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : A.J. WAGNER B/C Report Date : 10- OCT -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved: Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported 27 CHMIRS 5105653940 East 925 VIA LIDO SOUO N/A 112 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 270 3773 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 98 -4703 ' Higher Chemical Name: Gas/Oil Mix Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 14 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported , Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported ' OES Incident Number: 98 -4703 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported ' Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Injuries: Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make/year: Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 33 I IJ I I I J I I i LJ I I I I I i Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Contlnued) Vehicle State : Vehicle Id Number: CA(DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type: Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Date/Time: Evacuations: SNDIN6S Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Yes Newport Harbor Ship/Harbor /Port Reporting Party Yes Sunken boat. Area now boomed off PETROLEUM Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 10/16/98 0 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5105653940 28 CHMIRS 5100221280 NW 3300 MARCUS AVENUE N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3841 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9099260 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 7 ft. Property Use: - Residential Incident Date: 10- JUN-90 Date Completed: lo-JUN-90 Time Completed: 921 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 010529 DES Incident Number: 9099260 Time Notified : 826 Surrounding Area: 400 Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 34 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5100221260 CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : A.J. WAGNER BIC Report Date: 08- OCT-90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443 t03 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway : Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported , Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported Type Not reported Other : Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time: Not reported Evacuations: Not reported 29 NEWPORT IMPORTS LUST S10129SBOI NE 1200 COAST Cortese NIA 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3849f. Relative: State LUST: ' Higher Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Actual: Case Number 083001432T 17 ft. Reg Board: 8 Chemical: Waste Oil Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency : 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 217/90 Prelim Assess: 2/7/90 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: 7/8/92 Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 06/09/t994 Release Date: 06/09/1994 - Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 02/07/1990 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Waming/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 02/11/1990 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported . Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: Not reported Local Case #: 90UT038 TC[097960.3s Page35 F-1 i1 Map ID MAP FINDINGS ' Direction Distance Distance (ft) EDR ID Number ' Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT IMPORTS (Contlnuecl) 5101299881 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : CAB GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin N: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 06109/1994 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyLEE WEST RP Address: 45 GOLETA POINT DR Global Id: T0605901085 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 12035 Cross Street: Not reported Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 90UT038 ' Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: CARL BERHHARDT Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 30000L Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 217/90 Prelim Assess: 2/7/90 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 06 /09/1994 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 02107/1990 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Warning/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes COO and CAO) Enter Date : 02111/1990 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6163744 / -117.91416 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested : NRQ Max MTBE GW : Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 36 i Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number NEWPORT IMPORTS (Continued) GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP CHMIRS 5100276777 Priority : Not reported 3412 VIA OPORTO Work Suspended Not reported N/A Responsible PartyLEE WEST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Well name: LPA REPORTED PRIMARY SOURCE Distance From Lust: 13583.381453047112716735319872 Waste Disch Global Id: W0608900228 MTBE Class: ' Waste Disch Assigned Name: 4500228- 001GEN Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605901085 How Stopped Date: CHMIRS: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 45 GOLETA POINT OR MTBE Concentration: 0 MT13E Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083001432T Water System Name: OUTPOST, THE Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: WASTE OIL Staff: CARL BERHHARDT Case Type: D Summary: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 37 LUST Region OR Facility Id: Site Number. Region: Case Type: Chemical: Date Closed: Current Status Facility Status: CORTESE: Region: Fac Address 2 90UT038 RO0001781 ORANGE Ground water Waste Oil 06/09/1994 9 02 CORTESE 1200 COAST HWY 5101299881 I I H30 CHMIRS 5100276777 NNW 3412 VIA OPORTO N/A 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3848 ft. Site 1 of 4 in cluster H Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9100463 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 7 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 31-MAY-91 Date Completed: 01- JUN -91 TC1097960.3s Page 37 n I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100276777 CHMIRS 5100276340 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 38 Map ID � , :MAP.TINII.NGS Direction 4 31333RD STREET Distance 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Distance (ft.) 3659 ft. Elevation Site CHMIRS: OES Control Number: 9099261 (Continued) Time Completed: 580 Not reported Agency Id Number: 30055 Not reported Residential Agency Incident Number: 9350 11- JUN -90 OES Incident Number: 9100463 11-JUN-90 Time Notified : 1841 950 Surrounding Area: Not reported 30055 Estimated Temperature : Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Special Studies 1 : N Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5 : Not reported Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/yew : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: B/C A.J. WAGNER Report Date: 16- AUG -91 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved: Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported ' Type : Other: Not reported Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2 : Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Datelrime : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100276777 CHMIRS 5100276340 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 38 31 NW 31333RD STREET 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3659 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: OES Control Number: 9099261 Higher Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: 9 ft. Extent of Release: Property Use: Not reported Residential Incident Date: 11- JUN -90 Date Completed: 11-JUN-90 Time Completed: 950 Agency Id Number: 30055 I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100276777 CHMIRS 5100276340 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 38 Map ID - - MAPFINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) Agency Incident Number: 90- 010529 DES Incident Number: 9099261 Time Notified: 0 Surrounding Area: 400 Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal N Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personel N Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personel N Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : B/C A. WAGNER Report Date: 11- 1UL -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved: Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: - Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported Type : Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/Time : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported 32 WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NW 3401 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3862 ft. Relative: CORTESE: Higher Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported Actual: 101L EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100276340 Cortese 5101609672 CA FID UST WA TC1097960.3s Page39 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site ��� MAf!FINDILJ,C2S EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.3s Page 40 WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION (Continued) FID: Facility ID: 30001002 Regulate ID: Reg By: Active Underground Storage Tank Location Cortese Code: Not reported SIC Code: Status: Active Facility Tel: Mail To: Not reported ATTN: GIL JUAREZ 930 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Contact: Not reported Contact Tel: DUNS No: Not reported NPDES No: Creation: 10/22/93 Modified: EPA ID: Not reported Comments: Not reported S101609672 Not reported Not reported (714) 675 -3982 Not reported Not reported 00/00/00 H33 CHMIRS S705670012 NNW 3366 VIA LIDO WA 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 0 3872 ft. Site 2 of 4 In cluster H Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 01 -7204 Actual: Chemical Name: Unk. Oil 9 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 01 -7204 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Maketyear : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments: Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 40 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS I I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.3s Page 41 (Continued) Waterway Involved : Waterway: Spill She: Cleanup By: Containment : What Happened : Type: Other: Chemical 1 : Chemical 2 : Chemical 3: Date/Time : Evacuations: S105670012 Yes Newport Bay Ship /Harbor /Port Unknown Unknown The caller is reporting an unknown sheen on the water. Cause is unknown. The sheen is located around a vessel that had been in the process of having ft's bilges steam cleaned. The company states there was no oil in the machine. Absorbents applied UNSPECIFIED Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 12113/01 1300 0 H34 CHMIRS S100276469 NNW 3432 VIA OPORTO N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3902 ft. Site 3 of 4 in cluster H Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9099628 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 7 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: 099 Incident Date: 16- OCT -90 Date Completed: 16- OCT -90 Time Completed: 1420 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: UNKNOWN DES Incident Number: 9099628 Time Notified : 1245 Surrounding Area: 942 Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal it Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: B/C AJ WAGNER TC1097960.3s Page 41 FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' (Continued) Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved : Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened : Type: Other: Chemical 1 : Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Date/Time : Evacuations: Map ID H35 Direction CHMIRS S100221530 Distance 3450 VIA OPORTO Distance (ft.) 1/2 -1 Elevation Site FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' (Continued) Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved : Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened : Type: Other: Chemical 1 : Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Date/Time : Evacuations: S100276469 16- OCT -90 Yes 714 6443103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported H35 CHMIRS S100221530 NNW 3450 VIA OPORTO N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3964fL Site 4 of 4 in cluster H Relative: Higher CHMIRS: Actual: OES Control Number: Chemical Name: 9099516 Not reported 7 H. 6dent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 08- SEP -90 Date Completed: 09- SEP -90 Time Completed: 1225 Agency Id Number: - 30055 Agency Incident Number: 017188 OES Incident Number: 9099516 Time Notified: 825 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: S More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities : 0 Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries : Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: Not reported Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : A.J. WAGNER BIC Report Date: 08- OCT -90 TC1097960.3s Page 42 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (it -) Elevation Site (Continued) Comments: Facility Telephone Number Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type : Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3: DateMme : Evacuations 136 NNW 3500 NEWPORT BLVD, LIDO PUMP STATION 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 4057 ft. MAP FINDINGSo Yes 714 644 -3103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported 99 -3464 sewage Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 99 -3464 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100221530 CHMIRS S105660331 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 43 Site 1 of 2 in cluster I Relative: Higher CH DES Control Number: Actual: Chemical Name: loft. Extent of Release: Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 Special Studies 2 Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: Rasp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Fatalities Vehicle Make/year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUG /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name/ID Report Date: Comments : Yes 714 644 -3103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported 99 -3464 sewage Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 99 -3464 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100221530 CHMIRS S105660331 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 43 I ' Map CHEVRON 119.7100 Direction NNW Distance Distance (ft.) NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92003 Elevation Site ' (Continued) CHEVRON 119.7100 Facility Telephone Number NNW Waterway Involved Waterway: NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92003 Spill Site: 4082 ft. Cleanup By: 11 ft. Containment: Site 2 of 2 In cluster I What Happened Reg Board: Type Other 80066191203 Chemical 1 Lead Agency: Chemical 2: Chemical 3 Date/Time 0 Evacuations: ' 137 CHEVRON 119.7100 Higher NNW 3531 NEWPORT BLVD W 1/2.1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92003 Actual: 4082 ft. Not reported 11 ft. Case Number Site 2 of 2 In cluster I i P 1 MAP. FINDINGS. EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S105660331 Not reported No Not reported Treatment/Sewage Facility Reporting Parry Yes Contained in a construction pit, spill was caused by a power outage at a pumping station. Spill has been cleaned up. SEWAGE Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 8118/99530 0 LUST S104760689 Cortese N/A Relative: Higher State LUST: Cross Street: SHORT Actual: Qty Leaked: Not reported 11 ft. Case Number o830001o4T Reg Board: 8 Chemical: 80066191203 Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency : 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 2/5/95 Prelim Assess: 2/5/85 Pollution Char: Not reported Rented Plan: Not reported Rented Action: 11/1/91 Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 08/13/2001 Release Date: Not reported Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: / / Enforcement Dt : Not reported Ent Type: Consent order /enforceable agreement to cooperative responsible parties (includes CAD) Enter Date: 05/12/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Data: 09/2211999 Max MTBE GW : 50 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: MTBE Detected. Site tested for MTBE 8 MTBE detected Priority: 2B Local Case #: 85UT010 Beneficial: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 44 i Map ID 4_- MAP FINDINGS, Direction 4 Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number CHEVRON #9.7100 (Continued) 5104760889 Staff: THE JK GW Qualifier : _ 8 Max MTBE Soil: 0.26 Parts per Million 6006619,1203 Cross Street: SHORT Soil Qualifier: _ 08 Hydr Basin #: Not reported 85UT010 Operator : Not reported Case Closed Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST TOM MBEKE- EKANEM Oversight Prgm : LOP Local Agency Review Date: Not reported 3g000L Stop Date: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved Work Suspended Not reported site Responsible PartyUSA THOMPSON Not reported RP Address: PO BOX 1768 Orange Global ld: T0605900081 Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Org Name: Not reported 2/5/85 Prelim Assess: 2/5/85 Contact Person: Not reported Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported MTBE Conc: 3 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Water System Name: Not reported 06/13/2001 Well Name: Not reported : Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Not reported Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Consent order /enforceable agreement to cooperative responsible parties (includes CAD) LUST Region 8: JK Region: 8 Substance: 6006619,1203 Cross Street: SHORT Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 85UT010 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: TOM MBEKE- EKANEM Lead Agency: Local Agency Loral Agency: 3g000L Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Qty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 2/5/85 Prelim Assess: 2/5/85 Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 06/13/2001 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Ot : Not reported Ent Type: Consent order /enforceable agreement to cooperative responsible parties (includes CAD) Enter Date: 05/12/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6184712 / - 117.9303944 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date : 3/9/98 MTBE Tested: YES TC1097960.3s Page45 LI I I I I i I I LJ I 1 CHEVRON #9-7100 (Continued) .MAPANDING3 .. EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Max MTBE GW : 1400 Map GW Qualifies: _ Direction Max MTBE Soil: .26 Distance Soil Qualifies: _ Distance (ft.) Hydr Basin k: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Elevation Site I I I I i I I LJ I 1 CHEVRON #9-7100 (Continued) .MAPANDING3 .. EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Max MTBE GW : 1400 PORT CALYPSO GW Qualifies: _ 2633 COAST Max MTBE Soil: .26 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Soil Qualifies: _ Case Number Hydr Basin k: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible Partyl-ISA THOMPSON Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 17664.651807979460182551826167 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: 70605900081 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: PO BOX 1768 MTBE Concentration: 3 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 0830001047 Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: 2B State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: Not reported Staff: TOM MBEKE- EKANEM Case Type: O Summary: Not reported CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3531 NEWPORT BLVD 38 PORT CALYPSO North 2633 COAST 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4160 ft. Case Number Relative: State LUST: Higher Cross Street: Qty Leaked: Actual: Case Number 12 ft. Reg Board: Chemical: Lead Agency: Local Agency: Case Type: Status: Review Date: Workplan: Pollution Char: Remed Action: Monitoring: Close Date: TUSTIN Not reported 0830027457 8 80066191203 Local Agency 0 Other ground water affected Case Closed Not reported 5/30/95 Not reported Not reported Not reported 06/11/1996 Confirm Leak: Not reported Prelim Assess: 5/30/95 Flamed Plan: Not reported S104760689 LUST S102435380 Cortese N/A ITC1097960.3s Page 46 Map ID :: "'MAP.:FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site PORT CALYPSO (Continued) EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA fD Number S102435380 Release Date: 08109/1996 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date : 05/30/1995 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Waming/notice of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes CDO and CAD) Enter Date : 12/15/1995 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: ' Not reported MTBE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Not Required to be Tested. Priority: 2A Local Case #: 95UT037 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : CAB GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm: Local Oversight Program UST Oversight Prgm : LOP Review Date: 08/09/1996 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyJUDY MILLS,ASSET MANAGER RP Address: 2429 W COAST HWY 207 Global Id: T0605901894 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mtbe Fuel: 0 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 6: Region: e Substance: 8006619,12D3 Cross Street: TUSTIN Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: 95UT037 Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: CARL BERHHARDT Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 3D000L Oty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 5/30/95 Prelim Assess: 5/30/95 Pollution Char: Not reported Flamed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 47 P f� u I 11 I lJ I 1 I I I I I 1 Close Date: 06/11 /1996 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site PORT CALYPSO (Continued) !. MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5102435380 I ITC7097960.3s Page 48 Close Date: 06/11 /1996 Cleanup Fund Id :Not reported Discover Date: 05/30/1995 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Em Type: Waming/notioe of violation to uncooperative responsible parties (includes COO and CAD) Enter Date : 12115/1995 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: JK How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.6195442 / - 117.9230942 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NRO Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Oualifies : Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyJUDY MILLS,ASSET MANAGER Well name: LPA REPORTED PRIMARY SOURCE Distance From Lust: 15464.479607458622353594534689 Waste Disch Global Id: W0608900228 MTBE Class: Waste Disch Assigned Name: 4500228 -001 GEN Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: T0605901894 How Stopped Date: Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 2429 W COAST HWY 207 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 0 Case Number: 083002745T Water System Name: OUTPOST, THE Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: 2A State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: Not reported Staff: CARL BERHHARDT Case Type: O Summary: Not reported I ITC7097960.3s Page 48 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PORT CALYPSO (Continued) 5102435380 LUST Region OR: Facility Id: 95UT037 Site Number: R00001 888 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Ground water Chemical: Diesel Date Closed: 06 /11/1996 Current Status: 9 Facility Status: 02 Facility Id: 95UT037 Site Number: R00001 888 Region: ORANGE Case Type: Ground water Chemical: Gasoline Date Closed: 06 /11/1996 Current Status: 9 Facility Status: 02 CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 2633 COAST HWY 39 CHMIRS 5100276654 NW 3531 NEWPORT BLVD. /SHORT STREET N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4232 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9100225 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: E)dent of Release: - Not reported 919t. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 18- MAR -91 Date Completed: 18- MAR -91 Time Completed: 1600 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 104774 DES Incident Number: 9100225 Time Notified: 1535 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature; Not reported Property Management: Not reported , More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries : Not reported 0 , Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities : 0 Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Injuries : 0 0 ' Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported ' TC1097960.3s Page49 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site 40 NNW 1/2 -1 4263 ft Relative: Higher Actual: 12 ft (Continued) Vehicle Id Number : CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number Company Name: Reporting Officer Name/ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Date/Time : Evacuations: CALTRANS 3600 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 '.MAPFINDINO$ Not reported Not reported Not reported A.J. WAGNER i8JUN -92 Yes 714 6443103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 3600 NEWPORT BLVD EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100276654 Cortese S103SM23 N/A J41 CHEVRON p9 -9706 Cortese S104791741 North 2801 N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4399 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster J Relative: Higher CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Actual: Fac Address 2: Not reported 12 ft. Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 50 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC7097960.3s Page51 CHEVRON #9.9706 (Continued) S104791741 J42 CHMIRS S100221082 North 2751 WEST COAST HWY N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4413 ft. Site 2 of 2 In cluster J Relative. Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9098032 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 12 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Mercantile, Business Incident Date: 02- MAR -90 Date Completed: 02- MAR -90 Time Completed: 1618 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 903905 DES Incident Number: 9098032 Time Notified: 1207 Surrounding Area: 500 Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 Vehicle Maketyew : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: B/C A. WAGNER Report Date: 11- MAY -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway : Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical t : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/Time : Not reported Evacuations : Not reported TC7097960.3s Page51 L I P, I I II I I I I I Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Contlnued) .- MAf?IFINDINGS. . 43 ESE 7TH STREET / WEST BALBOA 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4449 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Actual: Extent of Release: 9 ft. Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number Time Notified: Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 Special Studies 2 Special Studies 3 Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5 : Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries : Others Number Of Fatalities: Vehicle Make /year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name/ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened: Type : Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: DateTme : Evacuations 9100509 Not reported Not reported Not reported O6JUN -91 O6JUN -91 1330 30055 109665 91 D0509 1451 Not reported Not reported Not reported N Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported B/C A.J. WAGNER 07- OCT -91 Yes 714 6443103 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not reported Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 5100221082 CHMIRS 5100276786 N/A TC1097960.3s Page 52 Map ID _ MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number (Continued) 5100276786 44 CHMIRS 5100276859 North 3199 PARK CENTER N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4521 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: 9100640 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Erdent of Release: Not reported 69 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 24- JUL -91 Date Completed: 24-JUL-91 Time Completed: 1546 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 112865 DES Incident Number: 9100640 Time Notified : 1530 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities : 0 Resp Agncy Personel # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 Vehicle Make/yew : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID : B/C A.J. WAGNER Report Date: 07- OCT -91 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site : Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical : Not Reported DateRme : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 53 I I 1 1 I F I I i I 1 I 11 I Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) K45 North 3101 WEST COAST HWY. 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 0 4650 ft. Type Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3 Date/rime: FINDINGS ' EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100276W9 CHMIRS 5105648626 N/A 12743 gasoline and oil Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 12743 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported NO NO Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported YES newport harbor Not reported commercial company contracted. YES source of leak was a sunken 26 ft. power boat. boomed off by 100 ft. boom to contain. will be a clean up tomorrow a.m. PETROLEUM Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1436/12 Mar 96 1 TC1097960.3s Page 54 She 1 of 2 in cluster K Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: Actual: Chemical Name: 12 ft. Extent of Release: Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management : More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 Special Studies 2 Special Studies 3 Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5 : Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal p Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal p Of Fatalities: Resp Agncy Personal p Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Fatalites : Vehicle Make/year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State : Vehicle Id Number: GVDOT /PUC /ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name/ID: Report Date Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened: Type Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3 Date/rime: FINDINGS ' EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100276W9 CHMIRS 5105648626 N/A 12743 gasoline and oil Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 12743 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported NO NO Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported YES newport harbor Not reported commercial company contracted. YES source of leak was a sunken 26 ft. power boat. boomed off by 100 ft. boom to contain. will be a clean up tomorrow a.m. PETROLEUM Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1436/12 Mar 96 1 TC1097960.3s Page 54 I Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance t Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number ' (Continued) 5105646828 ; Evacuations: NO K46 DOUD COMMERCIAL OFFICE SL Cortese 5101631434 North 3100 COAST CA FID UST N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 , 4718 ft. She 2 of 2 In cluster K Relative: Higher CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Actual: Fee Address 2: Not reported 12 fL FID: Facility ID: 30008696 Regulate ID: Not reported Reg By: Active Underground Storage Tank Location Cortese Code: Not reported SIC Code: Not reported Status: Active Facility Tel: (714) 722 -4100 Mail To: Not reported 3100 W COAST HWY ' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Contact: Not reported Contact Tel: Not reported DUNS No: Not reported NPDES No: Not reported Creation: 10/22/93 Modified: 00/00 /00 EPA ID: Not reported Comments: Not reported L47 JERRY'S MARINE FUEL (FORM Cortese 5103943579 NNW 3333 COAST N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4786 ft. She 1 of 2 in cluster L Relethre: Higher CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Actual: Fac Address 2: Not reported 16 ft. 40 NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA LUST 5102434351 NNW 12 BALBOA COVES Cortese N/A ' 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4788 ft. Relative: State LUST: Higher Cross Street: FINLEY Qty Leaked: Not reported Actual: Case Number 083000034T 15 ft. Reg Board: 6 Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Regional Board Local Agency: 0 Case Type: Other ground water affected Status: Case Closed Abate Method: No Action Required - incident is minor, requiring no remedial action Review Date: Not reported Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Char: Not reported Remad Plan: Not reported ' Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 0410911985 TC1097960.3s Page55 1 ' I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction .. .... Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA (Continued) Release Date: 03103/1982 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: / / Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: Not reported Enter Date : 05/19/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported MTBE Date: / / Max MTBE GW : 0 Parts per Billion MTBE Tested: Site NOT Tested for MTBE.Includes Unknown and Not Analyzed. Priority: Not reported Local Case p : Not reported Beneficial: Not reported Staff : PAH GW Qualifier: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: Not reported Soil Qualifier: Not reported Hydr Basin N: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm: RB Lead Underground Storage Tank Oversight Prgm : UST Review Date: 07/05/1988 Stop Date: Work Suspended Not reported Responsible ParlyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Global Id: T0605900028 Org Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported MTBE Conc: 0 Mthe Fuel: 1 Water System Name: Not reported Well Name: Not reported Distance To Lust: 0 Waste Discharge Global ID: Not reported Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported LUST Region 8: Region: 8 Substance: 8006619 Regional Board: 08 Local Case Num: Not reported Facility Status: Case Closed Staff: PATRICIAHANNON Lead Agency: Regional Board Local Agency: Not reported Abate Method: No Action Required - Oty Leaked: Not reported County: Orange Review Date: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Pollution Char: Not reported Cross Street: FINLEY incident is minor, requiring no remedial action EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Confirm Leak: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Rented Plan: Not reported S102434351 ' TC1097960.3s Page 56 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA (Continued) I Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 04109/1985 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt : Not reported Errf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 05/19/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.621032 / - 117.9355165 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualities: Not reported Max MTBE Sal : Not reported Soil Qualities: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : UST Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 18828.77566174339513154052381 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: ' Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: 70605900028 How Stopped Date: / / Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 0830000347 Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: GASOLINE Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Case Type: O Summary: NO SOIL OR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. CONTAMINANT WAS ENTERING THE BAY FROM MARINA. CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 12 BALBOA COVES I 1 1 1 11 1 1 .J 1 1 1 .1 I TC1097960.3s Page 57 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' 5102434351 Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 04109/1985 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: Not reported Enforcement Dt : Not reported Errf Type: Not reported Enter Date: 05/19/1987 Funding: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Not reported How Stopped: Not reported Interim : Not reported Lat/Lon : 33.621032 / - 117.9355165 Leak Cause: Not reported Leak Source: Not reported Beneficial: Not reported MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualities: Not reported Max MTBE Sal : Not reported Soil Qualities: Not reported Hydr Basin #: COASTAL PLAIN OF ORA Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : UST Priority: Not reported Work Suspended Not reported Responsible PartyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Well name: Not reported Distance From Lust: 18828.77566174339513154052381 Waste Disch Global Id: Not reported MTBE Class: ' Waste Disch Assigned Name: Not reported Case Type: Other Ground Water not used for drinking or no beneficial use Global ID: 70605900028 How Stopped Date: / / Organization Name: Not reported Contact Person: Not reported RP Address: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MTBE Concentration: 0 MTBE Fuel: 1 Case Number: 0830000347 Water System Name: Not reported Code Name: ORANGE Agency Name: Not reported Priority: Not reported State Expalnation: CASE CLOSED Substance: GASOLINE Staff: PATRICIA HANNON Case Type: O Summary: NO SOIL OR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. CONTAMINANT WAS ENTERING THE BAY FROM MARINA. CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Fac Address 2: 12 BALBOA COVES I 1 1 1 11 1 1 .J 1 1 1 .1 I TC1097960.3s Page 57 1 I 11 11 li I I I 1 I I Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site :MAP FININGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.3s Page 58 NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA (Continued) S102434351 L49 CHMIRS S100221130 NNW 3300 W. COAST HWY N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 4659 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster L Relative: Higher CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 9099110 Actual: Chemical Name: Not reported 17 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Mercantile, Business Incident Daze: 06 -APR -90 Date Completed: 06- APR -90 Time Completed: 2052 Agency Id Number : 30055 Agency Incident Number: 90- 006319 DES Incident Number: 9099110 Time Notified: 1748 Surrounding Area: 500 Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Rasp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make/yew : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : B/C A. WAGNER Report Date: 11- MAY -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number : 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway : Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By : Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/Time: Not reported Evacuations : Not reported TC1097960.3s Page 58 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) 50 ENE 2702 BAVSHORE DRIVE 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 4869 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher DES Control Number: Chemical Name: Actual: Extent of Release: 7 ft. Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 Special Studies 2 Special Studies 3 Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5: Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries Responding Agency Personei # Of Fatalities: Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Injuries : Others Number Of Fatalities Vehicle Maketyear : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Waterway: Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened Type: Other: Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3 Date/rime: Evacuations I 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' 5100221130 CHMIRS 5105631685 N/A 27060 DIESEL Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 27060 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported THE BOAT WILL BE RAISED TOMMORROW Not reported BOAT SANK AT SLIP BEHIND RESIDENCE. HARBOR PATROL RESPONDED AND PUT A BOOMED AROUND PETROLEUM Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 1830 UNKNOWN TC1097960.3s Page 59 I [I 1 1 I 1 F L 1 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number TC1097960.3s Page 60 (Continued) S105631695 M51 CHMIRS S100276694 EaSt 503 EAST EDGEWATER N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 5137 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster M Relative: Equal CHMIRS: DES Control Number: 97 -2541 Actual: Chemical Name: motor oil 6 ft. Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: Not reported Date Completed: Not reported Time Completed: Not reported Agency Id Number: Not reported Agency Incident Number: Not reported DES Incident Number: 97 -2541 Time Notified : Not reported Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : Not reported Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries: 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : Not reported Others Number Of Decontaminated: Not reported Others Number Of Injuries : Not reported Others Number Of Fatalities: Not reported Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CAIDOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : Not reported Report Date: Not reported Comments : Not reported Facility Telephone Number: Not reported Waterway Involved: Yes Waterway: Newport Harbor . Spill Site: Ship/Harbor /Port Cleanup By: Unknown Containment: No What Happened: undetermined Type: PETROLEUM Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2 : Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/rime: 6/26/97 Evacuations: 0 TC1097960.3s Page 60 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) DES Control Number: 9100320 Chemical Name: Not reported Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 09- APR -9t Date Completed: 09- APR -9t Time Completed: 0 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 106148 DES Incident Number: 9100320 Time Notified: 0 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies t : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6 : Not reported Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Rasp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle Stale: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC/ICC Number: Not reported Company Name : - Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : A.J. WAGONER Report Dale: 21-JUN-91 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved: Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical t: Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported DatefTime : Not reported Evacuations: Not reported 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ' 5100276694 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TC7097960.3s Page6t , 1 Map ID -- MAP ,FINDINGS - ' Direction Distance Distance (ft.) ' Elevation Site M52 East 503 EDGEWATER ' 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92527 5137 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster M Relative: ' Equal CORTESE: Region: CORTESE Actual: Fac Address 2: Not reported Eft. CHMIRS: ' OES Control Number: 9098043 Chemical Name: Not reported Extent of Release: Not reported Property Use: Mercantile, Business Incident Date: 17 -MAR -90 ' Date Completed: 17 -MAR -90 Time Completed: 1035 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 005035 ' OES Incident Number : 9098043 Time Notified : 818 Surrounding Area : 400 Estimated Temperature: Not reported ' Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported ' Special Studies 3 : Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5 : Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported ' Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personel # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 ' Others Number Of Injuries : 0 Others Number Of Fatalities: 0 Vehicle Make /year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported ' Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: B/C A. WAGNER ' Report Date : 11- MAY -90 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved : Not reported ' Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported ' What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 -: Not Reported ' Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/rime: Not reported I EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CHMIRS S100279968 Cortese WA TC1097960.3s Page62 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site . MAP FINDINGS4 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number I 1 1 (Continuer!) 5100279968 Evacuations : Not reported ' 53 CHMIRS S100276988 NE 406 SNUG HARBOR ROAD MIA 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1 5198 ft. Relative: CHMIRS: Higher OES Control Number: 9100947 , Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: Extent of Release: Not reported 87 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 29-OCT -91 Date Completed: 29- OCT -91 ' Time Completed: 2315 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 118858 DES Incident Number: 9100947 ' Time Notified: 2019 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management : Not reported ' More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies i : Not reported Special Studies 2: Not reported Special Studies 3 : Not reported ' Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal # Of Injuries : Not reported 0 , Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities : 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated: 0 Others Number Of Injuries : 0 , Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 Vehicle Make/yew: Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State: Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported , CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name /ID : B/C WAGNER Report Date: 08JAN-92 1 Comments : Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 644 -3103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported ' Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened: Not reported , Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported , Chemical 3 : Not Reported Date/Time : Not reported Evacuations : Not reported , TC1097960.3s Page 63 , 1 1 1 1 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site 54 NNW t/2 -t 5267 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 2t (Continue[) 230 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA MAP�FINOINGS CHMIRS: DES Control Number: Chemical Name: E)dertt of Release: Property Use: Incident Date: Date Completed: Time Completed: Agency Id Number: Agency Incident Number: DES Incident Number: Time Notified : Surrounding Area: Estimated Temperature: Property Management: More Than Two Substances Involved? Special Studies 1 : Special Studies 2: Special Studies 3: Special Studies 4: Special Studies 5 : Special Studies 6: Responding Agency Personal k Of Injuries Responding Agency Personal p Of Fatalities: Resp Agncy Personal k Of Decontaminated: Others Number Of Decontaminated Others Number Of Injuries: Others Number Of Fatalities Vehicle Make /year : Vehicle License Number: Vehicle State: Vehicle Id Number: CA/DOT/PUC/ICC Number: Company Name: Reporting Officer Name /ID : Report Date: Comments: Facility Telephone Number: Waterway Involved: Waterway Spill Site: Cleanup By: Containment: What Happened: Type Other Chemical 1 Chemical 2: Chemical 3: Date/Time: Evacuations: EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number St00276988 CHMIRS St05630t75 N/A 60387 water based paint Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 60387 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported NO NO Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported NO storm drain RD undetermined at time of report YES illegally dumped on street adjacent to above address CHEMICAL Not reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 9/t5/93 t800 NO TC1097960.3s Page64 Map ID _ MAP. FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site (Continued) 1 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number , 5105630175 55 CHMIRS 5100276649 NW 3912 RIVER AVENUE N/A 1/2 -1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 5275 tL Relative: CHMIRS: Higher OES Control Number: 9100218 Chemical Name: Not reported Actual: EMent of Release: Not reported 7 ft. Property Use: Not reported Incident Date: 14- MAR -91 Date Completed: 14- MAR -91 Time Completed: 1205 Agency Id Number: 30055 Agency Incident Number: 104520 OES Incident Number: 9100218 Time Notified: 1055 Surrounding Area: Not reported Estimated Temperature: Not reported Property Management: Not reported More Than Two Substances Involved? : N Special Studies 1 : Not reported Special Studies 2 : Not reported Special Studies 3: Not reported Special Studies 4: Not reported Special Studies 5: Not reported Special Studies 6: Not reported Responding Agency Personel # Of Injuries : 0 Responding Agency Personal # Of Fatalities: 0 Resp Agncy Personal # Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Decontaminated : 0 Others Number Of Injuries: 0 Others Number Of Fatalities : 0 Vehicle Make/year : Not reported Vehicle License Number: Not reported Vehicle State : Not reported Vehicle Id Number: Not reported CA/DOT /PUC /ICC Number: Not reported Company Name: Not reported Reporting Officer Name/ID: AJ WAGNER Report Date: 18-JUN-92 Comments: Yes Facility Telephone Number: 714 6443103 Waterway Involved : Not reported Waterway: Not reported Spill Site: Not reported Cleanup By: Not reported Containment: Not reported What Happened : Not reported Type: Not reported Other: Not reported Chemical 1 : Not Reported Chemical 2: Not Reported Chemical 3: Not Reported Date/Time: Not reported Evacuations: Not reported TC1097960.3s Page65 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Distance (R.) Elevation Site (Continued) EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S100276649 TC1097960.3s Page 66 O ¢ FF7 z and U W m y O U aQ m r z JA�ZZ z � ryQZ ( ❑Q¢� Q LL ryQZ ryQz ryQZ ryQz ryQZ lqz ryQZ 0 C6 dl NN Nmmmm N m mmmmmmmmm mmm R m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O O U z N wqqqq g r J m W 0 i W W I m vq` C7U °NCOO QMz m Q ¢ w w �j O m W W W W O p m3gm w° O ¢ 0 O O U W U O O W U m w Z J J Z (n O W qg LL W 0 N W J p¢I� LL 2 J W W O O LL Q Z Z U U W> Z_ w j U W Z ¢ O ¢ a SSwN� aS$�� z aaas mrmiiaaa m8L M w » Ogm5mmmm° U U U U U U U U U mmmmmmmmm J m U >W Q o o F- w rr z? y r� r r� ¢ m c� _ = O = _ = O Q U U U r - 'S W U U ri p m ZO LL OOa OOOa LL) O ¢pp J L Q O N ziaQ¢QO¢¢wa`A QO z_ 3 a a �S a a a 3 3 m 7_¢ VVVpV1111 rD ppp o (mom pp m op p - mp > m O O m 0 N N m N O O N O J_ LL U U p¢ Y W W Z Q Z �`aZ ¢ � 6 wo wo t U U¢ m w M~ m d U F z ¢ w z LL Ow¢ � N w m 0 y¢ 607< U=� zU Q1 :-¢i ¢ wZO¢2 ZQQatn30 a0OWxWZ Wwp¢p¢¢m N p p ; 6; ; 6; 'ma qZ O a ; a; ; a; W ;;¢ ¢ O Z Z O g u i O Z Z i Q n ° � m ogm o80 8 R!Lq 2 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm z mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ����rr �rrr ��r �c � �r �r �w 66000000 2 a a a a a 22220 UJHMMM m m m m a m m d m m 0 H I n Lj 1 1 LJ GOVERNM ENT Rf-CORDS; SEARCHES /-0AT4 CURRENCY TRACKING To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90 -day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS NPL: National Priority List Source: EPA Telephone: N/A National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) and regional EPA offices. Date of Government Version: 10/21/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 12/08/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually NPL Site Boundaries Sources: EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) Telephone: 202 -564 -7333 EPA Region 1 Telephone 617 - 918 -1143 EPA Region 3 Telephone 215- 814 -5418 EPA Region 4 Telephone 404 -562 -8033 Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Date of Government Version: 10/14/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 12/08/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi- Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11103/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 35 Date of last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214 -655 -6659 EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303- 312 -6774 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/01103 Elapsed ASTM days: 7 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 703 - 413 -0223 CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version: 09 /11/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/29/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/24/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 35 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/24/03 CERCLIS - NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Source: EPA Telephone: 703- 413 -0223 As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately 25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites. TC1097960.3s Page GR -1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 09 /11/03 Date Made. Active at EDR: 10/29/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/24/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 35 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/24/03 CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report Source: EPA Telephone: 8W-424 -9348 CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Government Version: 09 /17/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/01/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 41 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 800 -424 -9346 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGS): generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SOGs): generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LOGS): generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator Dff -site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. Date of Government Version: 09 /10/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/11/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/01/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 20 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/18/03 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard Telephone: 202 - 260 -2342 Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12131/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01127/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/03/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 7 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS BRS: Biennial Reporting System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800424 -9346 The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LOG) and Treatment. Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Date of Government Version: 12/01/01 Database Release Frequency: Biennially I 1 1 J 1l i I Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/01/03 , Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Source: EPA Regional Offices Telephone: Varies Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL ( Superfund) sites. Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A TC1097960.39 Page GR -2 IJ I 1 C] 1 1 Cl GQVERNMENT RECORDS. SEARCHED [DATA CURRENCY TRACKING ROD: Records Of Decision Source: EPA Telephone: 703.416 -0223 Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL ( Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version: 07109103 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10108/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 DELISTED NPL- National Priority List Deletions Source: EPA Telephone: N/A The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Date of Government Version: 10/21/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 FINDS: Facility Index System /Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers'to other sources that contain more detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C- DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version: 10/23/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202 - 366 -4555 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill Incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version: 08/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/23/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 MILTS: Material Licensing Tracking System Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301 -415 -7169 MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Dabs of Goverment Version: 10/16/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 ' MINES: Mines Master Index His Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Telephone: 303 -231 -5959 ' Date of Government Version: 08/27/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29103 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens ' Source: EPA Telephone: 202564 -4267 Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. LJ TC1097960.3s Page GR -3 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 10/15/91 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of fast EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202 - 564 -38B7 PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and /or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 06/30/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02109/04 DOD: Department of Defense Silas Source: USGS Telephone: 703 - 648 -5920 This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Date of Government Version: 04/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually STORMWATER: Storm Water General Permits Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 564 -0746 A listing of all facilities with Storm Water General Permits. Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of fast EDR Contact: 11/12/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A US BROWNFlELDS: A Usting of Brownfields Sites Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 - 566 -2777 Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments -EPA's Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities -- especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots -- minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program. EPA provides funding and /or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfields allies throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients - States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields - related cleanup activities. 11 1 I C� I, Date of Government Version: 07/15/03 Date of fast EDR Contact: 09 /15/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12115/03 , RMP: Risk Management Plans Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 - 5648600 ' When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances , to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst -rase and aitemative accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur. , 1 1 TC1097960.3s Page GR-4 ' I 1 IL_ G I j 1 [J [1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS. SEARCHED % DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -564 -4104 RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Government Version: 04 /17/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12108/03 TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA Telephone: 202 - 260 -1531 Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version: 12/31/01 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12122/03 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -260 -5521 Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Govern ment Version: 12/31/98 Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12108/03 FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -564 -2501 Date of Government Version: 10/16/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12122/03 SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems Source: EPA Telephone: 202 - 5645008 Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all registered pesticide- producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March 1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year. Date of Government Version: 12/31/01 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 F TS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Telephone: 202 - 5642501 FITS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. TC1097960.3s Page GR -5 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED % DATA CURRENCY TRACKING` Date of Government Version: 10/16103 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /23/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03 , STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS AWP: Annual Workplan Sites ' Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916323 -3400 Known Hazardous Waste Sites. California DTSC's Annual Workplan (AWP), formerly SEP. identifies known hazardous substance sites targeted for cleanup. , Date of Government Version: 08 /31/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/07/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/17/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 15 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 ' CAL-SITES: Calsites Database Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 The Calsites database contains potential or confirmed hazardous substance release properties. In 1996, California ' EPA reevaluated and significantly reduced the number of sites in the Calsites database. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/07/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/17/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 15 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/07/03 , CHMIRS: California Hazardous Material Incident Report System Source: Office of Emergency Services Telephone: 916- 845 -6400 ' California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System. CHMIRS contains information on reported hazardous material incidents (accidental releases or spills). Date of Govern ment Version: 12/31/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/11/03 ' Date Made Active at EDR: 08/07/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 27 Database Release Frequency: Vanes Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/24/03 CORTESE: "Cortese" Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List Source: CAL EPA/Office of Emergency Information ' Telephone: 916-323 -9100 The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board (LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal- Sites). ' Date of Government Version: 04/01/01 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/29/01 Date Made Active at EDR: 07/26/01 Elapsed ASTM days: 58 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned NOTIFY 65: Proposition 65 Records Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 , Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916- 445 -3846 Proposition 65 Notification Records. NOTIFY 65 contains facility notifications about any release which could impact , drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. Date of Govern ment Version: 10/21/93 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11/01/93 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/19193 Elapsed ASTM days: 18 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 10120/03 , TOXIC PITS: Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916- 227 -4364 , Toxic PITS Cleanup Act Sites. TOXIC PITS identifies sites suspected of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. 'TC1097960.3s Page GR -6 , I V 1 i 11 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENdI TRACKING Date of Government Version: 07/01/95 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/26/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrived at EDR: 08/30/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 27 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 SWF /LF (SWIS): Solid Waste Information System Source: Integrated Waste Management Board Telephone: 916 -341 -6320 Active, Closed and Inactive Landfills. SWF /LF records typically contain an inve Mory of solid waste disposed facilities or landfills. These may be active or d nactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposed sites. Date of Government Version: 09/12/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/16/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrived at EDR: 09/15/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 31 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /15/03 WMUDS/SWAT: Waste Management Unit Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 227 -4448 Waste Management Unit Database System. WMUDS is used by the State Water Resources Control Board staff and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for program tracking and inventory of waste management units. WMUDS is composed of the following databases: Facility Information, Scheduled Inspections Information, Waste Management Unit Information, SWAT Program Information, SWAT Report Summary Information, SWAT Report Summary Data, Chapter 15 (formerly Subchapter 15) Information, Chapter 15 Monitoring Parameters, TPCA Program Information, RCRA Program Information, Closure Information, and Interested Parties Information. Date of Government Version: 04101/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 05/10/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/10/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 30 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/12/03 LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 341 -5740 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an Inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government Version: 04/02103 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/25/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/16/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 9 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03 CA BOND EXP. PLAN: Bond Expenditure Plan ' Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916- 255 -2118 Department of Health Services developed a she- specific expenditure plan as the basis for an appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act funds. It is not updated. 1] Date of Government Version: 01/01/89 Date Made Active at EDR: 08/02/94 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned CA UST: UST: Active UST Facilities Source: SWRCS Telephone: 916 -341 -5700 Active UST facilities gathered from the local regulatory agencies Date of Government Version: 04 /02/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 04 /30/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07127194 Elapsed ASTM days: 6 Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/31/94 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/16/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 14 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03 ' TC1097960.3s Page GR -7 GOVERNMENT RECOR DS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916 - 3233400 Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC's costs. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/17/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415 -972 -3368 Date of Government Version: 03 /01/03 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09 /02/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 15 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/31/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 11 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/24/03 CA FID UST: Facility Inventory Database Source: Califomia Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916 - 445 -6532 The Facility Inventory Database (FID) contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board. Refer to local /county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/31/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/29195 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/05/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 24 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/98 HIST UST: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916341 -5700 The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical listing of UST sites. Refer to local /county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/15/90 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/12/91 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS AST: Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 341 -5712 Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks. Date of Government Version: 07/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/25/91 Elapsed ASTM days: 18 Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/26/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04 CLEANERS: Cleaner Facilities Source: Department of To>ac Substance Control Telephone: 916- 225 -0873 A list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers. These are facilities with certain SIC codes: power laundries, family and commercial; garment pressing and cleaner's agents; linen supply; coin - operated laundries and cleaning; drycleaning plants, except rugs; carpet and upholster cleaning; industrial launderers; laundry and garment services. Date of Government Version: 03 /11/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 TC1097960.35 Page GR -8 11 GOVERN,.MENT RECflRQS. SEARCHED / DATA CtJRF ENCYTRACKfNG _. CA WDS: Waste Discharge System ' Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 -657 -1571 Sites which have been issued waste discharge requirements. Date of Government Version: 09 /22/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly DEED: List of Deed Restrictions Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 The use of recorded land use restrictions is one of the methods the DTSC uses to protect the public from unsafe exposures to hazardous substances and wastes. Date of last EDR Contact: 09 /24/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03 Date of Government Version: 10/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/003 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 NFA: No Further Action Determination ' Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains properties at which DTSC has made a clear determination that the property does not pose a problem to the environment or to public health. ' Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly 1 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 EMI: Emissions Inventory Data Source: California Air Resources Board Telephone: 916- 322 -2990 Toxics and criteria pollutant emissions data collected by the ARB and local air pollution agencies. Date of Government Version: 12/31/01 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 REF: Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916.323 -3400 This category contains properties where contamination has not been confirmed and which were determined as not requiring direct DTSC Site Mitigation Program action or oversight. Accordingly, these sites have been referred to another state or local regulatory agency. Date of Government Version: 00/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact 091=03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 SCH: School Property Evaluation Program Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916- 323 -3400 This category contains proposed and existing school sites that are being evaluated by DTSC for possible hazardous materials contamination. In some cases, these properties may be listed in the CalSites category depending on the level of threat to public health and safety or the environment they pose. Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 ' NFE: Properties Needing Further Evaluation Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916 - 323 -3400 This category contains properties that are suspected of being contaminated. These are unconfirmed contaminated t properties that need to be assessed using the PEA process. PEA in Progress indicates properties where DTSC is currently conducting a PEA. PEA Required indicates properties where DTSC has determined a PEA is required, but not currently underway. 1 TC1097960.3s Page GR -9 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY:TRACKING Date of Government Version: 08/31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of last EDR Contact: 09 /02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 HAZNET: Hazardous Waste Information System Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916- 255 -1136 Facility and Manifest Data. The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DTSC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000 - 500,000 shipments. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD ID, waste category, and disposal method. Date of Government Version: 12/31/01 Database Release Frequency: Annually ALAMEDA COUNTY: Local Oversight Program Listing of UGT Cleanup Sties Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510-567 -6700 Date of Government Version: 07/03/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Underground Tanks Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510 -567 -6700 Date of Government Version: 07/03/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/11/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 She List Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department Telephone: 925-646 -2286 List includes sites from the underground tank, hazardous waste generator and business plan/2185 programs. Date of Government Version: 09/04/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually FRESNO COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 CUPA Resources List Source: Dept. of Community Health Telephone: 559 -445 -3271 Certified Unified Program Agency. CUPA's are responsible for implementing a unified hazardous materials and hazardous waste management regulatory program. The agency provides oversight of businesses that deal with hazardous materials, operate underground storage tanks or aboveground storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 10/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04 TC1097960.3s Page GR -10 1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED i DATA CURRENCY TRACKING KERN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Shea & Tank Listing Source: Kern County Environment Health Services Department Telephone: 661- 862 -8700 Kern County Sites and Tanks Listing. Date of Government Version: 07/25103 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LOS ANGELES COUNTY: List of Solid Waste Facilities Source: La County Department of Public Works Telephone: 91&45&5185 Date of Government Version: 06/03103 Database Release Frequency: Varies City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tank Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department Telephone: 310- 524 -2236 Date of Government Version: 09 /11/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tank Source: City of Long Beach Fire Department Telephone: 562 - 570 -2543 Date of Government Version: 03/28/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually City of Torrance Underground Storage Tank Source: City of Torrance Fire Department Telephone: 310618 -2973 Date of Government Version: 09103103 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually City of Los Angeles Landfills Source: Engineering& Construction Division Telephone: 213 -473 -7869 Date of Government Version: 03/01/02 Database Release Frequency: Varies HMS: Street Number List Source: Department of Public Works Telephone: 626 -458 -3517 Industrial Waste and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Date of Government Version: 09 /30/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Site Mitigation List Source: Community Health Services Telephone: 323 -890 -7806 Industrial sites that have had some sort of spill or complaint. Date of last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 Date of last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 Date of last EDR Contact: 11/24/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11117103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 Date of last EDR Contact: 09115103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Date of last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02116/04 TC1097960.3s Page GR -11 GOVERNMENT RECORDS. SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 01/07/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 San Gabriel Valley Areas of Concern Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415- 972 -3178 San Gabriel Valley areas where VOC contamination is at or above the MCL as designated by region 9 EPA office. Date of Government Version: 12/31/98 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned 171_122[.1d112Ye'i Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Public Works Department Waste Management Telephone: 415-499-6647 Currently permitted USTs in Marin County. Date of Government Version: 08/19/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually NAPA COUNTY: Sites With Reported Contamination Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707 - 253 -4269 Date of Government Version: 10/02/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707 - 253 -4269 Date of Government Version: 10/02/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually ORANGE COUNTY: List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714- 834 -3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Cleanups (LUST). Date of Government Version: 07/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714- 834 -3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST). Date of Government Version: 09 /02/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly List of Industrial Site Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714- 834 -3446 Petroleum and non - petroleum spills. Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/06/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02104 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/30/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/30/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/11/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/11/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 TC1097960.3s Page GR -12 GOVERNMENT RE-0 SEARCWED / DAv CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 10/24/00 Database Release Frequency: Annually PLACER COUNTY: Master List of Facilities Source: Placer County Health and Human Services Telephone: 530- 889 -7312 List includes aboveground tanks, underground tanks and cleanup sites. Date of Government Version: 10/16/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 909- 358 -5055 Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 06 /03/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Tank List Source: Health Services Agency Telephone: 909- 358 -5055 Date of Government Version: 05/30/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SACRAMENTO COUNTY: CS - Contaminated Sites Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916- 875 -8406 Date of Government Version: W/17/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/11/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of last EDR Contact: 09/23/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12122/03 Date of last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01A 9/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 Date of last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02102/D4 ML - Regulatory Compliance Master List Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916 -875 -8406 Any business that has hazardous materials on site - hazardous material storage sites, underground storage tanks, waste generators. Date of Government Version: 07/17/03 Date of last EDR Contact: 11/03/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02104 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Hazardous Material Permits Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909-387 -3041 This listing includes underground storage tanks, medical waste handlers/generatcrs, hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators, and waste oil generators/handlers. TC1097960.3s Page GR -13 GOVERNMENT'RECORDS SEARCHED / DA. TA CURRENCY TRACKING'', Date of Government Version: 09 /30/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Solid Waste Facilities Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 619338 -2209 San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities. Date of Government Version: 08101/00 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /09/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12108/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02123/04 Hazardous Materials Management Division Database Source: Hazardous Materials Management Division Telephone: 619338 -2268 The database includes: HE58 - This report contains the business name, site address, business phone number, establishment W permit number, type of permit, and the business status. HE17 - In addition to providing the same information provided in the HE58 listing, HE17 provides inspection dates, violations received by the establishment, hazardous waste generated, the quantity, method of storage, treatment/disposal of waste and the hauler, and information on underground storage tanks. Unauthorized Release List - Includes a summary of environmental contamination cases in San Diego County (underground tank cases, non -tank cases, groundwater contamination, and soil contamination are included.) Date of Government Version: 03/31/02 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY: Local Oversite Facilities Source: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Telephone: 415- 252 -3920 Date of Government Version: 09/11/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Information Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 415- 252 -3920 Date of Government Version: 09 /11/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN MATEO COUNTY: Fuel Leak List Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650 -363 -1921 Date of Government Version: 07/21/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09108/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12108103 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01 /26/04 Business Inventory Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650363 -1921 Ust includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generators, and underground storage tanks. TC1097960.3s Page GA-14 1 , I [l G�VERNMEAkT RECORDS .SEARCHED / DA7`�A CURRENCY'TRACICtNG 1 1 i ITC1097960.3s Page GR -15 Date of Government Version: 11/13/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/13/03 ' Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Nerd Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04 SANTA CLARA COUNTY: Fuel Leak Site Activity Report Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District Telephone: 408- 265 -2600 ' Daze of Government Version: 07/02/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09130/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Hazardous Material Facilities Source: City of San Jose Fire Department ' Telephone: 408- 277 -4659 Daze of Government Version: 10/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /08/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 SOLANO COUNTY: ' Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707 -421 -6770 Date of Government Version: 08/21/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 1 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Underground Storage Tanks ' Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707- 421 -6770 Date of Government Version: 08/21/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 ' SONOMA COUNTY: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sties Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 707 -565 -6565 Daze of Government Version: 10/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 SUTTER COUNTY: Underground Storage Tanks Source: Sutter County Department of Agriculture Telephone: 530 -B22 -7500 Date of Government Version: 07/01/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 1 1 i ITC1097960.3s Page GR -15 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING VENTURA COUNTY: Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805- 654 -2813 Ventura County Inventory of Closed, Illegal Abandoned, and Inactive Sites. Date of Government Version: 09/01/02 Database Release Frequency: Annually Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 Ventura County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 09 /26/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: '11/26/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /15/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Underground Tank Closed Sites List Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 Ventura County Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites (UST)/Underground Tank Closed Sites List. Date of Government Version: 07/30/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/16/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12104 Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Producers, and Operating Underground Tanks Source: Ventura County Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 The BWT list indicates by site address whether the Environmental Health Division has Business Plan (B), Waste Producer (W), and /or Underground Tank (T) information. Date of Government Version: 09 /02/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly YOLO COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Comprehensive Facility Report Source: Yolo County Department of Health Telephone: 530 -666 -8646 Date of Government Version: 10/29/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) LUST Records LUST REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigation Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast (1) Telephone: 707 -576 -2220 Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, MDdoc, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Trinity counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. Date of Government Version: 02/01/01 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 LUST REG 2: Fuel Leak List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510- 286 -0457 1 "C7097960.35 Page GA-16 I GOVERNMENT RECORDS'SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 03/28/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 3: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 80.5 -549 -3147 Date of Government Version: 05119/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/16/04 LUST REG 4: Underground Storage Tank Leak Ust Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213 -576 -6600 Los Angeles, Ventura counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. Date of Government Version: 08109/01 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned LUST REG 5: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916- 255 -3125 Date of Government Version: 07/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/30/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/16/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 LUST REG BL: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing 1 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahonten Region (6) Telephone: 916 -542 -5424 For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. I 1 Date of Government Version: D9 /09/03 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 LUST REG 6V: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Victorville Branch Office (6) Telephone: 760 - 3467491 Date of Government Version: 11/13/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 r LUST REG 7: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region (7) Telephone: 760- 3467491 Date of Government Version: 07/02/02 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: D9 /30/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12129/03 LUST REG 8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (B) Telephone: 909- 782 -4498 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8). For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. Date of Government Version: 09/16/03 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09104 LUST REG 9: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Report ' Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 858 -467 -2980 Orange, Riverside, San Diego counties. For more current information, please refer to the State Water Resources Control Board's LUST database. r I ITC1097960.3s Page GR -17 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY, TRACKING Date of Government Version: 03101/01 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) SLIC Records SLIC REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigations Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (1) Telephone: 707 - 576 -2220 Date of Govemment Version: 04/03/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually I I Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03 , Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 SLIC REG 2: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 51G-286-0457 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 03/28/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04 SLIC REG 3: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805.549 -3147 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 09/16/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/17/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02116/04 SLIC REG 4: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Region Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213 -576 -6600 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 10/01/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04 SLIC REG 5: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916 -855 -3075 - Unregulated sites that impact groundwater or have the potential to impact groundwaler. Date of Government Version: 10/20/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually SLIC REG SL: SLIC Sites Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region Telephone: 530- 542-5574 Date of Government Version: D9 /09/03 Database Release Frequency: Varies SLIC REG 6V: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Victorville Branch Telephone: 619 -241 -6583 Date of Government Version: 05/06/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually SLIC REG 7: SLIC List Source: California Regional Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region Telephone: 760 - 346 -7491 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09 /08103 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/08/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 TC1097960.35 Page GR -18 , I 1 I I 1 1 J LJ I C I I LJ LJ GOVERNMENX RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY = TRACKING Date of Government Version: 05/29/03 Database Release Frequency: Varies SLIC REG 8: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Region Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 909- 782 -3298 Date of Government Version: 04 /01/03 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually SLIC HEG 9: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 858 -467 -2980 Date of Government Version: 09 /08/03 Database Release Frequency: Annually EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/01/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01/03 Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The e>stence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. @CCopyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative. Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc. The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. BROWNFIELDS DATABASES VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Telephone: 916 - 323 -3400 Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and /or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC's costs. Date of Government Version: 08 /31/03 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/01103 US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202 -566 -2777 Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments -EPA's Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities -- especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots -- minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and /or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients - States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields - related cleanup activities. TC1097960.3s Page GR -19 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING P Date of Government Version: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A OTHER DATABASE(S) Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in t994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Une Graphs , from t: tOO,000 -Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines. Electric Power Transmission Line Data , Source: PennWell Corporation Telephone: (800) 823 -6277 This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell. Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all , sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. ARA Hospitals: Source: American Hospital Association, Inc. Telephone: 3 t2-280-599t The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals. Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing ' Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Telephone: 4t O- 786 -3000 A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nursing Homes Source: National Institutes of+iealth Telephone: 30t-594-6248 Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States. Public Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202 -502 -7300 The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical ' database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are comparable across all states. Private Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics ' Telephone: 202 -502 -7300 The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States. Daycare Centers: Licensed Facilities Source: Department of Social Services Telephone: 9t6-657-4041 Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in t999 from the Federal ' Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts t00 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWt: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR , in 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. TCt097960.3s Page GR -20 ' GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED - DATA-.CURRENCY-.-TRACKING' STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION ® 2003 Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Rel. 07/2002. This product contains proprietary and confidential property of Geographic Data Technology, Inc. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is expressly prohibited. TC1097960.3s Page GR -21 G,E0 HECK ;PHYSICAL WgING SOUFICE AOD&DUM TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS NEWPORT BEACH REGENT HOTEL WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD115TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES Latitude (North): Longitude (West): Universal Tranverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTM Y (Meters): Elevation: 33.608398 - 33° 36'30.2" 117.923203 - 117'55'23.5" Zone 11 414351.9 3718926.2 6 ft. above sea level EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum has been developed to assist the environmental professional with the collection of physical setting source information in accordance with ASTM 1527 -00, Section 7.2.3. Section 7.2.3 requires that a current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (or equivalent, such as the USGS Digital Elevation Model) be reviewed. It also requires that one or more additional physical setting sources be sought when (1) conditions have been identified in which hazardous substances or petroleum products are likely to migrate to or from the property, and (2) more information than is provided in the current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (or equivalent) is generally obtained, pursuant to local good commercial or customary practice, to assess the impact of migration of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Such additional physical setting sources generally include information about the topographic, hydrologic, hydrogeologic, and geologic characteristics of a site, and wells in the area. Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components: 1. Groundwater flow direction, and 2. Groundwater flow velocity. Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the geologic strata. EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration. TC1097960.3s Page A-1 GEOCIfEC0 �'_PHYSICAL SETTING SODA SUkyMAHY GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site - specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers). TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY USGS Topographic Map: 33117 -E8 NEWPORT BEACH OE S, CA General Topographic Gradient: General East Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES F- 0 m W , 0 m W North 1111111 Target Property Elevation: 6 ft. TP 0 112 1 Miles Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. TC1097960.3s Page A -2 GEOCHECKS PHYSICAL SETTING SOUR ICE SUMMARY HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways and bodies of water). FEMA FLOOD ZONE Target Property County ORANGE,CA Flood Plain Panel at Target Property: Additional Panels in search area: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY NWI Quad at Target Property NEWPORT BEACH FEMA Flood Electronic Data YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map 06059CO054E Not Reported NWI Electronic Data Coverage YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. SH"pecdk Hydrogeo/agica/ Data`-. Search Radius: 1.25 miles Status: Not found AQUIFLOW® Search Radius: 1.000 Mile. EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table. For additional site Information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings 01Gpcmpmpg l gl mgmwM1eCreaO n bpy m CmERtioCn IIS Plerh. Ne„ BelnpMpa H,d, WA NI ryMa reaervM. M W IM1e nbe„®11m eM [pF'v,e gemnlM a,a tllme AMe tlletl EPA re�ud(s), wl�th nne angNbd uMm and Lv IMrem SyYe (CERCLIS) nvnatlpetici. TC1097960.3s Page A -3 LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW 1 1/8 - 1/4 Mile ESE Varies A2 1/2 - 1 Mile NW Not Reported 3 1/2 - 1 Mile NNW Not Reported A4 1/2 -1 Mile NW S A5 1/2 -1 Mile NW S 7 1/2 - 1 Mile NNW NE 9 1/2 - 1 Mile North SW For additional site Information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings 01Gpcmpmpg l gl mgmwM1eCreaO n bpy m CmERtioCn IIS Plerh. Ne„ BelnpMpa H,d, WA NI ryMa reaervM. M W IM1e nbe„®11m eM [pF'v,e gemnlM a,a tllme AMe tlletl EPA re�ud(s), wl�th nne angNbd uMm and Lv IMrem SyYe (CERCLIS) nvnatlpetici. TC1097960.3s Page A -3 I II Il II II U I I 171 GEOCF1 W..- TKY51CALS TTtNG SOURCE 5111111ifAARY' GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes move more quickly through sandy - gravelly types of soils than silty - clayey types of soils. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed at which contaminant migration may be occurring. ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION Era: Cenozoic Category: Stratifed Sequence System: Quaternary Series: Quaternary Code: 0 (decoded above as Era, System & Series) Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS -11 (1994). DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data. Soil Component Name: URBAN LAND Soil Surface Texture: variable Hydrologic Group: Not reported Soil Drainage Class: Not reported Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Not Reported Depth to Bedrock Min: > 10 inches Depth to Bedrock Max: > 10 inches Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Rate (in/hr) Soil Reaction (pH) 1 0 inches 6 inches variable Not reported Not reported Max: 0.00 Min: 0.00 Max: 0.00 Min: 0.00 TC1097960.3s Page A -4 GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SEIMMARY= OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data, the following additional subordinant soil types may appear within the general area of target property. Soil Surface Textures: sandy loam gravelly - sandy loam silt loam clay sand gravelly - sand fine sandy loam fine sand Surficial Soil Types: sandy loam gravelly - sandy loam sift loam clay sand gravelly - sand fine sandy loam fine sand Shallow Soil Types: fine sandy loam gravelly - loam sandy clay sandy clay loam clay sand silty clay Deeper Soil Types: gravelly - sandy loam sandyloam stratified very gravelly - sandy loam weathered bedrock silty clay loam gravelly - fine sandy loam clay loam sand very fine sandy loam According to ASTM E 1527 -00, Section 7.2.2, 'one or more additional state or local sources of environmental records may be checked, in the discretion of the environmental professional, to enhance and supplement federal and state sources... Factors to consider in determining which local or additional state records, if any, should be checked include (1) whether they are reasonably ascertainable, (2) whether they are sufficiently useful, accurate, and complete in light of the objective of the records review (see 7.1.1), and (3) whether they are obtained, pursuant to local, good commercial or customary practice." One of the record sources listed in Section 7.2.2 is water well information. Water well information can be used to assist the environmental professional in assessing sources that may impact groundwater flow direction, and in forming an opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells. TC1097960.3s Page A -5 aROC4#ECI� . PHYS�CA� S ITINGi SOU�iCE SE M GARY: LF DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles) Federal USGS 11000 Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile State Database 1.000 FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP No Wells Found FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION TC1097960.3s Page A -6 LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP a CA3900831 1(2- 1 Mile NNW Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location. STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP No Wells Found TC1097960.3s Page A -6 MOCHE' P"t, S CA6 S$TTMQ SOURCE MAP; FINDING$ Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR 1 Site ID: 083000618T ESE Groundwater Flow: Varies AOUIFLOW 54866 118. 114 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 5.01 Date: 04/06/1999 A2 Site ID: 083DO1570T NW Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AOUIFLOW 51085 1/2 -1 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 5 Deep Water Depth: 6.5 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 0611990 3 Site ID: 083001822T NNW Groundwater Flow. Not Reported AOUIFLOW 36621 1/2.1 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 3.5 Deep Water Depth: 7.5 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 02/18/1993 A4 Site ID: 083000431T NW Groundwater Flow: S AOUIFLOW 68195 1/2.1 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 5 Deep Water Depth: 8 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 07/31/1991 A5 Site ID: 083DDD431T NW Groundwater Flow: S AOUIFLOW 66196 112 -1 mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 5 Deep Water Depth: 8 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 07/31/1991 6 Site ID: 083000449T NW Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AOUIFLOW 50954 1/2 -1 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: 4.23 Deep Water Depth: 6.06 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 0311991 7 Site ID: 083000104T NNW Groundwater Flow: NE AOUIFLOW 37860 1/2 -1 Mile Higher Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 4 Date: 04/16/1996 TC1097960.3s Page A -8 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation 8 NNW 1/2 -1 Mlle Higher GEOCHECK PHYSICAL- SETTING SOURCE MAR. NDINGS Database EDR ID Number FRDS PWS CA3900831 PWS ID: CA3900831 PWS Status: Not Reported Date Initiated: Not Reported Date DeactivatedNot Reported PWS Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK 1993 -07 -01 - 2000 -0404 Violation ID: IRVINE, CA 92714 Enforcement Dale: Addressee / Facility: System Owner /Responsible Party ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK Violation Type: NEWPORT PACIFIC CAPITAL Contaminant: LEAD & COPPER RULE 369 SAN MIGUEL 1993 -07 -01 - 2015 -12 -31 Violation ID: NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Enforcement Dale: Facility Latitude: 33 37 08 Facility Longitude] 17 55 41 City Served: Not Reported Contaminant: Treatment Class: Untreated Population: 340 PWS currently has or had major violation(s) or enforcement: Yes Violations information not reported. ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION: 71 System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant: LEAD & COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993 -07 -01 - 2000 -0404 Violation ID: 95V0001 Enforcement Dale: 2000 -04 -04 System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK Violation Type: Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu Contaminant: LEAD & COPPER RULE Compliance Period: 1993 -07 -01 - 2015 -12 -31 Violation ID: 95V0001 Enforcement Dale: Not Reported System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK Violation Type: 71 Contaminant: 7000 Compliance Period: 1999 -10 -19 - 2015-12 -31 Violation ID: 99V0001 Enforcement Date: Not Reported System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK Violation Type: 71 Contaminant: 7000 Compliance Period: 1999 -10 -19 - 2015 -12 -31 Violation ID: 99V0001 Enforcement Date: 2000 -04 -04 System Name: ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK Violation Type: 71 Contaminant: 7000 Compliance Period: 1999 -10 -19 - 2015 -12 -31 Violation ID: 99V0001 Enforcement Dale: Not Reported Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Enforcement ID: 0089899 Ent. Action: State Compliance Achieved Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Ent. Action: Not Reported Analytical Value: 0 Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enf. Action: Not Reported Analytical Value: 0000000.000000000 Enforcement ID: 0089899 Enf. Action: State Compliance Achieved Analytical Value: 0000000.000( Enforcement ID: Not Reported Enf, Action: Not Reported TC1097960.3s Page A -9 i i GEOCHECK ®- f?HYSfCAL SETTfWG Sf�U%ifvE MAf FINDINGS, Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number 9 SitelD: 083000359T North Groundwater Flow: SW AOUIFLOW 65144 1 Mile Higher Hig her Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 10 Date: 04/14/1995 TC1097960.3s Page A -10 GEOGHJ�GK ?- PHYSICAL _$IEiTING SOUF C [4WA FtNDit!IGS AREA RADON INFORMATION State Database: CA Radon Radon Test Results Zip Total Sites > 4 PcVL Pd. > 4 Pa /L 92663 14 2 14.29 Federal EPA Radon Zone for ORANGE County: 3 Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi /L. Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCVL and <= 4 pCVL. Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCVL. Federal Area Radon Information for ORANGE COUNTY, CA Number of sites tested: 30 Area Average Activity % <4 pCVL % 4-20 pCVL %>20 pCi /L Living Area - 1 st Floor 0.763 pCVl- 100% 0% 0% Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Basement Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported TC1097960.3s Page A -11 I I PHYSICAL SErnNiG SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED; TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Source: United States Geologic Survey EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002.7.5- Minute DEMs correspond to the USGS t:24,000- and t:25,000 -scale topographic quadrangle maps. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in t999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts too -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION AOUIFLOW Information System Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information EDR has developed the AOUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table information. ' GEOLOGIC INFORMATION Geologic Age and Rock Stratlgraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at t:2,500,000 Scale - A digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - t t (1994). STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. boil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES IFEDERAL WATER WELLS PWS: Public Water Systems Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202 - 5643750 Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources. 1 I I PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202 - 5643750 Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after August t995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS) This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater. TC1097960.3s Page A -t2 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS. SEARCHED STATE RECORDS California Drinking Water Quality Database Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916- 3242319 The database includes all drinking water compliance and special studies monitoring for the state of Cal'domia since 1984. It consists of over 3,200,000 individual analyses along with well and water system information. California Oil and Gas Well Locations for District 2, 3, 5 and 6 Source: Department of Conservation Telephone: 916 -323 -1779 RADON State Database: CA Radon Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916 - 3242208 Radon Database for Caldomia Area Radon Information Source: USGS Telephone: 703 - 356-4020 The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPAIState Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. EPA Radon Zones Source: EPA Telephone: 703- 356 -4020 Sections 307 & 309 of FAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. OTHER Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 - 4576656 Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration California Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quaternary fault lines, prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey. Additional information (also from 1975) regarding activity at specific fault lines comes from California's Preliminary Fault Activity Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology. TC1097960.3s Page A -13 , EIR -3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 June 3, 2004 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (PA 2003 -218) APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed project and DEIR, receive public comments, and provide direction on issues to be addressed for the public hearing on July 8, 2004. DISCUSSION Background Under terms of the agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Sutherland Talla Hospitality (now Marinapark LLC), the City is required to hold one Planning Commission public hearing and one City Council public hearing on the project EIR. Pursuant to the agreement, the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council whether or not the EIR should be certified, but will not recommend whether to approve or disapprove the project. The City Council is to certify the EIR, if appropriate, and schedule the election on the General Plan amendment, but will not approve or disapprove the project. In making its decision on the details of the ballot measure, the City Council will have the ability to make some changes to the General Plan amendment request submitted by Marinapark LLC. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend changes to the General Plan amendment request, if the Commission believes changes would improve the project or reduce environmental impacts. Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2004 Page 2 of 8 The Study Session is intended to give the Planning Commission and the public the opportunity to understand the project proposal, to begin reviewing the potential environmental impacts of the project, and to identify issues that need to be addressed for the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Final EIR on July 8, 2004. Proiect Description The Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan is proposed on property currently occupied by the Marinapark Mobile Home Park, Las Arenas Park, Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, four public tennis courts, one -half basketball court, a children's play area, and a metered parking lot on an 8.1 -acre site on Balboa Blvd. between 15th and 18th Streets. The project applicant, Marinapark LLC, proposes to remove and /or demolish existing structures on the property and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that will include a lobby and registration area, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four tennis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility, and a tot lot. EIR Certification Process A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the project and circulated for public comment on April 26, 2004. The DEIR was transmitted to the Commission previously. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, the review period is 45 days and will end on June 9, 2004. During this time, affected government agencies and the public may submit written comments on the Draft EIR. To date, the City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee and the Southern California Association of Governments have provided written comments on the Draft EIR (Attachment A). At the end of the Draft EIR circulation period on June 9th, written comments received and written responses to these comments will be included with the Draft EIR document in the form of the Final EIR for the project. On July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and make its recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not to certify the Final EIR. The City Council will hold public hearings and consider the Planning Commission recommendation on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and on July 27, 2004. On July 27th, the City Council may certify the Final EIR if it determines that, after reviewing the document, the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. Mafinapark Resort and Community Plan Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2004 Page 3 of 8 Draft EIR Summary: The Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft EIR identifies the range of potential environmental impacts that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project. The range of impacts analyzed in the DEIR was based on an Initial Study (included in the DEIR) that concluded that no further analysis was needed for environmental issues related to agricultural resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation. The DEIR includes a description and analysis, by subject area (Land Use, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Traffic, etc.), of each impact determined to be potentially significant. Based on this analysis, a level of significance is assigned to each potential impact: "No Impact," "Less than Significant," or "Significant." Mitigation measures are identified for "significant" impacts. A level of significance is again assigned to each potential impact according to the extent that proposed mitigation measures may reduce the severity of the impact. Alternatives to the project that may result in lesser impacts on the environment than the proposed project are also evaluated in the Draft EIR. As shown in the "Executive Summary" (Page 2 -1) of the DEIR, the analysis concludes that, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, no significant impacts to the environment would result from construction and operation of the proposed project. Potential environmental effects of the proposed project which can be mitigated so that no significant impacts result are indicated below. Impact Geology and Soils Liquefaction of soils during an earthquake Hydroloov and Water Quality Degradation of water quality Mitigation Measure Building design and construction incorporating structural components that resist soil collapse Preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2004 Page 4 of 8 Impact Mitigation Measure Overload storm drain system Construction of on -site detention basins Biological Resources Cement walkway results in loss of shoreline habitat for shorebirds Disruption of benthic resources through loss of soft bottom habitat Development of shorebird foraging habitat replacement site Development of benthic habitat replacement site and revision of slip plans to include elevated walkway from beach to slips Long -term impacts to fish Development of benthic habitat resources through loss of soft replacement site bottom foraging habitat Disruption of California least tern Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan and California brown pelican including Best Management Practices foraging behavior through site grading and bay dredging and construction noise Periodic loss of eelgrass through Development of a plan for restoration of maintenance dredging eelgrass habitat pursuant to Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Loss of halibut nursery habitat Development of a benthic habitat replacement site and preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Construction, vessel movement, Preparation and implementation of a and increased turbidity levels Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and could affect Eelgrass Restoration Water Quality Management Plan Project incorporating best management practices Bulkhead and support pilings for Development of benthic habitat boat slips will result in long -term replacement site and revision of slip plans loss of sand beach and soft to include elevated walkway from beach bottom habitat to slips and development of a benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site Impact Air Qualit Dust resulting from construction activities Exceed thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases through use of paint and other coatings in construction phase Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2004 Page 5 of 8 Mitigation Measure Compliance with Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and adopt and implement a construction traffic management plan Use pre- coated materials, high pressure low- volume paint applicators with 50% efficiency, lower volatility paint The Executive Summary of the DER also includes environmental components that would not be adversely affected by project development and operation as shown below. Land Use: Project development is consistent with General Plan Policies and the Harbor and Bay Element and the Newport Beach Municipal Code and with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies on public access, views, parking, dock facilities, public restrooms and historic resource inventory; project complies with Zoning Code for Community Plans; project is compatible with nearby land uses and maintains public beach access and replaces existing recreation facilities; structures nearest the Bay will be one -story and structures adjacent to 15`h and 18`h Streets will be similar in scale to nearby buildings; Transportation: The project will generate a net increase of 520 average daily trips during the "shoulder' e.g. fall and spring season which, compared to existing traffic, does not represent a significant impact. The project would generate a net increase of 360 average daily trips during the summer season which, compared to existing traffic, does not represent a significant impact; Noise: The project is consistent with the City's performance standards for locating land uses in noisy environments; restriction of construction hours would reduce adverse effect of equipment noise to less than significant level; noise modeling indicates no increase in traffic- related noise levels; Aesthetics: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2004 Page 6 of 8 The architectural features of buildings included with the project are consistent in size and scale with existing development and existing views to the bay from public rights - of -way will be substantially maintained; Public Services and Utilities: Existing public facilities and resources for police and fire protection were deemed adequate to serve the project based on interviews with the respective department representatives; facilities and infrastructure for solid waste disposal, water service, wastewater service, natural gas, and electricity were all deemed adequate for the needs of the project based on information from the respective service providers. Alternatives to the Marinapark Resort project are analyzed in the DEIR and their potential impacts are compared with those of the proposed project. Any of the alternatives may be determined to be environmentally superior if, overall, the magnitude of impacts is less than that of the proposed project. Each alternative, however, must also be evaluated in light of the project objectives identified by the applicant and City of Newport Beach and set forth in the DEIR as follows: • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands; • Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between t6ideland revenue and tideland expenditures; • Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents; • Enhance public access and community faci8lities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users; • Ensure that site redevelopment does not generate noise, glare or traffic that could adversely impact the residents in the vicinity or the American Legion adjacent to the site; • Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2004 Page 7 of 8 Alternatives analyzed in the DEIR, the magnitude of overall impact compared with the project, and the extent to which each meets project objectives identified above are as follow: "No Proiect/No Development Alternative" This alternative assumes that existing mobile homes and recreational facilities remain. No additional environmental impacts would result but this alternative would not meet project objectives for area revitalization, consistency with tidelands restrictions, reduction of tidelands deficit, generation of additional revenue, or provision of additional marine - related facilities. "Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative" This alternative assumes removal of the mobile homes and development of new recreational facilities including 2 charter boat moorings, 20 boat slips, boat launch area, parkland, a Girl Scout/Community Center building, tennis /basketball courts, beach and boat slip parking area. This alternative would result in lesser impacts to geology and soils, aesthetics, and public services and utilities as compared with the proposed project. Impacts associated with land use and planning would be similar to those of the project. Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality, geological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise would be greater as compared with the proposed project. The Marine Recreation Alternative would meet project objectives related to area revitalization, consistency with tidelands restrictions, and provision of additional marine - related facilities. This alternative, however, may not reduce the tidelands revenue deficit and may not generate additional general fund revenue or enhance public access without an expenditure of tax revenue. "Reduced Intensity Alternative" This alternative assumes development of an 80 -room luxury resort hotel, a 4,500 square -foot restaurant, and 12 boat slips. This alternative would result in lesser impacts to geology and soils and to aesthetics as compared with the proposed project. Impacts associated with traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities would be greater for this alternative than for the proposed project. Similar impacts Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Planning Commission Staff Report June 3, 2004 Page 8 of 8 would be incurred for hydrology and water quality, geological resources, and land use and planning. Based on consideration of the relative impacts of each alternative compared with the proposed project, and on the extent to which each alternative and the proposed project satisfy the objectives set forth by the City of Newport Beach for redevelopment of the proposed project site, the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan is deemed to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative consistent with guidelines set forth in CEQA. CONCLUSION The Study Session will allow members of the Planning Commission and the public to better understand the proposed project and to evaluate the basis for conclusions about potential environmental impacts set forth in the Draft EIR for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. The Study Session will prepare Planning Commissioners for the public hearing on the Final EIR on July 8, 2004, and for the ensuing recommendation to City Council on the Final EIR. Staff hopes for an extensive dialog where as many issues as possible can be highlighted so as to better prepare for the hearing scheduled for July 8, 2004. Prepared by: aN :}acmes W. Campb II, SeniorPlanner Attachments Submitted by: m, 471 1. MJ/ Patricia L. %mple, PI nning Director 1. Correspondence 2. Project conceptual plans — separate large format drawings This Page Left Intentionally Blank io SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 -3435 t (213) 236 -1800 f (213) 236 -1825 wwkyScag.ca.gov officers. president: Counchmembe: Ron Roberts, Temecula ' First Vice President: supervisor Hank guiper. Imperial Couny, - second Vice President Mayor Toni Young, Port Hueneme - immediate Past President: Councilmember Bev Perry, Brea Imperial County: Hank come" Imperial County l0 Shields, Bradley Ins Angeles County: Yvonne Brathwahe Burke, Los Angeles County. Ze Yaroslayso. Los Angeles County - Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel - Paul Bowlen, Cerritos - TON Cardenas. Los Angeles Margaret Clark, Rosemead - Gene Daniels. Paramount - Mike Dispenza, Palmdale - Judy Dunlap, Inglewood - EriC Garcetli, Los Angeles Wendy Grevel, Los Angeles - Frank Supple. Cudahy' James Hahn. WS Angeles' Ianile Hahn. Los Angeles - Isadore Hall, Comoton - Tom LaBonge, Los Angeles - Bonnie Lowenthal, Long Beach - Marlin Ludlow, Los Angeles - Keith McCarthy, Downey - Llewellyn Miller, Claremont Cindy Mncikowski, Los Angeles - Paul Nowaka, Torrance - Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica - Alex Los s s Angeles' Bernard Parks, Los Angeles Jan Perry, Las Angeles - Beatrice P., Pim Rivers Ed Reyes. LOS Angeles' Greig Smith, Los Angeles Dick Stanford, Azusa - Tom Sykes. Walnut - Paul lalbor, Alhambra - Sidney Tyler, Pas dena -Tonic R",,S Linings, Long Beach - Antonio Yllaraigosa, LOS Angeles - Dennis Washburn. Calabasas' lack WPiSS. Los Angeles' Bob YOnseflan, Glendale' tMnniS Zine, Los Angeles Orange County: Chris Norby. Orange County Ronald Bates, Lai Alamitos - Lou Bone, Tustin Arc Brown, Buena Park - Richard Chme,, Anaheim Oebhie Cook. Huntington Beach - Canyd DeYoung, Laguna Niguel - Richard Dixon, take ForcY - Alta Duke, La Palma - Bev Perry, Brea Tod Ridgeway. Newport Beach Riverside County: Marion Ashle, Riverside County - Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore - Bonnie Flick'mger, Moreno valley - Ron Loveridge, Riverside - Greg Pettis, Cathedral City - Ron Roberts, Temecula San Bernardino County: Paul eane. San Bernardino County - Bitl Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga - Edward Burgnon, Town Of Apple Valley - Lawrence Dale, Bersto.-Lee Ann Garcia, Grand 3rrace-Susan Longville. San Bernardino GarynviC, Ontario Deboran Rabernon,Rialto Ventura County: Judy PAWS, Verwra County Glen Berens, Simi Valley - Carl Morehouse, San Buenaventura - Toni Young, Port Humeme Orange County Transportation Authority: -hales Smith. Orange County Riverside County Transportation Commission: Room Lowe, Hemet Amfir. County Transportation Commission: Bill Davis, Simi valley ) Pamed an RHMnlhxr wils-lut May 19, 2004 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. Community Plan Dear Mr. Campbeil: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 6 2004 PM 7181910111112111213141516 1 20040258 Marinapark Resort & Thank you for submitting the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of.regional goals and policies. We have reviewed the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The proposed project is not a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 16-30, 2004 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236 -1867. Thank you. Sincerely, JEFFREY M. SMITH, AICP Senior Regional Planner Intergovernmental Review li MEMORANDUM To: James Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ( "EQAC ") City of Newport Beach Subject: The City of Newport Beach's Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR") for the implementation and development of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (the "Project ") Date: May 28, 2004 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the captioned DEIR for the Project. I. A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. We recommend that the City reconsider and revise the DEIR and/or respond to the following concerns during the public review process for the DEIR. Because of the concerns listed below, we believe that the City should revise the document and re- circulate the revised document for public review and comment. We make these recommendations for several reasons: (1) The DEIR fails to describe the Project fully and accurately, thereby undercutting the public's and decision maker's ability to understand the Project, determine impacts of the Project and evaluate mitigation measures. (2) The DEIR fails to recognize and analyze potentially significant impacts discussed in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the DEIR including impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. (3) The DEIR fails to discuss and analyze all Project related impacts including those associated with Transportation/Circulation, Land Use, Hydrology and Water Quality and other issues, as well as cumulative impacts for all issues analyzed. (4) The DEIR fails to analyze fully the growth inducing impacts of the Project and/or provide mitigation for such impacts. (5) The DEIR fails to analyze and discuss fully the Project alternatives and assess objectively the environmentally superior alternative. /Z EQAC Page 2 May 28, 2004 H. Introduction: EIR Standards. which: An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document .. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision makers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa Inc. v. 32nd District Azricultural Association (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929 (Emphasis supplied). In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must provide specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. "By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozun¢ v. Local Agency Formation Com.0975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in government planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine flexibility remains "). CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant impacts: mitigation i3 EQAC Page 3 May 28, 2004 measures must really minimize an identified impact. II. Section l: Introduction and Effects Found Not to be Significant (Section 1.6). The Introduction discusses general CEQA issues, formatting of the DEIR, the IS/NOP, the scoping process and effects found not to be significant. The latter— "Effects Found Not to be Significant " — raises substantive concerns. Section 1.6 notes that, during the scoping process, various impacts were found to be potentially significant, whereas others were found not to be significant. These latter include "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," and "Recreation." For various reasons discussed below, these are potentially significant impacts: the DEIR should include a detailed discussion and analysis of such impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. A. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Appendix A of the DEIR includes the hiitial Study, Environmental Checklist and the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. The Checklist Item No. VII addresses Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Item No. VII b) indicates that it is less than significant that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. However, Item No. VII c) indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact by emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing school. Item No. VII d) indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact unless mitigated in that the Project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and as a result would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Discussion of these Items is helpful. Under Item No. VII b), the Discussion notes that, because of the presence of motorized construction equipment, there is a small risk of gasoline or diesel spillage. However, the Discussion concludes that such is less than significant. Under Item No. VII c), the Discussion notes that the Project is within one - quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. It states that an inventory of materials and quantities used in construction and operation of the Project will be created. If necessary, any hazardous materials will be identified and mitigation measures proposed. As for Item No. VII d), the Discussion explains that past or present on -site and off -site uses have the potential to result in the release of toxic substances. "[P]roj ect implementation will require the removal of onsite structures, which depending on date of construction may contain lead or asbestos materials. A regulatory database review will be conducted for the proposed project, results of the database review will be summarized in the EIR and the review results included in their entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended as appropriate." 1 EQAC Page 4 May 28, 2004 The DEIR does not address the IS/NOP analysis. Instead, the DEIR concludes that the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. For gasoline or diesel spillage, the DEIR includes a similar analysis as the IS/NOP: the risk is less than significant. For proximity to schools including Newport Elementary, the DEIR is silent. As discussed below, it refers to a (Limited) Phase II Soils Assessment but concludes no significant impact. The Phase 11 assessment is not attached as an appendix. The DEIR notes that the analysis identified small concentrations of trace petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and organocholorine pesticide in and around portions of the Project site. Submarine sediment samples indicated low concentrations of various but unidentified hydrocarbons. The DEIR fails to keep the promise of the IS/NOP: the DEIR includes no "regulatory database review and summary." Moreover, it fails to include the Phase II study or make such available for public review. Incidentally, the DEIR states that such contaminants are below action levels; yet it provides no indication as to what those action levels are. Given the promise of the IS/NOP, the DEIR should be revised to include items discussed above, and the revised DEIR should include a thorough analysis of all such impacts. Moreover, the conclusions of the Phase H study seems implausible. The Project's location is near the mouth of the Rhein Channel which we understand is regarded as highly polluted. Although the IS/NOP appeared to recognize this challenge, the DEIR fails to consider and analyze the Project's impacts including destruction and removal of existing docks and structures, construction and installation of new docks and structures, and other Project related activities on submarine sediment in and around this problematic water body. In addition, we understand that Chevron or another company had a storage facility near the Project site in the past. The DEIR should include an analysis and/or study of any emissions from the storage site and any Project related impacts arising from disturbance and/or release of any hazardous materials from such site or contamination from such site as a result of the construction and operation of the Project. Also, as discussed below, notwithstanding the DEIR's conclusion that the Project will have no significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials, the DEIR discusses the Project's hazards and hazardous materials impacts in relation to biological resources. The DEIR's analysis of hazards in relation to biological resources undercuts the DEIR's conclusions that Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. B. Recreation. The DEIR also regards the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities as insignificant. However, Project features and configuration themselves require environmental analysis in order to make such conclusion. The Project "will replace all recreational facilities except the basketball half - court." DEIR, 1 -6. This raises several problems. At the outset, the demolition and replacement of existing facilities will have short-term construction impacts on all of these recreational opportunities. 'Without more analysis and �S EQAC Page 5 May 28, 2004 discussion, such impacts appear to be significant, at least in the short term. Further, the replacement of such facilities is problematic: without further analysis and perhaps mitigation, it is unclear that the replaced facilities will provide access and have features similar to the existing facilities. Further, the elimination of the half -court basketball facility requires further analysis and discussion. This resource appears to be unique: it's configuration and alignment may make it more popular than full court facilities in the area. Also, the Project's resort proposes j oint use of the recreational facilities. Without more analysis, such use may significantly and adversely affect residents' use of the Project facilities. Finally, a crucial Project alternative is a recreation alternative. In order to assess, analyze and evaluate the alternatives, the DEIR should include an analysis of the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities. C. Conclusion. The DEIR should be revised to include a full environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. III. Section 2: Executive Summary. The Executive Summary attempts to summarize the Project Description (discussed below), the areas of controversy /issues to be resolved, and a summary of impacts and mitigation. Section 2.2 addresses areas of controversy /issues to be resolved. It notes: "The area of controversy associated with the proposed project is the intensification of land uses on the project site. The location of the tideland boundary is an issue that is to be resolved." Both of these are problematic. As to the area of controversy, "intensification of land use" improperly simplifies the issues: the area of controversy is the replacement of the current designated use— Recreational and Environmental Open Space — with a commercial use which requires a General Plan Amendment and other approvals. The DEIR's statement about the issue to be resolved — tideland boundary— is surprising. The DEIR should resolve this issue in its analysis of the existing site. The DEIR's failure to resolve this issue undercuts its usefulness. Moreover, Section 3.4 indicates that, among other permits, the Project will require a lease of tidelands. In order for the public and decision makers to understand the Project's impacts on tideland boundaries and the impacts of this lease, the DEIR should include a detailed discussion of the tidelands location, and the nature and extent of such lease. Without resolving this issue in the DEM, the document cannot fulfill its own requirements. Section 2.5 includes a table which identifies Project impacts and mitigation. For a discussion of Project impacts, see our discussion below. However, as to mitigation, Table 2 -1 raises a general problem: deferral of mitigation measures. As indicated above, CEQA requires i-s EQAC Page 6 May 28, 2004 environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. For each mitigation measure identified in Table 2 -1, each measure is deferred to some future event or permit issuance. In order to understand the nature and extent of mitigation and to assess whether the proposed mitigation fully and adequately addresses the impact, the DEIR should fully identify and discuss all mitigation measures, discuss how such measures will lessen impacts to a level of insignificance, and if necessary, provide alternative mitigation measures for any measure which does not fully mitigate identified impacts. IV. Section 3: The Project Description. Section 3. 1.1 discusses Site Characteristics. Among other things, the DEIR notes that the Project site is bound by "a public beach and Newport Bay to the north." Although Section 3. 1.1 discusses many of the current site characteristics, it fails to discuss the location and character of the tidelands issue. This issue may affect the Project, the analysis of the Project impacts, the alternatives analysis and related matters. The DEIR should include a full discussion of the tidelands boundary issue, resolve the issue, locate the boundary, and discuss all Project related impacts. Among other features, the Project includes twelve (12) new boat slips and replacement of public tennis courts on the deck of the proposed parking structure. As to the boat slips, the DEIR states that this feature will require dredging of approximately 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment to create the boat basin; this "clean sand" will be placed on shore side of a proposed Project related bulkhead. This raises several issues. The Project includes twelve (12) new marina slips with four (4) available for public use and eight (8) available for Project guests. The current forty -six (46) American Legion slips will remain. However, the DEIR fails to discuss the relation of the American Legion slips to the Project feature slips. Also, the IS/NOP and the DEIR recognize that the Project may affect hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed above, these two documents are inconsistent in their assessment of the Project's impacts on hazards. However, given that the Project requires removal and relocation of 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment, the DER should fully address the character of this sediment, analyze any impact to hazards and hazardous materials, and, if necessay, provide mitigation. Further, it is unclear where this excavation will occur especially in relation to the tidelands boundary. As noted above, the DEIR fails to discuss the tidelands location. The DEIR should pro -ride a clear description of the location of this excavation in relation to the tidelands, and if necessary, provide adequate mitigation. Regarding the tennis court, the Project description notes their location but fails to address public access to this Project feature. Indeed, the Project description fails to discuss all sorts of public access issues. How does the public gain access to the beach? Does the beach remain a publicbeach? What are the public access features for all Project related structures including the community center, tot lot, and parking? 1-7 EQAC Page 7 May 28, 2004 Also, the Project is entitled the "Marinapark Resort & Community Plan." The Project description includes no reference to the "Community Plan." The revised DEIR should fully explain the Project including the "Community Plan." Incidentally, the Project description includes some internal inconsistencies which require explanation and resolution: First, exhibit 3 -3, Site Plan, shows the Girl Scout House and the Spa Villa to be 4,166 square feet each; however Table 3.2 -1 on the next page states that the Girl Scout House /Community Center and the Spa Villa will be 6,191. Second, the Site Plan shows shared parking at the corner of 18"' Street and Balboa Boulevard, but further in the document, in the Aesthetics section, the computer - generated visual simulations shows two -story villas at this comer. Section 3.3 discusses Project Objectives. These Objectives include several economic /commercial objectives: "Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; Pro -s9de additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents. Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users." DEIR, 3 -8. The DEIR includes no detailed discussion of these and other objectives. However, it is unclear that such objectives are appropriate for the Project site and the current environmental analysis. The only Project Alternative in the DEIR which meets these economic objectives is the Project. Given these economic objectives, the DEIR should include an economic analysis which shows how and why the Project meets these and other objectives, provides a detailed discussion of City revenues from the Project including lease payments, taxes and other sources of revenue, and other economic considerations appropriate. . Section 3.4 addresses "Intended Uses" of the DEIR. The section identifies various discretionary approvals by the City. It notes: "Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified later in the section under `Other Discretionary and Ministerial Actions. "' DEIR, 3 -9. However, the DEIR contains no such section. The DEIR should be revised to include a full list of all discretionary approvals by all agencies. Finally, the DEIR inadequately covers permitting and approvals: the election requirement. We understand that the City proposes to submit this Project to the voters. The DEIR should discuss this requirement, and explain its relation to the CEQA process and Project approval. IS EQAC Page 8 May 28, 2004 V. Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting. Section 4.1 addresses the environmental setting. As indicated above, nothing in the DEIR locates the tidelands boundary. These section should be revised to include a discussion and, perhaps, a map of such boundary. Further, we understand that the Marinapark mobile home park is a park on City owned land with a lease. The DEIR recognizes that the park is a 40 -year facility but fails to discuss the lease hold, its term, the landlord and other crucial and important terms. Section 4.2 discusses related projects. It notes that the City provided several related projects; presumably, Table 4 -1 is the list provided. However, it is incomplete. First; as indicated in the Project objectives, DEIR recognizes that in the Project vicinity, the City and others are engaged in "efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula_" These efforts are related projects and should be included in the cumulative impacts list. Among other efforts, we understand that several plans to develop live /work projects in and around the Project vicinity are pending. Likewise, these plans should be included in the cumulative impacts list. VI. Section 5: Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. A. Section 51: Geologv and Soils. Section 5.1 address geotechnical impacts of the Project. The DEIR includes a geotechnical report for the site. Among other things, the DEIR notes that "[l]iquefaction occurs when shallow, fine to medium - grained sediments saturated with water are subjected to strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction usually occurs when the underlying water table is 50 feet or less below the surface." DEM, 5.1 -2. Also, the DEIR notes that expansive soils are those which can give up or take on water. Id. The DEIR notes that although the onsite soils are not expansive, "[t]he potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high." As noted above, liquefaction may depend on depth to groundwater. The DEIR should state depth to groundwater at the site, discuss the soils character, explain why, though the sands will hold water, they are not expansive and related issues. Moreover, Section 5.1.4 considers two mitigation measures. As before, this section fails to discuss depth to groundwater. The two mitigation measures depend upon permit issuance: the first depends upon issuance of a grading permit and concerns aspects of the grading plans. However, it fails to state the depth if any of such grading. The second depends upon issuance of a building permit and concerns slab alternatives. However, the section fails to determine which slab type will be employed. 1 C, EQAC Page 9 May 28, 2004 B. Section 5.2: Hvdroloev and Water Oualitv. Section 5.2 concerns hydrology and water quality. This section notes that the Project will have short-term construction impacts on water quality and hydrology, long term operational impacts and cumulative impacts. Construction impacts include soils erosion, trash and debris which may leave the Project site. In addition, construction activities in connection with the marina will include re- introduction of contaminants through construction activities which may "resuspend" bottom sediment as well as increase in turbidity. Long term operational impacts include increased flow concentrations at a majority of Project related storm drains with a decrease in several such drains. In addition, the Project will increase peak flows during 100 -year storm events along 186, and 151' Streets while flows along Balboa Boulevard would decrease somewhat. Water quality impacts of the Project include trash, debris, oil and grease, and other pollutants including heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, nutrients and organic compounds. Further, installation of a cement walkway from the resort to the marina will interrupt tidal flows and water circulation, and may create stagnant water conditions. Finally, the DEIR recognizes that the Project "will substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on existing storm drain systems." It will "also increase urban pollutants that would substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on surface water quality." The DEIR includes five mitigation measures. Most of these mitigation measures defer mitigation measures until issuance of grading permits. This analysis and mitigation is problematic for several reasons. The impacts analysis fails to discuss current drainage and percolation, as well as the proposed drainage and percolation of the Proj ect. Also, the DEIR fails to consider several potential mitigation measures. Increasing pervious surfaces may limit surface water run -off. Indeed, Section 7, the Alternatives Analysis, states that the Project is superior to the Marine Alternative due to its increase of pervious surfaces. Yet the DEIR fails to discuss this issue, analyze the nature and extent of such surfaces, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. In addition, the Project together with other revitalization efforts may significantly affect the storm drain capacity. Yet, the DEIR does not consider whether the Project may require re- sizing of storm drains in the vicinity. Also, none of the mitigation measures address the Project's cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. Mitigation of such impacts could include establishment of stormwater mitigation program for a comprehensive upgrade of the storm drains on the Peninsula. The Project could contribute its fair share to such a mitigation program. m EQAC Page 10 May 28, 2004 Further, as indicated above, such deferral of specific mitigation measures does not comply with the requirements of CEQA which requires full discussion of all impacts and mitigation. Deferral of the development of various mitigation measures until some permitting or pursuant to various regulatory bodies including the City and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board is not informative: precise Project features and mitigation are deferred until after the public and decision makers have had an opportunity to review, comment and in the case of decision makers, decide on the DEIR and the Project. The DEIR should be revised to discuss fully all water quality and hydrology impacts, and provide specific and enforceable mitigation measures to lessen any such impacts. C. Section 5.3: Biological Resources. Section 5.3 concerns the Project's potential impacts on biological resources. Section 5.3.1 addresses existing conditions including sediments and habitats and marine biological communities near the Project. As indicated above, the DEIR includes no detailed discussion of hazards and hazardous materials. Section 5.3.1 repeats the earlier discussion regarding low levels of pollutants. Further, in discussing sub -tidal bay floor sediments, the DEIR states that environmental site assessment indicates the presence of low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper one -half foot of the bay mud. This is inadequate: as indicated above, the Project will require excavation of between 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of "bay mud." Testing on the upper one -half foot fails to test the full extent of this excavation. The DEIR should be revised to include a full analysis of hazards and hazardous materials so that the entire environmental analysis of the Project's impacts including hazards and hazardous materials and biological resources. Also as indicated above, the analysis indicates that contaminates including those in sub -tidal bay sediments are below action levels for soils on land but fails to provide the action levels. The revised DEIR should provide this information, or indicate that they are the same as those for soils on land. In addition, in connection with the existing conditions regarding bay fishes, the DEIR relies on a otter trawl net sampling of fish species known to occur in Newport Bay that was conducted for eighteen (18) months between 1974 and 1975. This sampling would seem to be too out -of -date to be of any value in assessing the number of species in the Bay and the proposed Project's potential impact on those fish species, The DEIR should be revised to include a more recent sampling or more recent information on the fish species known to occur in Newport Bay and consider the Project's impacts on identified species. Also, if for some reason the thirty year old study remains useful, the revised DEIR should explain the utility of this thirty year old study and alternatives. In assessing the Project's impacts on shoreline habitats and resources, the DEIR states that "(t)he proposed cement walkway from the resort hotel to the boat slips will result in the loss of approximately 490 square feet of sandy shoreline which is foraging habitat for shorebirds. This long -term loss is considered significant." Page 53-7 Since the site currently has an existing concrete walkway, it is unclear how the new walkway will have this kind of impact. Based on the %( EQAC Page 11 May 28, 2004 conclusion that there will be this significant impact, it appears that the Project walkway must differ from the existing walkway, e.g. project out further into the shoreline. This is not clear from the Project Description or anywhere else in the DEIR. Further, the DEIR is inconsistent in discussing this impact. As stated above, on Page 5.3 -7, the DEIR characterizes the loss of foraging habitat for shorebirds as significant. However, on Page 5.3 -9, the DEIR states: "No direct mortality of shorebirds and seabirds will occur. The long -term presence of the boat slips, bulkhead and concrete walkway will however, reduce shorebird and seabird resting and foraging habitat, however, this is not considered a significant impact." An accurate assessment of the impacts to birds should be provided in the Final EIR, and this inconsistency should be corrected. The DEIR contains another and important inconsistency. Section 5.3.3 recognizes that Project construction will have an impact on benthic communities in the Project area. However, Section 53.3 concludes that "[t]he loss of benthic infauna and epifauna due to dredging will be a short-term less than significant impact." This conclusion is problematic: dredging will continue through the life of the Project. Thus, such impact may be more than short term. Moreover, Section 53.6 states that, regarding biological resources, "[w]ith the implementation of the above mitigation measures, only one significant unavoidable adverse impact would remain." DEIR, 5.3 -13. "This impact would occur during the short-term and would be on the benthic resources that would be removed from the bayfloor during project and maintenance dredging activities." Id. However, Section 6.1 concludes that there are no significant and unavoidable impacts. The DEIR should be revised to resolve this inconsistency: either the impact on benthic resources is significant or not. Moreover, such impacts will be more than long term: impacts on benthic resources will occur during Project construction as well as maintenance dredging. Also, as indicated above, all Biological Resources Mitigation Measures are deferred until the issuance of either a grading permit or a permit from a resource agency. This deferral of mitigation is not permissible under CEQA. In addition, most of the Mitigation Measures list various regulatory plans, e.g. stormwater pollution prevention plan ( "SWPPP ") which describes best management practices ( "BMPs "). However, the analysis is incomplete and generic; all of these Mitigation Measures appear to be boilerplate, with no direct reference to the impacts to biological resources present at the proposed Project site or the actual mitigation proposed. The DEIR should include an appropriate expert analysis to discuss Project specific impacts and mitigation as well as to develop the various regulatory plans. The discussion of mitigation measures in this section seems more appropriate for a program level analysis. The Final EIR should more fully discuss the impacts and mitigation proposed. 22 EQAC Page 12 May 28, 2004 D. Section 5.4: Land Use and Plannine. Section 5.4 addresses the proposed Project's consistency with various elements of the General Plan. Section 5.4.1 describes existing conditions including the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It provides regarding the Project site: "The existing mobile home park use will be allowed to continue until the end of the existing lease. At that time the City will make the decision as to whether the lease should be further extended, or the property converted to public use." DEIR, 5.4 -4. The DEIR then states that this description "indicates that the existing mobile home park is not consistent with the existing land use designation for the site." Id. However, in Section 5.4.3 which addresses Project impacts, the DEIR fails to discuss and analyze the Project's consistency with this requirement of conversion "to public use" at the end of the existing lease. Also, this section indicates that the Project will not divide the community, because "(a]ccess to and through the project site is maintained." DEIR, 5.4 -8. However, as indicated above, public access to and through the Project is unclear. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.7, Noise, the Project will serve as a sound barrier which will block vehicular noise from Balboa Blvd. to the Project. If the Project serves as such a barrier, it likely will divide the community. The DEIR should be revised to show the access points and routes from Balboa Blvd. through the Project to the Bay. In addition, Section 5.4.3 discusses the Land Use Element, Policy C which provides: "Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor." DEIR, 5.4.9. Emphasis added. However, the DEIR's discussion of parking requirements shows that, although the Project will provide a total of 209 surface and subterranean parking spaces, the Project demand is only 92 spaces under the current Code requirements; the Project will result in a total of 117 excess parking spaces. This raises a few problems or questions. First, the code requirements appear at odds with Policy C's requirements. Moreover, the Code requirements seem skimpy: one space for every two rooms; one space for 300 square feet of the proposed Community Center and Girl Scout House; and four spaces for the four tennis courts. Likely, each visitor enjoying a Project/resort room will require one parking space; likely, each individual using the tennis courts will require parking. The DEIR should include a further study regarding the parking demand of the Project to ensure that Policy C of the Land Use Element is met. Z3 EQAC Page 13 May 28, 2DD4 In our earlier comments on the NOP for the proposed Project, we noted that the Project Description failed to discuss employee, contractor and supplier parking and access. The DEIR also fails to discuss how parking and access will be provided within the proposed Project for these groups. The Section goes on to say that the proposed Project will provide 117 parking spaces beyond what is required by the code. Perhaps these "excess" parking spaces are intended to accommodate employees, contractors and suppliers, but this issue is not addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR should be revised to address the issue of parking for these groups, because parking on the Peninsula is such an important issue. As indicated here and below, Section 5.4 addresses the Project's parking demands and Section 5.5, Transportation /Circulation includes no parking analysis. This confusion creates another problem. Although Section 5.4 discusses the Project's parking requirements, it fails to discuss existing parking including street parking. We believe that the Project will result in a loss of parking spaces from current levels. Based upon our information and calculations, the following is a tabulation of the parking spaces which the Project will cause to be lost: Metered public parking at 18t` street curbside 5 Metered public parking at 18th street lot 23 Community Bldg. Staff 2 Girl Scouts dedicated and gated 10 Public Parking at Tot lot 2 Total Lost Spaces 42 Given this loss of 42 spaces as a result of the Project, there is an excess of only 75 spaces That is, the loss of parking spaces as a result of the Project must be counted against the excess parking spaces. The DEIR should be revised to include a thorough parking analysis under Section 5.6 and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Further, the Proj ect is proposed as a Five Star resort hotel with 110 rooms and fifty -eight (58) employees. We understand that other Five Star bodes in the area require a much higher ratio. As indicated above, the DEIR has eliminated Recreation from the environmental issues to be addressed, even though Recreation had been included in the NOP. The DEIR states that the half court basketball court doesn't get much use, according to City's recreation staff, and therefore, will not be replaced. Page 5.4 -12 However, residents of the Peninsula do, in fact, use the court. Because the court is protected from the wind by its location on the Bay side of the Peninsula and between the tennis courts, it is preferred over the full court located on the ocean side at the elementary school. In fact, the City has recently completed some repairs to the court, presumably because it is used. The Final EIR should address this impact and provide necessary mitigation. Further, the DEIR states that the proposed Project would replace the four tennis courts with the same number of courts, but the hotel would offer tennis lessons on the courts. How will this impact the current heavy use of the tennis courts? The Final EIR should include a Recreation section, which analyzes these proposed Project's impacts and provide necessary mitigation. Further, Section 5.4.1 and following sections include a discussion of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan stating that it has "been determined to be applicable to the Zq EQAC Page 14 May 28, 2004 proposed project ..." In fact, the DEIR states that "(t)he project site is designated Recreation and Environmental Open Space." DEIR, 5.4 -3. The DEIR mentions that Charter Boats and Boat Tours may pass the Project. The Project may accommodate some of these boats. The DEIR should address all impacts associated with such large boats and propose necessary mitigation. In addition, any Project permit should condition such use so that any and all such impacts are mitigated, or if not, should restrict such use. One of the objectives of the Recreation and Open Space Element is to "[m]aintain and enhance the scenic character of the City." The policy which supports this objective seeks to "protect and enhance existing view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay ...." Section 5.4.3 states that the Project would provide view corridors from Balboa Boulevard to the Bay; and therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the objective of the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, the views from Balboa Boulevard through the majority of the proposed Project site will be obstructed by 24 -foot, 27 -foot or 34 -foot buildings which will act as a sound barrier. The Final EIR should analyze this impact more realistically and provide necessary mitigation. Finally, the DEIR states that, because the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, the Project will not have any cumulative land use impacts. However, the Project requires discretionary actions, e.g. amendments, regarding the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan as well as a Coastal Development Permit. As discussed above, the Project together with other projects listed in Table 4 -1 as well as the efforts to revitalize the Peninsula may create significant cumulative impacts in connection with land use. The DEIR should be revised to discuss and address such cumulative impacts. Incidentally, the DEIR offers inconsistent building setback requirements on 18th Street. In the discussion relating to land use compatibility, the DEIR states that "(t)he structures proposed along the 18th Street will have a setback of 14 to 17 feet. Page 5.4 -8 However, the Aesthetics Section lists a building setback for 18th Street as 5 feet. This inconsistency should be corrected in the Final EIR. E. Section 5.5: Transportation/Circulation. Section 5.5 addresses transportation and circulation. This analysis is supported by a special traffic study, Appendix E: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis. This analysis focuses on 7 intersections during weekdays of the "shoulder season," fall and spring when schools are in session. The intersection closest to the proposed project is Newport Blvd. and 32 °a St. Sections 5.5.5 concludes that the Project will have no significant transportation and circulation impacts; Section 5.5.6 concludes that therefore no mitigation measures are needed. However, Table A -1 to Appendix E recognizes what every summer visitor to the Peninsula and full-time resident knows: the summer weekend traffic in the vicinity of Balboa Blvd. and 20th St. is already at LOS E or worse which exceeds the City's standard of acceptable service, LOS D. Although the Project traffic may not exceed the 1 % increase threshold, it likely will contribute to the existing traffic problem. Moreover, as indicated above, the Project together with other projects 2� EQAC Page 15 May 28, 2004 identified in Table 4 -1 as well as the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula likely will have cumulative impacts which require mitigation. The City may wish to consider improved traffic flow measures in this area to include, for example, limited on -street parking, better turn -out lanes and improved traffic signal timing/synchronization. In our comments on the IS/NOP for the Project, we requested that the DEIR "analyze and, if necessary, propose mitigation for Project impacts on seasonal traffic problems ". It further requests that the DEIR "discuss and analyze the Projects design and impact on the intersections at 150i, 16', 170i and 180' streets with Balboa Blvd." The DEIR did not take the suggestion and none of these intersections were addressed. The DEIR should be revised to address these intersections, provide an environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on transportation in the vicinity, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Further, traffic associated with Resort employee, construction and service vehicles is not mentioned in the DEIR. Are there plans to schedule deliveries and plans for off -site employee parking to minimize traffic impacts? Correlatively, the DEIR does not address traffic access and internal circulation at the site. As indicated above, the DEIR states that the Project will not have significant impacts on vehicular access and, by implication, no impacts on internal circulation. Yet, the document is silent on these issues. The DEIR should be revised to address and consider vehicular access and internal circulation, identify any Project related impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. Also, the Project may have short-term impacts on transportation and circulation. Section 5.6 suggests that the Project will require a construction traffic management plan. Yet, Section 5.5 contains no analysis of the short-term construction impacts of the Project on transportation and circulation. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the short term construction impacts on traffic and circulation, discuss the construction traffic management plan, and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Finally, as discussed briefly above, the DEIR attempts to address parking demands in connection with the Land Use analysis which discusses code requirements for the Project. However, the DEIR should include an actual study on the parking demands for the Project which considers and addresses all Project features. However, Section 5.5 should include a parking study which addresses the Project's parking demands, access to parking lots, and related issues. The DEIR should be revised to address these potentially significant impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation. F. Section 5_6: Air Quality. Without any analysis of hazards and hazardous materials in or around the Project site, the DEIR concludes that the Project vvrill have no impacts on air quality in that the Project will "not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or generate objectionable odors." DEIR, 5.6 -12. Z4 EQAC Page 16 May 28, 2004 However, without the hazardous materials analysis, this conclusion is difficult to support. As indicated above, the Project is near several areas subject to significant contamination. Such may have migrated to the site. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of such materials and pollutants, the air quality analysis should be revised to include and refer to the pollutant analysis, and if necessary, mitigation should be proposed. G. Section 5.7: Noise. Section 5.7 addresses potential noise impacts associated with the Project. As indicated in Section 3. 1.1 and elsewhere, the Project is partially surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Such are sensitive noise receptors. Section 5.7.3 recognizes that the Project's heating, air conditioning and ventilation equipment may create minor amounts of noise but.concludes that such noise is commonplace. However, the Project's operations will include other non - commonplace noise sources including delivery and trash trucks, employee transportation and other vehicular noise sources not present under the current configuration. The DEIR should be revised to include a noise study of the Project impact on residences including those along 19'h St. and West Bay, and 18"' St. and West Bay. If necessary, the revised document should propose adequate mitigation measures. In addition, the Project may attract other noise sources including Charter Boats and Boat Tour operators. Such new sources likely will generate noise sufficient to adversely affect the residential neighborhoods. The DEIR should analyze all such impacts including noise impacts to residential neighborhoods across the bay and propose adequate mitigation. Further, Section 5.7.3 indicates that a primary noise source is traffic and that the Project will not be affected by noise from traffic on Balboa Blvd., because the buildings will block noise from Balboa Blvd. However, given this sound barrier, the Project may generate noise from various events which noise may adversely affect neighbors across the bay. Section 5.7 contains no discussion or analysis of such noise generation and impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include such an analysis and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Section 5.7 shows that noise levels associated with the Project will not be significantly higher than they are now except during the construction phase. Since Municipal Noise Codes are formulated in terms of 24 -hour average noise levels, it is likely that short term noise impacts may be significant without mitigation. In view of this, we recommend that the DEIR include mitigation measures to ensure that construction companies and crews should be required to use all reasonable care to minimize noise generation by silencing loud equipment when feasible, avoiding early morning deliveries, controlling construction -site radios, and so forth. These considerations will minimize neighborhood disturbance and potential complaints. Construction companies should be encouraged to build subassemblies off -site when possible. The supporting noise impact analysis, Appendix G, notes that construction equipment noise will reach 90 dB when operating at full load. This will probably result in exceeding acceptable noise levels at the original or relocated Tot Lot(children's play area) during construction. Mitigation of this effect in the form of sound barriers around the Tot Lot should be required. Z� EQAC Page 17 May 28, 2004 H. Section 5.8: Aesthetics. Section 5.8 concerns the potential aesthetic impacts of the Project. Section 5.8.2 discusses Project impacts including those associated with public views, building heights, and setbacks. Among other things, the DEIR indicates that the Project will enhance public views. However, the DEIR is silent on the manner of enhancement. As indicated above, the DEIR maintains that the Project will create sound barrier so that vehicular noise will not reach Project visitors. Given this feature, it is unclear how the Project will enhance public views but diminish noise from Balboa Blvd. As indicated above, the DEIR contains some inconsistencies regarding set backs. The computer - generated visual simulations are helpful in illustrating the type of architecture and the overall look of the buildings. However, the simulations appear to have altered the lighting between the before and after condition. For instance, Exhibit 5.8 -2 clearly shows the architectural features of the Project in the after condition; the lighting in the before condition makes it impossible to assess what is there. In addition, there are some inconsistencies with what is being said in the text and what is being illustrated in the simulations; and in some cases, the computer simulations are misleading. In addition, there are inconsistencies within the text. The text on Page 3 -5 states that "(t)he maximum height proposed for the two -level villas is 27 feet while the proposed tower will be 34 feet in height." The text on Page 5.8 -2 states that "the hotel will have a maximum height of 24 feet. The main lobby will have a height of 34 feet." However, the computer simulation, Exhibit 5.8 -3 shows a tower that appears to be 10 feet taller than the surrounding buildings. Will the main lobby area be 10 feet taller than the other hotel buildings? Considering that the hotel lobby is almost 20,000 square feet, which is nearly 20 percent of the "Total Enclosed Floor Area," Table 3.2 -1, Page 3 -5, the height and overall scale are not accurately represented in the computer - generated visual simulations. Also, all of the computer simulations show no overhead utility lines, though such lines exist today. Yet the DEIR contains no discussion of this Project feature. Please confirm that these utilities will be placed underground as a part of the Project In our comments on the IS/NOP, we stated the DEIR should analyze and address Project related aesthetic impacts to the character of Balboa Blvd., which brill be substantially altered by the volume and mass of the structures that are proposed. The DEIR states that the setback for the proposed Project from Balboa Boulevard is 15 feet. Does this include the main lobby with a height of 34 feet? Again, this is not clear from the computer simulations. However, if that is the case, that volume and mass will have a considerable aesthetic impact on the character of Balboa Boulevard. Finally, Section 5.8.3 addresses cumulative impacts. It concludes that, because the projects listed in Table 4 -1 are remote from the Project, it would not contribute to any cumulative impacts. However, as indicated throughout, additional projects must be considered including the revitalization efforts in the Peninsula. The DEIR should be revised to consider and assess the cumulative impact of the Project together with the efforts to revitalize the area, and if necessary, propose mitigation. 2.19 EQAC Page 18 May 28, 2004 I. Section 5.9: Public Services. 1. Section 5.9.1: Police Services. Section 5.9.1 concludes that, based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Police Department, the Project will have no significant impact on police services. The DEIR fails to discuss the authorization and position of Lieutenant Mein and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. Further, in our comments on the IS/NOP, we requested information regarding the number of service calls both for the Project as well as the other Project Alternatives. The DEIR contains no such information. In addition, the City has experienced demands on police services during the summer including on the Fourth of July. The Project may require additional staffing at this time as well as others. The DEIR should be revised to include the requested information, provide additional information concerning peak demands on police services including the Fourth of July, and, if necessary, provide mitigation, e.g. private security for the Project. 2. Section 5.9.2. Fire Services. Section 5.9.2 concerning fire services draws a similar conclusion as above for similar reasons: based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Fire Department, the Project will have no significant impact on police services. The DEIR fails to discuss the authorization and position of Mr. Lerch and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. In addition, Section 5.9.2 observes that: "Mith two fire stations located within one mile of the project site, emergency response time would be adequate." This may be misleading: we understand that the responding station may not be the closest station. Moreover, staffing at the stations differ: only one of the referenced stations has medical personnel. In addition, as indicated above, the DEIR does not discuss access and internal circulation. Although the DEIR promises that emergency access roads and resources will be provided, the DEIR contains no discussion for such access and resources. The DEIR should be revised to provide this discussion. Also, this section states that for fire suppression, "the municipal water supply should be adequate." DEIR, 5.9 -3. This statement should be stronger. The DEIR should be revised to include a study of the availability of fire suppression resources to ensure that the water supply will be adequate in the event of a fire. 2? EQAC Page 19 May 28, 2004 Both Section 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 indicate that the Project together with others will have no cumulative impacts on these services. However, as indicated above, the DEIR's cumulative impacts analyses for all impacts focuses upon Table 4 -1. The DEIR's cumulative impacts analysis should also consider the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula to ensure that the Project together with the Table 4 -1 projects as well as the revitalization efforts do not have cumulative impacts on various resources including fire and police services. 3. Section 5.9.3: Solid Waste. Section 5.9.3 addresses solid waste issues. Section 5.9.3 estimates that, in the existing condition, the Project site generates 522.31 pounds per day of solid waste. This section estimates that the Project will generate 403.5 pounds per day. These totals come from Tables 5.9 -1 and 5.9 -2. However, the estimate of waste generation for the existing condition seems high. Table 5.9- 1 addresses the existing condition and projects that the mobile home park generates 481.6 pounds per day. Although this estimate is based upon State of California estimates that a household generates between 4 and 8.6 pounds per day. Table 5.9 -1 uses 8.6 pounds per day. This is problematic for several reasons. The DER fails to explain why the existing condition uses the maximum expected trash generation. Further, the DER fails to consider that many residents in the existing condition are only part time residents. Both of these would significantly lessen the estimate of the existing condition. Also, the projection for the Project seems low and fails to consider the type of solid waste generated by the Project. Much of the waste generated by the Project would include wet kitchen trash which would require more frequent collection. Also, we are unaware of any similar resort or hotel within the City that would generate such a small amount of solid waste. Section 5.9.3's cumulative impact analysis is likewise inadequate. The section contains no cumulative impact analysis: it merely concludes that the amount of waste would be an incremental contribution and would not be significant. The DER should be revised to study the solid waste generation both for the existing condition and the Project condition, and if necessary, propose mitigation. 4. Section 5.9.4: Water Service. Section 5.9.4 addresses water supply and service. Further, this section indicates that the Project will require relocation of the existing water main to a different alignment on the site. It concludes that this relocation will have no impacts. However, without more explanation, this is questionable. Residents, schools and other businesses in the area will suffer during the construction and relocation process. The DER fails to recognize this impact and provide mitigation for these short term impacts. EQAC Page 20 May 28, 2004 5. Section 5.9.5: Wastewater Service. Section 5.9.5 addresses waste water issues. Under existing conditions, the site generates a total of 7,093 gallons per day; the Project is proposed to generate more than three times this much: 22,553 gallons per day without any increased capacity to handle the increase flows. Moreover, the cumulative impacts analysis concludes that the Project together with future development will not create significant impacts. However, given that the Project will significantly increase demands on an aging infrastructure and the cumulative effect of the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula, the DEIR should include a study to insure that capacity and infrastructure are adequate and that the Project will have no significant wastewater impacts. 6. Section 5.9.6: Gas; and Section 5.9.7: Electricitv. Both sections conclude that the Project will have no impact on these services. Both sections recognize that the Project will require twice as much gas and electricity as the existing condition. Moreover, both sections indicate that, even with this doubling together with future development including the revitalization of the Peninsula, the Project will not have cumulative impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the adequacy of resource supply as well as consider alternative sources, e.g. solar to replace electric consumption. If necessary, the DEIR should propose adequate mitigation. VII. Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations. Section 6.1 addresses significant and unavoidable impacts. It concludes that the Project will have no such impacts. As indicated above, Section 5.3 indicates that, even after mitigation, "only one significant unavoidable impact would remain" on benthic resources in or around the Project site. DEIR, 5.3 -13. The DEIR should be revised or explained so that this problem is resolved, and the public and decision makers may understand the Project's impacts as well as the need for any additional findings. Section 6.2 concerns growth inducing impacts. As indicated above, the Project is part of a revitalization effort for the Peninsula. As such, the Project may have growth inducing impacts. As elsewhere in the DEM, Section 6.2 fails to consider the Project in relation to these revitalization efforts. The DEIR should be revised to consider the Project's growth inducing impacts when considered with these revitalization efforts, and if necessary, propose mitigation. VIII. Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect. A. Section 7.1: The No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing state is the project alternative. Section 7.1.2 states that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it maintains the site in its existing condition. Nonetheless, because the No Project Si EQAC Page 21 May 28, 2004 Alternative will not meet any Project Objectives, the DEIR concludes that the No Project Alternative is not feasible. However, Section 7.1 is inadequate. First, the DEIR's analysis of the existing site is inadequate. The DEIR fails to discuss and explain all of the environmental impacts associated with the current use and the existing condition including hazardous materials, water quality, land use, and other issues of the existing condition of the site. As to the Project Objectives, as indicated above, some of the Project Objectives are problematic: the advancement of economic goals do not seem to be appropriate environmental goals. Further, and more importantly, the DEIR fails to discuss exactly how the Project meets or advances these economic goals. B. Section 7.2: The Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative. Section 7.2.1 discusses the Marine Alternative which includes parkland, land for the Girl Scout Center /Community Center, tennis and basketball courts, over 248 parking spaces, boat moorings and a boat launch. Section 7.2.2 is the impacts analysis for the Marine Alternative. This section concludes that the Marine Alternative would result in: less impacts than the Project to geology and soils, aesthetics and public services; similar impacts as the Project for land use and planning; and greater impacts than the Project for hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation/circulation, air quality and noise. Many of these latter stem from the analysis' estimate that the Marine Alternative would generate more traffic. However, this estimate is without substantiation or analysis. Indeed, it seems unlikely that this alternative will generate significantly more traffic. The DEIR should be revised to provide a full and complete traffic analysis of the Marine Alternative including variants and discuss the impacts in relation to the Project. If the Marine Alternative generates less traffic, then other impacts including air quality, noise, traffic and other related issues would be lower. If so, then the Marine Alternative could be the environmentally superior Alternative. However, this conclusion is based upon specific features of the Marine Alternative which could be modified to eliminate such impacts. For instance, Section 7.2.2 notes that the Marine Alternative will have greater water quality impacts, because it would include greater parking areas and impervious surfaces. As discussed above, the DEIR fails to discuss the amount of pervious surfaces for the Project Moreover, the Marine Altemative could use alternative paving methods for the parking spaces including pervious pavers. Such would lessen any water quality impacts for the Marine Alternative. Or again, this section indicates that the Marine Alternative will have greater impacts on biological resources, because it would include "larger boat slips and boat launch" than the Project. Again, these features can be changed. Section 7.2.2 recognizes that the Marine Alternative's impacts on biological resources could be mitigated. 32- EQAC Page 22 May 28, 2004 As for land use, the DEIR states that both the Project and the Marine Alternative are "compatible with surrounding land uses consistent with the General Plan." DEIR, 7 -4. However, the analysis fails to discuss whether the Marine Alternative will require a General Plan Amendment. The DEIR should be revised to provide more detail and analysis for the Marine Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank and its feasibility. C. Section 7.3: The Reduced Intensitv Alternative. Section 7.3 addresses the Reduced Intensity Alternative which would include an 88 room hotel, a 4,500 square foot restaurant and 12 boat slips. Section 7.3.3 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Among other things, Section 7.3.2 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Altemative would have greater transportation and circulation impacts, because it would result in 869 average daily trips as opposed to the Project's 640 average daily trips. However, many of those trips are associated with the large restaurant. A different project feature, e.g. a smaller restaurant and/or parkland, would reduce such trips, perhaps below the Project level. As before, the Reduced Intensity Alternative fixes on features that may create significant impacts whereas other possible features with fewer impacts are not analyzed. The DEIR should be revised to consider other features for the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank. IX. Miscellaneous Considerations. We note that the Project in the IS/NOP is entitled the Newport Regent Beach Hotel. The Project for the DEIR is entitled the Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan. The DEIR should explain the change and the proposed Community Plan. X. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the DEIR be revised to address the issues raised above. 33 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 EIR -4 Page 3 of 23 No None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft ITEM NO. 4 Environmental Impact Report (PA2003 -218) PA2003 -218 Continued to Review of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 07/08/2004 Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan (formerly known as the Regent Newport Beach). The project applicant, Marinapark LLC, proposes to remove and /or demolish existing structures on the property and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that would include a lobby and registration area, a caf6, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four tennis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility, and a tot lot. Chairperson McDaniel noted that tonight, the Commission would be providing direction to staff and the applicant. Senior Planner, Jim Campbell noted the following: • Both the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project itself will be reviewed to provide direction to both staff and the consultants for the upcoming hearings. • Schedule - July 8th the Planning Commission will be hearing this item; City Council will be holding hearings on July 13th and 27th. • The City Council has decided to put this project on the November 2004 ballot. • At tonight's meeting and the one on July 8th, staff hopes to be able to formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the EIR as well as any proposed changes to the project. • Staff wants to provide an open forum for public input that will be provided at these two meetings. • At the conclusion of the meeting, staff would like to have any requests for additional data or questions that the public or Commission might have, for response at the next meeting. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 4 of 23 . At Commission inquiry, he noted that the last date for response to comments on the EIR is June 9th. Any comments to be made should be submitted by the 9th in order for staff to respond. The following City consultants were in attendance: David Lepo from Hogle Ireland, the project manager; Mike Houlihan and Jason Brandman from Michael Brandman, Associates, the preparers of the Environmental Impact Report; Joe Foust, the traffic engineer. Stephen Sutherland, Marinapark Resort project manager, noted that this August marks the 6th year since the first site plan was drawn. He then made a Power Point presentation highlighting the project noting: . The project is the ' Marinapark Resort and Community Plan', and will encompass an area on Balboa Peninsula from 16th Street to 18th Street and Balboa Boulevard to the public beach. . The architecture will be a Mediterranean villa style with a yachting resort theme. . Accommodations will be made for sail boats from Lido 14's up to vintage Americas Cup and sailing will be an activity for guests to enjoy. . He then pointed out the proposed site plan in relation to the American Legion facility that is not involved in the project, the boat slips that will not be beyond the American Legion line of slips; and the tennis courts that will be re -built over a subterranean parking facility for 100 cars. . He then displayed where additional surface parking will be noting the existing public lot on 18th Street (to be refurbished by the applicant ) with 21 metered stalls. . There will be a shared access for the Girl Scout/Community facility when it is not in use. . The existing tot lot will be moved next to the Girl Scout facility and will be separated by a wall. . The new Girl Scout facility will be larger and the grounds will be doubled with landscaping /gazebo /fire pit areas provided. The interior will be fully ADA accessible and have a modern commercial style kitchen; will have a stage and air conditioning, and will be outfitted with a security system. All of these arrangements are being made at the request/direction of the Girl Scout Council. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 5 of 23 . There will be a spa building built next to the Scout facility and the buildings will be similar in style and two stories high. . The spa will be for hotel guests but will also be available for residents and the public. . The dock area will have a concrete walkway and will not impede public access. There will be twelve slips, some wider than others, and will be operated for the yachting and rowing club. Four of the slips will be available as visitors' docking. . The number of guest rooms is 110. It is being designed as a five star level hotel. He noted his background in resort design with fifteen years experience in Europe and Mexico as well as in America. . The 110 guest rooms will be located in sixteen, one and two story villa style buildings. The buildings for the most part are lower than the surrounding homes. The density is less than the existing residential neighborhood. Many of the private homes in this area are about two square feet of structure for every square foot of land. We are at one third of square foot of structure for every square foot of land. . The traffic studies have shown that the added cars on the road from this project compared to the existing mobile home park is below what triggers the 'Measure S' threshold. . There are 60 spaces in the mobile home park, two of the mobile homes have been removed. Out of the remaining 58, two are management offices. There are currently 56 residents in the park. . He then presented before and after visual impact simulations on 18th Street; Girl Scout lot; 17th Street and Balboa Blvd.; and, views from the water. . The villas on the waterfront are one story except the one by the American Legion property, which is two story. . The Girl Scout facility will have a second story for community use and will be just over 2,000 square feet enclosed plus an outdoor terrace area of about 200 square feet. This building will be built and paid by the applicant, but will be turned over to the city. . The main resort lobby two story structure will have wateril fountain elements. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 6 of 23 . The environmental advantages will reduce traffic on Balboa Blvd., the existing zoning allows public open space and marine recreational facilities. . The improvement of water quality is based on a number of issues such as underground vaults on the property that will capture new rainfall and skim the oil and debris from the parking lots, landscaping areas, etc. before it enters the bay. There will be an underground tank storage area and when there is flooding during the winter storms, the skimmed water will stay in the tanks until the tide is down and /or the storm drain recovers and then it will be put into the system. . The other issue is the State tidelands law, a hotel is considered a public use and visitor serving and is permissible in State tidelands. . Community improvements include the beautification of the Balboa Peninsula; and an agreement to fund a minimum of $500,000 to remodel the American Legion facility on approval. The tennis courts are being re -built and will remain open to the public. The City Recreation and Senior Services Department will run adult/child programs in these new courts and the new community center. . There are two restaurants proposed on the property, one is the 'All Day Cafe' and is 515 net square feet and the specialty restaurant will be 1,100 square feet and will be open and available to residents, they both will have waterfront views. . Residents will have full access to the grounds and resort. . There will be improved access to the beach. . There will be two public view corridors on each side of the lobby. . This is publicly owned property and should benefit the residents. With this proposed use, we feel it does. These benefits include upwards of three million dollars in total revenue annually to the City of Newport Beach, and property values for the surrounding area will increase. The plan has been referred to as a gem and a shot in the arm that this area of the peninsula needs and is 'a landmark in waiting'. The following questions were asked by the Commissioners and answered by the applicant: Commissioner Toerge asked: file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 7 of 23 . What are the proposed site access control measures on 18th Street? . Please review the availability of parking for the public. Will the parking structure be available for the public. Commissioner Selich asked: . What is the size of the lounge and ballroom and how do they compare to other hotels? . What percentage of the property is tidelands? Commissioner Eaton asked: . Will there be a cap as to how many of the units will be time share? Commissioner Cole asked: . The height of the villas, does the lobby extend higher? . In the photos that were shown, what is the height of the residential buildings? Mr. Sutherland answered: . There will be no controls to get into the driveway to access either the public parking lot or the Girl Scout parking area. Beyond that there is a fire access gate that is permanently closed. There will be no access at all from the hotel to that driveway on 18th Street. Employees and deliveries will access the property from the 15th Street alley behind the American Legion under the tennis courts to the parking structure; the loading dock is right next to the tennis courts. There is no access at all for the hotel from 18th Street, that is only for emergency purposes or the public lot or Girl Scout lot. . The parking structure is not available for the public who use the beach. It will be available for a fee to the public that goes onto the resort grounds . . The lobby lounge is 1,100 square feet; the ballroom is on the second floor of the lobby and is 3,605 square feet. Comparing that to the Marriott, it is less than 10% of their public meeting space area. Comparing it to the St. Regis in Monarch Beach, this proposed project has just over 3% of the meeting /convention space as the St. Regis has just over file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 8 of 23 100,000 square feet, which is almost the same size as this entire project. . It is proposed that twelve suites will be dedicated as interval shares, a minimum of 1/8 but most likely 1/4. For example, if we have a three month interval, then that suite would be sold for that three month time period. Mr. Burnham added: . This is the applicant's proposal for the time shares, but the City Council will have to approve this interval shares issue through the lease negotiations. . The tidelands have not been determined. The State Lands Commission staff believes that approximately 65% to 70% of the parcel is tidelands. There has been no adjudication of the mean high tide line and the opinion of the State Lands Commission staff is based on meander surveys and some old aerial photographs. It is still undecided. Continuing, Mr. Sutherland answered: . The building height of the lobby is 34 feet. It is still two stories, but it has a higher ceiling area. When you first walk into the lobby, you have a 34 foot high ceiling; then a grand stairwell that goes upstairs along with an elevator to the lobby upstairs. . There are many three story buildings in this neighborhood. Public comment was opened. Chairperson McDaniel addressed the audience noting that the j Commission is looking only at environmental issues tonight. Louise Fundenberg, President of the Central Newport Beach Association, noted they would like to go on record that this area has always been General Plan Open Space Recreational. This is the last open space on the peninsula. She noted the concerns of the members who live across the street from this proposed project that their view would be wiped out. At the annual meeting this project was discussed and the residents want this to stay open space. They looked at the EIR and saw an alternate plan for a marina, but that marina was in there to make the hotel look good. A different plan for a marina might be a better one than the one alternate put in the EIR. Commissioner Kiser noted that the association members are concerned about the loss of open space at the project site. What open space that is on the project site would be lost? file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 9 of 23 Ms. Fundenberg answered that the strip of beach, even though the applicant states it will be open to the public, the members feel that once a hotel is put in there, the public will not come in to use that beach. It will not be available to the general public, it will be blocked. It is a matter of access to the public beach and the need for more open space than is currently proposed. Tim Collins, resident of Balboa Peninsula, noted: . The project is characterized as a resort hotel with docks. . He would like to see the water side of the tidelands and the bay and harbor impacts studied in more detail in the EIR. This analysis is relevant to the environmental impacts of the project overall. . The alternative contained in the EIR as exhibit 7 -1 is a better alternative, but by no means the best alternative for the bay. . There could be better design and more visitor serving boating. . It could have more revenue potential and have less environmental impacts as the docks designed and presented in the EIR. . A better design would be more suited to the real demand for the public from the water side. It would accommodate larger and more boats, and with ample guest docks could be overall better serving. . The applicant commented he sees this as a yachting resort, I' don't think that 28, 30 foot boats as configured in these docks will allow it to meet the objective as a yachting destination. . There is a potential to improve the financial viability. . The protection of the environment is going to be a function of how successful this property is. In his opinion, this dock area would be a loser when you consider the cost to build it and the fees that should be paid for the tidelands use. . He suggested that the applicant should be asked to challenge its consultants and study alternatives, submit market research and analysis to support those alternatives. . Exploring said options could reduce the environmental impact for example, dredging. And a re- designed dock would be more responsive to the Harbor Element of the General Plan as to which the original scoping of the EIR was lacking. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 10 of 23 . This property is the gem of the peninsula and we need to get it right. At staff inquiry, the speaker clarified that he is speaking to both types of dock, those as part of the resort hotel and what is described in the marine recreation alternative in the EIR. The alternate is preferable and the docks as designed as part of the hotel resort are not the best public use of the waterfront. John Corrough, resident of Balboa Island, noted he agrees with the comments made by the previous speaker adding the following: . An analysis of the EIR shows that the presumed attainment of the various Harbor and Bay Element sections is not supported by the facts or analysis or conclusionary statements that are in the EIR. . One of the most basic aspects of this project that is linked to the Harbor and Bay Element that needs to be discussed is this is not in fact a water dependent use. This is a water enhanced use under the definition of the Harbor and Bay Element and under the definition of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCP), it is not a coastal dependent use. . The hotel is the primary use on the site and by itself does not meet the criteria of those two important documents (Harbor and Bay Element and the LCP). It is dependent on a very small marina for its water dependency. . You do not get Americas cup boats in 30 foot or 26 foot slips. . You do not get a lot of revenue out of this project when the cost to create is somewhere between 8 to 10 times the cost per slip of the typical high value marina such as the one recently constructed in front of the Balboa Bay Club. . Somewhere there is going to have to be a lot of costs to make up in the way in which that facility is either subsidized or in some other way justified. . With all of the money expended for the public good on site, the project is burdened by those costs as well as the marina costs. . This situation can be solved by further analysis of a marina opportunity and potential so that it is less environmentally damaging and producing revenue to the City, tidelands fund and the resort. Commissioner Selich asked if the speaker is suggesting that the file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/1712004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 11 of 23 marina component be larger and if you are, are you saying it should extend more into the bay or along the beach? Mr. Corrough answered that any or all of those options should be explored. However, none of those were examined as alternatives. There is not enough analysis shown or documented in the EIR to justify that. Commissioner Selich noting that the pier head line does not go to out to the end where the slips are proposed, asked as part of this project is the pier head Fine going to have to be moved and adjusted? Ms. Wood answered that staff will have to find that out. Mr. Burnham noted that on the issue of deep water slips or a substantially larger marina, the City is required to develop alternatives that could mitigate any potential impacts and also achieve project objectives. Some of the things that went into developing the alternatives in the EIR is to minimize the impact of the marine facilities on the public use of the beach and public access. Also minimizing the extent to which dredging or any alteration of the marine environment is necessary. The types of facilities the previous speaker referred to would have a substantially greater impact on the subtidal zone than the alternatives, that was a consideration. Marie O'Hora, resident of the peninsula, noted her concern of the bay that is already compromised. The 10th Street beach was closed one out of every two days in July and August of last year. It does not have anything to do with storm runoff. I don't know what is polluting the bay, but the addition of a 100 plus guestrooms plus the additional traffic of people using the bay makes it more dense. I don't understand how a structure of this sort will reduce traffic. Parking on the peninsula is very troublesome. Concluding, she added that by having the election to approve this plan with the national election disenfranchises all the summer home owners who are taxpayers in Newport Beach and not able to vote for or against this project because they are voting in their own communities. Commissioner Kiser asked if her concerns of density and parking considered the fact that there would be 60 mobile home occupancies removed from the site. Ms. O'Hora answered that 100 guests are being added. This is being used as a destination resort, people will drive to it. She added that she has a sailboat that draws 6.2 feet and there are sections over by Lido where we barely skim the bottom. So whatever dredging that you are going to have to do in this area will be considerable. Commissioner Tucker noted that the assumption of the preceding file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 12 of 23 speaker was that the project would result in more intense use of the land than the existing use. He noted that he was not certain that was the case. He then asked how many bedrooms there are in the existing trailer park facility. Is there any way to find out how many? Ms. Clauson stated that staff is in the process of preparing a relocation impact report and are gathering information about the mobile homes for purpose of finding alternatives for relocation of them if the park is closed. We may have more information with regards to the bedrooms and also information on how many of them are second homes or summer vacation type residences versus permanent. She added that the rental agreement prohibits the subletting of the mobile homes. Commissioner Tucker stated that it would then be people showing up for the summer to use their facilities and guests while they were there. How many parking spaces are presently in the trailer park? He asked that this information be supplied at the next meeting. Ms. Clauson answered that parking is limited to the roadway access to each of the units. She will get the information for the next meeting. Mr. Burnham added that any resident who is registered to vote can vote in any election. The rational the City Council had in wanting to schedule this issue for voter consideration was to maximize the turnout. It is fair to say this is going to be a fairly contested presidential election, there are a lot of other issues on the ballot that will draw people to the polls in November. Historically the presidential election gets about 75% of voter participation as opposed to 10 -15% for a standard /special election. Commissioner Tucker then asked who is going to own the Girl Scout House after it is completed? Ms. Clauson answered that the City owns and maintains the facility and currently has an annual lease with the Girl Scouts for that property. This lease will be negotiated for the use of the new facility once it is completed. Mr. Burnham added that the lease would require the lessee to maintain the property to a very high standard. Commissioner Tucker then asked about the views. People across the street that have views over the public land, are those public views that are protected? Mr. Burnham answered that the view from a third story of a residence would not be considered a public view, even as it looks across public property. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 13 of 23 Commissioner Tucker then asked about water dependency. If the project is approved by the voters, we still have to go through the zoning on the project. Would this be zoning that is water dependent or like a planned community text where the basic zoning would be tailored? Is the water dependency element relevant or not? Ms. Wood answered that the zoning for this project will be a Planned Community text and staff already has a draft. It is a General Plan issue, more so than a zoning issue because the zoning implements the General Plan. She then introduced the consultant team in attendance; David Lepo from Hogle Ireland, the project manager; Mike Houlihan and Jason Brandman from Michael Brandman, Associates, the preparers of the Environmental Impact Report; and Joe Foust, the traffic engineer. Seymour Beek, resident of Balboa Island, noted the following: A yachting resort in the sense that people will come in their boats and use the marina, they don't really need a hotel. . The use of waterfront and slip area is not well thought out. Where did the project objectives come from, where are they listed, and who thought them up? Mike Houlihan, Michael Brandman Associates, answered that the project objectives are listed in Section 3, page 3 -8. These objectives were set out by both the City and the project applicant. Through CEQA, project objectives can be set out by an applicant as well as the lead agency. Mr. Burnham added that this August the project will be 5 to 6 years in process. The City issued requests for proposals in 1999 for the redevelopment of the Marinapark and received 8 responses, went back to public hearing and received input and narrowed those to 4 proposals that Council wanted more information about. There were more public meetings and comments, meetings with community groups and these project objectives are a distillation of what staff heard over a 5 -6 year period as the interest and objectives of the community, City Council and others that participated in that process. It is typical for staff and the EIR preparer to develop project objectives based upon the history of the particular project taking into account what the project proponent wants. Ms. Wood added that this is an unusual project as the City is the property owner and so has a special interest that it wouldn't have on private property. Jan Vandersloot, resident of Newport Heights, noted the following: file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.hhn 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 14 of 23 . Asked that the project objectives be considered leaving the area open space. . The property is zoned Recreational and Environmental Open Space and that zoning should remain intact. He does not see an alternative that uses that zoning as a project objective. . We should look at the benefit of public views from the streets. The citizens own that property and should be able to view the water. . The Parks Commission submitted an alternative to the City Council but that is not listed in the EIR and it should be. . We are a wealthy City and should be able to keep the property that we own as open space for future generations. . Some of the other impacts would be the loss of foraging habitat, and some of the specifics of where the mitigation areas would go have not been defined. Mr. Burnham noted the property is zoned PC and is designated as recreational and environmental open space in the General Plan and that designation in the Land Use Element authorizes a wide range of uses. Exhibit 7 -1 attempts to take the Land Use Element designation for the site and parcel out portions of the parcel for parkland, portions for beach and slip parking, it retains the Girl Scout and community center. It is the implementation of the General Plan designation for the site. Ms. Wood noted that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission alternative was one of the 8 proposals submitted to the City Council in response to the RFP. When the City Council made the decision to work exclusively with Sutherland Talla now Marinapark, LLC, at that time they simply rejected that proposal. Since the General Plan Amendment is something that is going to the voters, then the people have the opportunity to decide whether it should be changed to allow the hotel development or whether it should remain open space. If the decision is to remain open space then more detailed plans of what that means in terms of future development will need to be discussed. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted his concern with how the marine' recreation alternative was treated, specifically that it is not the environmentally superior alternative based in large part on a conclusion that it would generate more traffic without any data at all to back that conclusion up. Because of that you assume it has more negative impacts in terms of traffic, air quality and noise than the file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htrn 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 15 of 23 proposed project. Is there some basis upon which that conclusion was drawn? Mr. Houlihan answered information will be provided in the response to comments. Commissioner Eaton then commented about the alternative section. EQAC has made a comprehensive report on the EIR and the responders should respond and make additions where necessary and appropriate to the EIR where that can be done without requiring a recirculation. CEQA guidelines state that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. As an environmental professional that has been writing and reviewing EIRs for over thirty years he has never seen an EIR that declared the project as the environmentally superior alternative. In his opinion, the project is not an alternative, it is the project. The marine recreation alternative can easily be the environmentally superior project if the basis of the traffic is because they have created such a huge parking lot to serve such a huge water and entry point. Then the marine alternative could be reduced slightly so that it does not have those extra impacts which might also reduce the hydrology and water quality impact as well. You don't need to go through the manipulations to make that alternative less than an environmentally superior alternative. The project is strong enough, it is a handsome project and maintains virtually all the existing open space uses which are on the property now, you don't have to say it is the environmentally superior project as well. It is clearly an economically superior project. To create an open space project on this property, the City would lose all its revenue it gets now from the mobile home park, it would cost a lot of money to build it and to maintain it, where this project will provide stronger revenues to the City without any of the costs incurred. The project itself can stand on its own as the economically superior project and not manipulate the marine recreation alternative into something other than the environmentally superior project or alternative but which would cost the City a lot of money. The EIR would have stronger viability and the City would have stronger credibility if it admits that the open space marine recreation alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Mr. Burnham noted that he attended some if not all the meetings during which the marine recreational alternative was discussed, its not accurate to say there was a manipulation of that alternative. Rather what staff and the EIR consultant attempted to do was identify the needs within the general area, and the needs the harbor has for additional parking for charter boat activities; a slip component that was greater than the project slip component to address some of the marine recreation issues directly; there is a park land component because that is consistent with the Recreation and Environmental Open Space; file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 16 of 23 and, then we expanded the Girl Scout and Community Center parking area and provided adequate parking for an expanded public park use, which is what we have heard some people in the community favor. It was an attempt to take the site and assign certain uses to that site that would meet needs that currently exists within and around the harbor. One of those is a need for additional parking for beach visitors, for bay visitors and for people who are using the harbor for recreational activities. That was the rational for developing this particular alternative, we did not attempt to come to an alternative that increased the environmental impacts, it was designed to meet the needs that currently exists. Commissioner Tucker asked: . How many more ADT's would have to be generated to trip the 1% analysis requirement at Newport Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway in the P. M. peak and Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road in the A. M. peak. Those are the two locations closest to Level of Service (LOS) E. People are making claims about traffic generation numbers that have been used in the study. I would like to know how much latitude still is there to be able to say it really wouldn't make a difference if there was 50% more traffic. There is some number that gets to that point where the two closest nearby intersections would require further analysis. . It would be helpful to have by the next meeting the responses to the EQAC letter. Their conclusion is that the document needs to be revised and recirculated and they have raised some interesting issues. There are a few things in the letter that need to be brought out. At the next meeting we have on this, we will spend time setting the record. I would like to have more lead time on responses to comment on the EQAC letter. . The parking issue and how delivery and service vehicles and where the employees park were big items at the public scoping meetings. The trip generation rates assume all the additional staff functions. The response to comments should be handled in detail. Commissioner Toerge asked: . In the Draft EIR on page 2.1 - the last sentence of one of the paragraphs reads, '.....in all the proposed project will include 352,962 square feet of development on 8.1 acres.' That is 8.1 acres, so what is the number supposed to be? Mr. David Lepo of Hogle Ireland noted that number should be 110,000 square feet total. file: //H:\Planeomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 17 of 23 Continuing, Commissioner Toerge asked: . On Page 2.1 - We do not know the location of the tidelands, yet in a number of meetings I have listened to and participated in, the location of the tidelands has been used as the reason why we can't maintain the mobile home park. The proposed project includes twelve units available for fractional ownership. How is this allowed if the mobile homes are not? It is a matter of ratio, not location? How would the City participate in the sale of these fractional ownership share units? How will the buyers be determined? . On Page 2.11 - 520 daily trips is not considered significant, how is that determined and what amount would be significant? . On Page 3.8 - In my view the project does not serve to maintain a recreation and open space system that meets the needs of the recreation needs of the citizens as it is stated in the report. It may serve the paying public, but not the citizens. . On Page 5.4 -6 - The proposed project conflicts with the General Plan, specifically the Land Use Element, the Harbor and Bay Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element. . On Page 5.4 -12 - under the Recreation and Open Space Element analysis, the project reduces recreational opportunities for the public it states it in the EIR. At this opportune time, the City should be attempting to increase parks and related recreational facilities rather than reducing them. . Under the City's Municipal Code 5.4.19 - the project proposes to change the existing General Plan designation from Recreation Environmental Open Space to General Plan designation Recreation Marine and Commercial. Other than to accommodate the proposed project, why would the City do this? . Under 7.5 project alternatives - the conclusions in 7.2.3 claims that it is not known if marine recreational alternative is economically viable. I feel we should know whether the only alternative proposed in this EIR is economically viable. No studies have been presented to this Commission that support the economic viability of the proposed project. Where is the analysis? . Land Use Element, page 26 - recreational and open space is defined, nowhere in this recreation and open space land use designation is there reference to the suitability of this zoned for a hotel. I don't see that. When I hear recreation, I don't think hotel. I hope that is explained. file: //H:1P1ancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 18 of 23 . Page 42, the major land use proposals for each area in our existing land use element, under Statistical Area D1 under Marinapark it is indicated that the existing mobile home park will be allowed to continue. The land is proposed to be used for aquatic facilities and expanded beach and community facilities, again no mention of a hotel or similar land use. . The Harbor and Bay Element, page 3 - proposed project is not consistent with goal HB -1, specifically policy HB- 1.1.2. Whereby the goal is to preserve the diverse uses of the harbor and water front that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Bay and provide needed support for recreational boaters and visitors and residences with regulations limited to those necessary to protect the interest of all users. Further, the policy states that when reviewing proposals for land use changes the City shall consider the impact on water dependent and water related land uses and activities and the importance of providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential to the operation of the harbor. This shall include not only the proposed change on the subject property but also the potential to limit existing land uses, activities, facilities and services on adjacent properties. I feel the proposed project is not consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element. . The Recreation and Open Space Element, page 2-4 and 2 -5, the citywide needs are expressed as community pool facilities and boating facilities, no mention of a hotel. In the service area needs for Service Area 3, which is the Balboa Peninsula, it suggests that there is very little vacant land for recreational opportunities. . The Recreation and Open Space Element states that unmet park needs can be satisfied via renovation of facilities such as Los Arenas Park, the very property that is the subject of this application. Objective 4 on page 3 -10, policy 4.2 discusses the need for boat launching facilities, marine sanitation facilities, guest slips, showers, restrooms, drinking fountains, junior lifeguard facilities, no mention of a hotel. . Page 3 -11 of the Recreation and Open Space Element mentions maximizing the opportunities for launching and beaching of small boats. I don't see that opportunity in this plan. . In the Description of Planned Facilities on Page 4.5 of the Recreation and Open Space Element, under Marinapark - the Marinapark area encompasses the existing Los Arenas and Veterans' Memorial Park, the American Legion Hall, Balboa Community Center and the Girl Scout Base, the Marinapark, the mobile home park and the public beach from 15th Street to 19th file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 19 of 23 Street. In addition to retention of such existing facilities as the public beach and the four tennis courts, the area for its future opportunities for park, recreation and aquatic facilities are not yet fully planned. Seems to me the project is not consistent with this. . He concluded asking that these issues be addressed as well as the suitability of this project as it relates to the existing General Plan at our next meeting. Mr. Burnham answered: . State Lands Commission staff has taken the position that approximately 70% of the existing parcel is tidelands. A substantial portion of the site that is currently devoted to the mobile home use is, according to State Lands Commission staff, tidelands. There has been no final determination as to where the actual tidelands boundary is. Throughout the bay, the majority of the tidelands boundaries were established by court decree in the late 1920's and early 30's and do not actually reflect the precise location of the line of mean tide when California was admitted to the Union. The only way to determine a boundary line is through legislation, litigation or boundary line. agreement. In preliminary discussions with the State Lands'I Commission staff, they will support the use of 30% of the site for non - tideland uses. The Community center is not a tideland use, the Girl Scout facility is not a tideland use, the tennis courts are not a tideland use. The State Lands Commission staff have indicated that they will have no specific problem with the twelve time share units, but they would have a huge problem with any greater number. The revenue derived from this site he suspects will be designated entirely for tidelands purposes. The sale of the units would be determined throug lease negotiations regarding receiving the TOT equivalent from h each of those units and making sure that if other units are used for marketing purposes that the City receive full TOT when those rooms are occupied as well. Ms. Wood added that a hotel is not part of the existing land use designation, that is why there is a request to change the land use designation with this proposed project. Commissioner Selich noted that the Commission's job is to review the Environmental Impact Report and the alternatives, and make sure that we have an adequate EIR. A lot of things that Commissioner Toerge refers to are policy issues and that is exactly what is going to the voters to decide, the policy issues. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 20 of 23 Ms. Wood noted staff and the consultants can take another look at the areas Commissioner Toerge mentioned and see if we need to add anything to the environmental analysis with regard to those comments. It is correct that in so far as they are policy issues, that is what the City Council has decided to put to the voters. Commissioner Selich asked about the no project development alternative 7.1 on page 7 -2. The description of the alternative states the existing mobile homes and recreation facilities would remain. If 70% of the property is tidelands, is that a correct description of that alternative? Did the State Lands staff ever develop a sketch, or working map? Mr. Burnham noted it is a correct description of the assumption that you need to make under the no project, no development alternative. There is always the possibility that there is no redevelopment of the site. There is some legislation processed sometime in the future that relieves the land from the restrictions on use that are associated with tidelands such as was done with Beacon Bay. That is not the desire of the City Council nor the State Lands Commission staff. For purposes of this alternative we assumed no project, no development, no change in the existing land use on site. Continuing, Mr. Burnham answered that what they have done was to review the old meander surreys that were conducted in the 1880's and 1890's and those have been overlaid onto the site to try and determine roughly what the tideland boundary was as of that time, and then assume it had not changed much since California was admitted to the Union, which is the perfect definition of the tideland boundaries. Looking at those surveys, aerial photos and the site today, 70% is roughly that percentage of the site that falls between the bayward extent of the property from the meander survey line. That line meanders from the We comer of the site and comes about a third of the way down the easterly boundary and then proceeds on a diagonal to a point much closer to Balboa Blvd on the west side of the site. Commissioner Tucker noted: . The decisions will end up being made at the Council level. Commissioner Toerge's comments on the land use and planning section of the EIR need to be included in the response to comments. . The issue of parks is interesting. I think we have miles of park in that area, it is called the beach. . CEQA looks at the physical impacts of a project to the environment. The economics objective in the EIR does not fit in with the concept of physical impacts to the environment. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 Page 21 of 23 . At the next meeting, we will go through the process of examining the EIR; and assuming there are four of us who believe it covers everything, then we will certify that document. . That means we have come to a conclusion that the EIR fairly discloses what the consequences are of the project. It is entirely possible we may reach that conclusion even if all of us think it is a rotten project. . Whether you like it or not, what we are being asked to do is review the EIR for adequacy and what we will be looking for at the next meeting is substantial evidence. . It becomes a technical exercise when it comes to the certification process. He noted that any comments to be received at the next meeting should reference the page number in the EIR document itself as it would be helpful for clarification. Ms. Wood noted that the Planning Commission would be recommending to the City Council whether or not to certify the EIR. At Commission inquiry, she noted that for the voter approval, the General Plan Amendment will include some amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element and staff will look at others previously mentioned. The Amendment will be one that would maintain consistency. Commissioner Eaton asked if there was going to be a fiscal impact analysis and if the terms of the lease would be provided. Mr. Burnham noted that there will be a fiscal impact analysis; however, the lease itself will certainly have a bearing on the ultimate amount of revenue received by the City. The contemplation will be an option to lease pending issuance of all permits and satisfaction of other conditions as was done for the Balboa Bay Club, or the lease itself would be subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. That probably would be done some ten days prior to City Council action on this item and would not come to the Planning Commission. It will be available to the public when they vote. Commissioner Selich asked if the City Council had to certify the EIR before they can decide to put the General Plan Amendment on the general ballot and what is the last date they can do that? Mr. Burnham answered yes. The only exception would be if the measure came to the City Council pursuant to an initiative petition and in that case the City Council has the mandatory duty, if the signatures are adequate, to place the measure on the ballot. Otherwise, after the Sierra Madre case, the City Council has to certify an appropriate environmental document prior to placing the measure on the ballot. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 06/03/2004 The last regular meeting of the City Council to take that action would by July 27th. Commissioner Cole noted: . The Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council at the July 8th meeting. . In the area of recreation there is need for more facts and analysis. There seemed to be a lot of conclusions drawn without support and seem more like an opinion. . In the land use section, the parking analysis needs to have more facts and analysis particularly as it relates to comments related to the project parking demand. . The marine recreational alternative needs to have more clear analysis on how you came up to the conclusions. . The reduced intensity alternative should also be addressed more in detail. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to July 8, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that Council initiated an a dment to Districting Map and Specific Plan for Lido Marina vi ; hearings on the Code Amendment to change the Districting Map that lot on the corner of Clay and Orange Streets, an update a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan that was voted to ap ve and forward to the Coastal Commission; and, the Plan Commission action on The Newport Technology Center action sustained. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's re entative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to General Plan Update Committee - No meetings. Page 22 of 23 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0603.htm 07/17/2004 EIR -5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 33 June 8, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, Iampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) ISSUE: Review of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (formerly the Regent Newport Beach) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). RECOMMENDATION: Review the proposed project and DEIR, receive public comments, and provide direction on issues to be addressed at the Planning Commission public hearing on July 8, 2004 and at City Council public hearings on July 13 and July 27, 2004. DISCUSSION: Background: Under terms of the agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Sutherland Talla Hospitality (now Marinapark LLC), the City is required to hold one Planning Commission public hearing and one City Council public hearing on the project EIR. Pursuant to the agreement, the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council whether or not the EIR should be certified, but will not recommend whether to approve or disapprove the project. The City Council is to certify the EIR, if appropriate, and schedule the election on the General Plan amendment, but will not approve or disapprove the project. In making its decision on the details of the ballot measure, the City Council will have the ability to make some changes to the General Plan amendment request submitted by Marinapark LLC and the Planning Commission may include suggested changes to the General Plan amendment with its recommendation to City Council. The Marinapark site is zoned Planned Community (PC), and the required project approvals include a Planned Community Development Plan. The Planning Commission and /or City Council will have approval authority for this plan and any use permit, site plan or other subsequent approval required in the PC text. In addition, the City Council has the authority to approve a lease for use of this tidelands property. The Study Session is intended to give the City Council and the public the opportunity to understand the project proposal, to begin reviewing the potential environmental impacts of the project, and to identify issues that need to be addressed -for the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Final EIR on July 8, 2004 and for the City Council's public hearings on the Final EIR on July 13 and July 27, 2004. Proiect Description The Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan is proposed on property currently occupied by the Marinapark Mobile Home Park, Las Arenas Park, Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, four public tennis courts, one -half basketball court, a children's play area, and a metered parking lot on an 8.1 -acre site on Balboa Blvd. between 15th and 18th Streets. The project applicant, Marinapark LLC, proposes to remove and /or demolish existing structures on the property and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that will include a lobby and registration area, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four tennis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility, and a tot lot. EIR Certification Process A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the project and circulated for public comment on April 26, 2004. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, the review period is 45 days and will end on June 9, 2004. During this time, affected government agencies and the public may submit written comments on the Draft EIR. To date, the City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee and the Southern California Association of Governments have provided written comments on the Draft EIR (Attachment A). The Planning Commission and members of the public provided comment on the Draft EIR at a public study session on June 3, 2004; a summary of comments will be provided to the City Council on June 4. At the end of the Draft EIR circulation period on June 9th written comments received and written responses to these comments will be included with the Draft EIR document in the form of the Final EIR for the project. On July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and make its recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not to certify the Final EIR. The City Council will hold public hearings and consider the Planning Commission recommendation on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and on July 27, 2004. On July 27th the City Council may certify the Final EIR if it determines that, after reviewing the document, the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. Draft EIR Summary: The Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft EIR identifies the range of potential environmental impacts that could result from construction and operation of the 110 - room Marinapark Resort. The range of impacts analyzed in the DEIR was based on an Initial Study (included in the DEIR) that concluded that no further analysis was needed for environmental issues related to agricultural resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation. The DEIR includes a description and analysis, by subject area (Land Use, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Traffic, etc.), of each impact determined to be potentially significant. Based on this analysis, a level of significance is assigned to each potential impact: "No Impact "; "Not Significant "; or "Significant." Mitigation measures are identified for "significant" impacts. A level of significance is again assigned to each potential impact according to the extent that proposed mitigation measures may reduce the severity of the impact. Alternatives to the project that may result in lesser impacts on the environment than the proposed project are also evaluated in the Draft EIR. As shown in the "Executive Summary" (Page 2 -1) of the DEIR, the analysis concludes that, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, no significant impacts to the environment would result from construction and operation of the Marinapark Resort. Potential environmental effects of the proposed project which can be mitigated so that no significant impacts result are indicated below. Impact Geology and Soils Liquefaction of soils during an earthquake Hydrology and Water Quality Degradation of water quality Overload storm drain system Mitigation Measure Building design and construction incorporating structural components that resist soil collapse Preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Construction of on -site detention basins Impact Biological Resources Cement walkway results in loss of shoreline habitat for shorebirds Disruption of benthic resources through loss of soft bottom habitat Long -term impacts to fish resources through loss of soft bottom foraging habitat Mitigation Measure Development of shorebird foraging habitat replacement site Development of benthic . habitat replacement site and revision of slip plans to include elevated walkway from beach to slips Development of benthic habitat replacement site Disruption of California least tern Preparation and implementation of a and California brown pelican Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan foraging behavior through site incorporating best management practices grading and bay dredging and construction noise Periodic loss of eelgrass through maintenance dredging Loss of halibut nursery habitat Construction, vessel movement, and increased turbidity levels could affect Eelgrass Restoration Project Bulkhead and support pilings for boat slips will result in long -term loss of sand beach and soft bottom habitat Development of a plan for restoration of eelgrass habitat pursuant to Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Development of a benthic habitat replacement site and preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Development of benthic habitat replacement site and revision of slip plans to include elevated walkway from beach to slips and development of a benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site Impact Air Qualit Dust resulting from construction activities Exceed thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases through use of paint and other coatings in construction phase Mitigation Measure Compliance with Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and adopt and implement a construction traffic management plan Use pre- coated materials, high pressure low- volume paint applicators with 50% efficiency, lower volatility paint The Executive Summary of the DEIR also includes environmental components that would not be adversely affected by project development and operation as shown below. Land Use: Project development is consistent with General Plan Policies and the Harbor and Bay Element and the Newport Beach Municipal Code and with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies on public access, views, parking, dock facilities, public restrooms and historic resource inventory; project complies with Zoning Code for Community Plans; project is compatible with nearby land uses and maintains public beach access and replaces existing recreation facilities; structures nearest the Bay will be one -story and structures adjacent to 15th and 18th Streets will be similar in scale to nearby buildings; Transportation: The project will generate a net increase of 520 average daily trips during the "shoulder" e.g. fall and spring season which, compared to existing traffic, does not represent a significant impact. The project would generate a net increase of 360 average daily trips during the summer season which, compared to existing traffic, does not represent a significant impact; Noise: The project is consistent with the City's performance standards for locating land uses in noisy environments; restriction of construction hours would reduce adverse effect of equipment noise to less than significant level; noise modeling indicates no increase in traffic - related noise levels; Aesthetics: The architectural features of buildings included with the project are consistent in size and scale with existing development and existing views to the bay from public rights - of -way will be substantially maintained; Public Services and Utilities: Existing public facilities and .resources for police and fire protection were deemed adequate to serve the project based on interviews with the respective department representatives; facilities and infrastructure for solid waste disposal, water service, wastewater service, natural gas, and electricity were all deemed adequate for the needs of the project based on information from the respective service providers. Alternatives to the Marinapark Resort project are analyzed in the DEIR and their potential impacts are compared with those of the proposed project. Any of the alternatives may be determined to be environmentally superior if, overall, the magnitude of impacts is less than that of the proposed project. Each alternative, however, must also be evaluated in light of the project objectives identified by the City of Newport Beach and set forth in the DEIR as follows: • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands; • Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between t6ideland revenue and tideland expenditures; • Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents; • Enhance public access and community faci8lities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users; • Ensure that site redevelopment does could adversely impact the residents adjacent to the site; not generate noise, glare or traffic that in the vicinity or the American Legion • Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. Alternatives analyzed in the DEIR, the magnitude of overall impact compared with the project, and the extent to which each meets project objectives identified above are as follow: "No Proiect/No Development Alternative" This alternative assumes that existing mobile homes and recreational facilities remain. No additional environmental impacts would result but this alternative would not meet project objectives for area revitalization, consistency with tidelands restrictions, reduction of tidelands deficit, generation of additional revenue, or provision of additional marine - related facilities. "Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative" This alternative assumes removal of the mobile homes and development of new recreational facilities including 2 charter boat moorings, 20 boat slips, parkland, a Girl Scout/Community Center, tennis /basketball courts, and beach and boat slip parking area. This alternative would result in lesser impacts to geology and soils, aesthetics, and public services and utilities as compared with the proposed project. Impacts associated with land use and planning would be similar to those of the project. Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality, geological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise would be greater as compared with the proposed project. The Marine Recreation Alternative would meet project objectives related to area revitalization, consistency with tidelands restrictions, and provision of additional marine - related facilities. This alternative, however, may not reduce the tidelands revenue deficit and may not generate additional general fund revenue or enhance public access without an expenditure of tax revenue. "Reduced Intensity Alternative" This alternative assumes development of an 80 -room luxury resort hotel, a 4,500 square -foot restaurant, and 12 boat slips. This alternative would result in lesser impacts to geology and soils and to aesthetics as compared with the proposed project. Impacts associated with traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities would be greater for this alternative than for the proposed project. Similar impacts would be incurred for hydrology and water quality, geological resources, and land use and planning. Based on consideration of the relative impacts of each alternative compared with the proposed project, and on the extent to which each alternative and the proposed project satisfy the objectives set forth by the City of Newport Beach for redevelopment of the proposed project site, the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan is deemed to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative consistent with guidelines set forth in CEQA. CONCLUSION: The Study Session will allow members of the City Council and the public to better understand the proposed project and to evaluate conclusions about potential environmental impacts set forth in the Draft EIR for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. The Study Session will prepare the City Council for public hearings on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and July 27, 2004, and for City Council determination after public hearing on July 27, 2004 whether or not to certify the Final EIR. If the City Council certifies the Final EIR on July 271h, the City Council may at that time adopt a resolution calling for the proposed General Plan amendment for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan to be placed before the Newport Beach electorate in November. Prepared by: Submitted by: ()V V lames W. Cam bell, Senior Planner Attachments f, /V /I A haron Z. Wood Assistant City ager 1. Correspondence 2. Project conceptual plans — separate large format drawings Exhibit No. 1 Correspondence m This Page Left Intentionally Blank C) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t (213) 236 -1600 `(213) 236.1825 ww yscag.ca.gov offs am: President: Coundlmembe: Ron Roberts. Temecula • Post N¢ President: 5unerasor Hank KOOv, Imperial County • Second Noe Pm,rr nC Mayor Toni young. Port Hueneme • immediate NOT President: Couneilmember Bev Pror. Brea imperial Counry: Hang gutter, Imperial County - in Shiams, Bm»ley Im Angeles County: More Bratio.ohe Buds, Los Angeles County - Ze+YarovlaveM. Las Angeles County • Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel • Paul Bowlen, Cerritos - Tony Cardenas. Los Angeles - Margaret Clark, Rosemead - Gene Daniels. P3Rmoun, • Mike Distant.. Palmdale • Judy Dunlap. Inglewood - Eri: Ga,m1r. Los Angeles Wendy Gomel. Ins Angeles • Frank Gurule, Cudahy • lames Hahn, Los "ears • Janice Hahn. Los Angeles • Isadore Hall. Common Tom La u'r,k, LOS Angeles • Bonnie Lowmmal Iorg Bead • Martin Ludlow. Los Angeles Keith McCarthy, Downey • Uewellyd MilleA Claymont - Cindy Msrikowski, LOS Ari ley • Paul Nowalka, Torrance • Pam O'Connor. Sama Mmaca • Alex Padilla, LOS Angeles • Bernard Parks. Las Angeles Ian Perry, LOS Angeles • Beatrice Pros. Am Riven Ed Rayee. LOS Angeles • Greig Solt. Los Angeles Dirk Stanford, ANSa • Tom Sykes. Walnut • Paul Talbot, Alhambra- Sidney Tyler, Pass dent• Taira Rees u2 nga. Lan[ Beach • Antonio Villas gosa. ]LOS Angeles• Dennis 4'Jashbum. Cab basis - lark Weise, LOS Angeles • BOD Youserian, Glendale Dennis Zme, Los Angeles orange County: Chra NorbB Orange Cavity - Ronald Sals, LO; Alamilos • Lou Bone, Tuslin - AH 8ni Buena Park • Richard Cha.¢, Anaheim Debbie Cool, Huntington Beam • Cathryn DOYoung, Laguna Niguel • Rirhard Dbon. Lake .vest • AIR Duke, L Palma • Bev Perry, Brea EDd Ridgewa, Newport Beach 2iverside County. Marion hSbley, Riverside :dusty - Thomas Budleg, Lake EAsin mt • Bonnie 7lekiniv. Moreno t'alley • Ron to. logo, liversidE • Greg Pettis. Catiedrel City • Ron lcberts,'Rme,wa :an Bernardino County: Paul Biane, San seme,6mO County • hill Aiaamder. Raneho urambnga • Edward Bannon. IDwn Of Apple 'alia,° IswOrim Dale. Batslow - Lee Ann Garcia, band TkOam- Susan LOnzvill=_, San Bernardino - ary0vi , Onano • Deborah Roberson. Ratio emus County. lady Mlmld Venuara COwmy, - 1s el oera. Simi valley •Carl Moyi:Dus:, San uenavemura • imiyoung, E" Hueneme range Counryy Transpottaliun Authority: ma, "s SROB, entree county outside County Transponation Commission: obit Low=, Name IAWra Counn'Transporml ion Commission: Sig wit. Simi`:t(id P4. m Annoei wen «p;Ae /ro May 19, 2004 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. Community Plan Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 6 2004 PM 7 8I9110 X11 X12 it I2,314i5l6 1 20040258 Marinapark Resort & Thank you for submitting the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of.regional goals and policies. We have reviewed the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The proposed project is not a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 16 -30, 2004 Intergovernmental Review Clearinahouse Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236 -1867. Thank you. Sincerely, JEFFREY M. SMITH, AICP Senior Regional Planner Intergovernmental Review l i' MEMORANDUM To: James Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ( "EQAC ") City of Ne-,vport Beach Subject: The City of Newport Beach's Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the implementation and development of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (the "Project ") Date: May 28, 2004 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the captioned DEIR for the Project. I. A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. We recommend that the City reconsider and revise the DEIR and/or respond to the following concerns during the public review process for the DEIR. Because of the concerns listed below, we believe that the City should revise the document and re- circulate the revised document for public review and comment. We make these recommendations for several reasons: (1) The DO R fails to describe the Project fiilly and accurately, thereby undercutting the public's and decision maker's ability to understand the Project, determine impacts of the Project and evaluate mitigation measures. (2) The DEIR fails to recognize and analyze potentially significant impacts discussed in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the DEIR including impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. (3) The DEIR fails to discuss and analyze all Project related impacts including those associated with Transportation/Circulation, Land Use, Hydrology and Water Quality and other issues, as well as cumulative impacts for all issues analyzed. (4) The DEIR fails to analyze fully the growth inducing impacts of the Project and /or provide mitigation for such impacts. (5) The DEIR fails to analyze and discuss fully the Project alternatives and assess objectively the environmentally superior alternative. 1! EQAC Pale 2 May 28, 2004 II. Introduction: EIR Standards. which: An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document ".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed proj ect on the environment, alternatives to the project; and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision makers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa. Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929 Bmnhasis supplied). In addition an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alteratives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Imnrovement Association v. Regents of the Universitv of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must provide specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. "By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozun2 v. Local Agency Formation Com.(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in government planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine flexibility remains "). CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant impacts: mitigation i� EQAC Page 3 May 28, 2004 measures must really minimize an identified impact. II. Section l: Introduction and Effects Found Not to be Significant (Section 1.6). The Introduction discusses general CEQA issues, formatting of the DEIR, the IS/NOP, the scoping process and effects found not to be significant. The latter— `Effects Found Not to be Significant' — raises substantive concerns. Section 1.6 notes that, during the scoping process; various impacts were found to be potentially significant, whereas others were found not to be significant: These latter include "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," and "Recreation." For various reasons discussed below. these are potentially significant impacts: the DEIR should include a detailed discussion and analysis of such impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. A. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Appendix A of the DEIR includes the Initial Study, Environmental Checklist and the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. The Checklist Item No. VII addresses Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Item No. VII b) indicates that it is less than significant that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. However, Item No. VII c) indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact by emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing school. Item No. VII d) indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact unless mitigated in that the Project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and as a result would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Discussion of these Items is helpful. Under Item No. VII b); the Discussion notes that, because of the presence of motorized construction equipment, there is a small risk of gasoline or diesel spillage. However, the Discussion concludes that such is less than significant. Under Item No. VII c), the Discussion notes that the Project is within one - quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. It states that an inventory of materials and quantities used in construction and operation of the Project will be created. If necessary, any hazardous materials will be identified and mitigation measures proposed. As for Item No. VII d), the Discussion explains that past or present on -site and off -site uses have the potential to result in the release of toxic substances. "[P]roject implementation will require the removal of onsite structures, which depending on date of construction may contain lead or asbestos materials. A regulatory database review will be conducted for the proposed project, results of the database review will be summarized in the EIR and the review results included in their entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures -vill be recommended as appropriate." /'L.' EQAC Page 4 May 28, 2004 The DEIR does not address the IS/NOP analysis. Instead, the DEIR concludes that the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. For gasoline or diesel spillage, the DEIR includes a similar analysis as the IS/NOP: the risk is less than significant. For proximity to schools including Newport Elementary, the DEIR is silent. As discussed below, it refers to a (Limited) Phase Il Soils Assessment but concludes no significant impact. The Phase H assessment is not attached as an appendix. The DEIR notes that the analysis identified small concentrations of trace petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and organocholorine pesticide in and around portions of the Project site. Submarine sediment samples indicated low concentrations of various but unidentified hydrocarbons. The DEIR fails to keep the promise of the IS/NOP: the DEIR includes no "regulatory database review and summary." Moreover, it fails to include the Phase H study or make such available for public review. Incidentally, the DEIR states that such contaminants are below action levels; yet it provides no indication as to what those action levels are. Given the promise of the IS/NOP, the DEIR should be revised to include items discussed above, and the revised DEIR should include a thorough analysis of all such impacts. Moreover, the conclusions of the Phase E study seems implausible. The Project's location is near the mouth of the Rhein Channel which we understand is regarded as highly polluted. Although the IS/NOP appeared to recognize this challenge, the DEIR fails to consider and analyze the Project's impacts including destruction and removal of existing docks and structures, construction and installation of new docks and structures, and other Project related activities on submarine sediment in and around this problematic water body. In addition, we understand that Chevron or another company had a storage facility near the Project site in the past. The DEIR should include an analysis and/or study of any emissions from the storage site and any Project related impacts arising from disturbance and/or release of any hazardous materials from such site or contamination from such site as a result of the construction and operation of the Proj ect. Also, as discussed below, notwithstanding the DEIR's conclusion that the Proj ect will have no significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials, the DEIR discusses the Project's hazards and hazardous materials impacts in relation to biological resources. The DEIR's analysis of hazards in relation to biological resources undercuts the DEIR's conclusions that Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. B. Recreation. The DEIR also regards the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities as insignificant. However, Project features and configuration themselves require environmental analysis in order to make such conclusion. The Project "will replace all recreational facilities except the basketball half - court." DEIR, 1 -6. This raises several problems. At the outset, the demolition and replacement of existing facilities will have short-term construction impacts on all of these recreational opportunities. Without more analysis and i� EQAC Paae 5 May 28, 2004 discussion, such impacts appear to be significant, at least in the short term. Further, the replacement of such facilities is problematic: without farther analysis and perhaps mitigation, it is unclear that the replaced facilities will provide access and have features similar to the existing facilities. Further, the elimination of the half -court basketball facility requires further analysis and discussion. This resource appears to be unique: it's configuration and alignment may make it more popular than full court facilities in the area. Also, the Project's resort proposes joint use of the recreational facilities. Without more analysis, such use may significantly and adversely affect residents' use of the Project facilities. Finally, a crucial Project alternative is a recreation alternative. In order to assess, analyze and evaluate the alternatives; the DEIR should include an analysis of the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities. C. Conclusion. The DEIR should be revised to include a full environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. III. Section 2: Executive Summarv. The Executive Summary attempts to summarize the Project Description (discussed below), the areas of controversy /issues to be resolved, and a summary of impacts and mitigation. Section 2.2 addresses areas of controversy /issues to be resolved. It notes: "The area of controversy associated with the proposed project is the intensification of land uses on the project site. The location of the tideland boundary is an issue that is to be resolved." Both of these are problematic. As to the area of controversy, "intensification of land use" improperly simplifies the issues: the area of controversy is the replacement of the current designated use— Recreational and Environmental Open Space — with a commercial use which requires a General Plan Amendment and other approvals. The DEIR's statement about the issue to be resolved — tideland boundary— is surprising. The DEIR should resolve this issue in its analysis of the existing site. The DEIR's failure to resolve this issue undercuts its usefulness. Moreover, Section 3.4 indicates that, among other permifs, the Project will require a lease of tidelands. In order for the public and decision makers to understand the Project's impacts on tideland boundaries and the impacts of this lease, the DEIR should include a detailed discussion of the tidelands location, and the nature and extent of such lease. Without resolving this issue in the DEIR, the document cannot fulfill its own requirements. Section 2.5 includes a table which identifies Project impacts and mitigation. For a discussion of Project impacts, see our discussion below. However, as to mitigation, Table 2 -1 raises a general problem: deferral of mitigation measures. As indicated above, CEQA requires 'u EQAC Nee 6 May 28, 2004 environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. For each mitigation measure identified in Table 2 -1, each measure is deferred to some future event or permit issuance. In order to understand the nature and extent of mitigation and to assess whether the proposed mitigation fully and adequately addresses the impact, the DEIR should fully identify and discuss all mitigation measures, discuss how such measures will lessen impacts to a level of insignficance, and if necessary, provide alternative mitigation measures for any measure which does not fully mitigate identified impacts. IV. Section 3: The Project Description. Section 3. 1.1 discusses Site Characteristics. Among other things, the DEIR notes that the Project site is bound by "a public beach and Newport Bay to the north." Although Section 3. 1.1 discusses many of the current site characteristics, it fails to discuss the location and character of the tidelands issue. This issue may affect the Project, the analysis of the Project impacts, the alternatives analysis and related matters. The DEIR should include a full discussion of the tidelands boundary issue, resolve the issue, locate the boundary, and discuss all Project related impacts. Among other features, the Project includes twelve (12) new boat slips and replacement of public tennis courts on the deck of the proposed parking structure. As to the boat slips, the DEIR states that this feature will require dredging of approximately 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment to create the boat basin; this "clean sand" will be placed on shore side of a proposed Project related bulkhead. This raises several issues. The Project includes twelve (12) new marina slips with four (4) available for public use and eight (8) available for Project guests. The current forty-six (46) American Legion slips will remain. However, the DEIR fails to discuss the relation of the American Legion slips to the Project feature Slips. Also, the IS/NOP and the DEIR recognize that the Project may affect hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed above, these two documents are inconsistent in their assessment of the Project's impacts on hazards. However, given that the Project requires removal and relocation of 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment, the DEIR should fully address the character of this sediment, analyze any impact to hazards and hazardous materials, and, if necessary, provide mitigation. Further; it is unclear where this excavation will occur especially in relation to the tidelands boundary. As noted above, the DEIR fails to discuss the tidelands location. The DEIR should provide a clear description of the location of this excavation in relation to the tidelands, and if necessary, provide adequate mitigation. Regarding the tennis court, the Project description notes their location but fails to address public access to this Project feature. Indeed, the Project description fails to discuss all sorts of public access issues. How does the public gain access to the beach? Does the beach remain a public beach? What are the public access features for all Project related structures including the community center, tot lot, and parking? 1% EQAC Page 7 May 28, 2004 Also, the Project is entitled the "Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. The Project description includes no reference to the "Community Plan.' The revised DEIR should fully explain the Project including the "Community Plan." Incidentally, the Project description includes some internal inconsistencies which require explanation and resolution: First, exhibit 3 -3, Site Plan, shows the Girl Scout House and the Spa Villa to be 4,166 square feet each; however Table 3.2 -1 on the next page states that the Girl Scout House /Community Center and the Spa Villa will be 6,191. Second, the Site Plan shows shared Parking at the comer of 18t` Street and Balboa Boulevard, but further in the document, in the Aesthetics section, the computer - generated visual simulations shows two -story -,villas at this comer. Section 3.3 discusses Project Objectives. These Objectives include several economic/commercial objectives: "Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula: Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents. Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users. DEIR, 3 -8. The DEIR includes no detailed discussion of these and other objectives. However, it is unclear that such objectives are appropriate for the Project site and the current environmental analysis. The only Project Alternative in the DEIR which meets these economic objectives is the Project. Given these economic objectives, the DEIR should include an economic analysis which shows how and why the Project meets these and other objectives, provides a detailed discussion of City revenues from the Project including lease payments, taxes and other sources of revenue, and other economic considerations appropriate. Section 3.4 addresses "Intended Uses " of the DEIR. The section identifies various discretionary approvals by the City: It notes: "Other actions necessary to implement the proj ect are identified later in the section under `Other Discretionary and Ministerial Actions. "' DEIR, 3 -9. However, the DEIR contains no such section. The DEIR should be revised to include a full list of all discretionary approvals by all agencies. Finally, the DEIR inadequately covers permitting and approvals: the election requirement. We understand that the City proposes to submit this Project to the voters. The DEIR should discuss this requirement, and explain its relation to the CEQA process and Project approval. 11' EQ AC Page 8 May 28, 2004 V. Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting. Section 4.1 addresses the environmental setting. As indicated above, nothing in the DEIR locates the tidelands boundary. These section should be revised to include a discussion and, perhaps, a map of such boundary. Further, we understand that the Marinapark mobile home park is a park on City owned land with a lease. The DEIR recognizes that the park is a 40 -year facility but fails to discuss the lease hold, its term, the landlord and other crucial and important terms. Section 4.2 discusses related projects. It notes that the City provided several related projects; presumably, Table 4 -1 is the list provided. However, it is incomplete. First, as indicated in the Project objectives, DEIR recognizes that in the Project vicinity, the City and others are engaged in "efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula" These efforts are related projects and should be included in the cumulative impacts list. Among other efforts, we understand that several plans to develop live /work projects in and around the Project vicinity are pending. Likewise, these plans should be included in the cumulative impacts list. VI. Section 5: Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. A. Section 5.1: Geology and Soils. Section 5.1 address geotechnical impacts of the Project. The DEIR includes a geotechnical report for the site. Among other things, the DEIR notes that "[l]iquefacfion occurs when shallow, fine to medium - grained sediments saturated adth water are subjected to strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction usually occurs when the underlying water table is 50 feet or less below the surface." DEIR, 5.1 -2. Also, the DEIR notes that expansive soils are those which can give up or take on water. Id. The DEIR notes that, although the onsite soils are not expansive, "[t]he potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high." As noted above, liquefaction may depend on depth to groundwater. The DEIR should state depth to groundwater at the site, discuss the soils character, explain why, though the sands will hold water, they are not expansive and related issues. Moreover, Section 5.1.4 considers two mitigation measures. As before, this section fails to discuss depth to groundwater. The two mitigation measures depend upon permit issuance: the first depends upon issuance of a grading permit and concerns aspects of the grading plans. However, it fails to state the depth if any of such grading. The second depends upon issuance of a building permit and concerns slab alternatives. However, the section fails to determine which slab type gill be employed. I� EQAC Page 9 May 28, 2004 B. Section 5.2: HydroIoey and Water Quality. Section 5.2 concerns hydrology and water quality. This section notes that the Project will have short-term construction impacts on water quality and hydrology, long term operational impacts and cumulative impacts. Construction impacts include soils erosion, trash and debris which may leave the Project site. In addition, construction activities in connection with the marina will include re- introduction of contaminants through construction activities which may "resuspend" bottom sediment as well as increase iii turbidity. Long term operational impacts include increased flow concentrations at a majority of Project related storm drains with a decrease in several such drains. In addition, the Project will increase peak flows during 100 -year storm events along IS"' and l5t' Streets while flows along Balboa Boulevard would decrease somewhat. Water quality impacts of the Project include trash, debris, oil and grease, and other pollutants including heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, nutrients and organic compounds. Further, installation of a cement walkway from the resort to the marina will interrupt tidal flows and water circulation, and may create stagnant water conditions. Finally, the DEIR recognizes that the Project "will substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on existing storm drain systems." It will "also increase urban pollutants that would substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on surface water quality." The DEIR includes five mitigation measures. Most of these mitigation measures defer mitigation measures until issuance of grading permits. This analysis and mitigation is problematic for several reasons. The impacts analysis fails to discuss current drainage and percolation, as well as the proposed drainage and percolation of the Proj ect. Also, the DEIR fails to consider several potential mitigation measures. Increasing pervious surfaces may limit surface water run -off. Indeed, Section 7, the Alternatives Analysis, states that the Project is superior to the Marine Alternative due to its increase of pervious surfaces. Yet the DEIR fails to discuss this issue, analyze the nature and extent of such surfaces, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. In addition, the Project together with other revitalization efforts may significantly affect the storm drain capacity. Yet the DEIR does not consider whether the Project may require re- sizing of storm drains in the vicinity. Also, none of the mitigation measures address the Project's cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. Mitigation of such impacts could include establishment of stormwater mitigation program for a comprehensive upgrade of the storm drains on the Peninsula. The Project could contribute its fair share to such a mitigation program. LO EQAC Page 10 May 28, 2004 Further, as indicated above, such deferral of specific mitigation measures does not comply with the requirements of CEQA which requires full discussion of all impacts and mitigation. Deferral of the development of various mitigation measures until some permitting or pursuant to various regulatory bodies including the City and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board is not informative: precise Project features and mitigation are deferred until after the public and decision makers have had an opportunity to review, comment and in the case of decision makers, decide on the DEIR and the Project. The DEIR should be revised to discuss fully all water quality and hydrology impacts, and provide specific and enforceable mitigation measures to lessen any such impacts. . C. Section 5.3: Biological Resources. Section 5.3 concerns the Project's potential impacts on biological resources. Section 5.3.1 addresses existing conditions including sediments and habitats and marine biological communities near the Project. As indicated above, the DEIR includes no detailed discussion of hazards and hazardous materials. Section 5.3.1 repeats the earlier discussion regarding low levels of pollutants. Further, in discussing sub -tidal bay floor sediments, the DEIR states that environmental site assessment indicates the presence of low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper one -half foot of the bay mud. This is inadequate` as indicated above, the Project will require excavation of between 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of "bay mud." Testing on the upper one -half foot fails to test the full extent of this excavation. The DEIR should be revised to include a full analysis of hazards and hazardous materials so that the entire environmental analysis of the Project's impacts including hazards and hazardous materials and biological resources. Also as indicated above, the analysis indicates that contaminates including those in sub -tidal bay sediments are below action levels for soils on land but fails to provide the action levels. The revised DEIR should provide this information, or indicate that they are the same as those for soils on land. In addition, in connection with the existing conditions regarding bay fishes, the DEIR relies on a otter trawl net sampling of fish species known to occur in Newport Bay that was conducted for eighteen (18) months between 1974 and 1975. This sampling would seem to be too out -of -date to be of any value in assessing the number of species in the Bay and the proposed Project's potential impact on those fish species. The DEIR should be revised to include a more recent sampling or more recent information on the fish species known to occur in Newport Bay and consider the Project's impacts on identified species. Also, if for some reason the thirty year old study remains useful, the revised DEIR should explain the utility of this thirty year old study and alternatives. In assessing the Project's impacts on shoreline habitats and resources, the DEIR states that "(t)he proposed cement walkway from the resort hotel to the boat slips will result in the loss of approximately 490 square feet of sandy shoreline which is foraging habitat for shorebirds. This long -term loss is considered significant." Page 53-7 Since the site currently has an existing concrete walkway, it is unclear how the new walkway will have this kind of impact. Based on the EQAC Page I1 May 28, 2004 conclusion that there will be this significant impact, it appears that the Project walkway must differ from the existing walkway, e.g. project out further into the shoreline. This is not clear from the Project Description or anywhere else in the DEIR. Further, the DEIR is inconsistent in discussing this impact. As stated above, on Page 5.3 -7, the DEIR characterizes the loss of foraging habitat for shorebirds as significant. However, on Page 5.3 -9, the DEIR states: "No direct mortality of shorebirds and seabirds will occur. The long -term presence of the boat slips, bulkhead and concrete walkway will however, reduce shorebird and seabird resting and foraging habitat, however, this is not considered a significant impact." An accurate assessment of the impacts to birds should be provided in the Final EIR, and this inconsistency should be corrected. The DEIR contains another and important inconsistency. Section 5.3.3 recognizes that Project construction will have an impact on benthic communities in the Project area However, Section 5.3.3 concludes that "[t]he loss of benthic infauna and epifauna due to dredging will be a short-term less than significant impact." This conclusion is problematic: dredging will continue through the life of the Project. Thus, such impact may be more than short term. Moreover, Section 5.3.6 states that regarding biological resources, "[w]iththe implementation of the above mitigation measures, only one significant unavoidable adverse impact would remain." DEIR, 5.3 -13. "This impact would occur during the short-term and would be on the benthic resources that would be removed from the bayfloor during project and maintenance dredging activities." Id. However, Section 6.1 concludes that there are no significant and unavoidable impacts. The DEIR should be revised to resolve this inconsistency: either the impact on benthic resources is significant or not. Moreover, such impacts will be more than long term: impacts on benthic resources will occur during Project construction as well as maintenance dredging. Also, as indicated above, all Biological Resources Mitigation Measures are deferred until the issuance of either a grading permit or a permit from a resource agency. This deferral of mitigation is not permissible under CEQA. In addition, most of the Mitigation Measures list various regulatory plans, e.g. stormwater pollution prevention plan ( "SVJPPP ") which describes best management practices (`BMPs'). However, the analysis is incomplete and generic; all of these Mitigation Measures appear to be boilerplate, with no direct reference to the impacts to biological resources present at the proposed Proj ect site or the actual mitigation proposed. The DEIR should include an appropriate expert analysis to discuss Project specific impacts and mitigation as well as to develop the various regulatory plans. The discussion of mitigation measures in this section seems more appropriate for a program level analysis. The Final EIR should more fully discuss the impacts and mitigation proposed. 2Z EQAC Page 12 May 28, 2004 D. Section 5.4: Land Use and Planning: Section 5.4 addresses the proposed Project's consistency with various elements of the General Plan. Section 5.4.1 describes existing conditions including the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It provides regarding the Project site: "The existing mobile home park use will be allowed to continue until the end of the existing lease. At that time the City will make the decision as to whether the lease should be further extended, or the property converted to public use." DEIR, 5.4-4. The DEIR then states that this description "indicates that the existing mobile home park is not consistent with the existing land use designation for the site." Id. However, in Section 5.4.3 which addresses Project impacts, the DEIR fails to discuss and analyze the Project's consistency with this requirement of conversion "to public use" at the end of the existing lease. Also, this section indicates that the Project will not divide the community, because "[a]ccess to and through the project site is maintained." DEIR, 5.4 -8. However, as indicated above, public access to and through the Project is unclear. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.7, Noise, the Project will serve as a sound barrier which will block vehicular noise from Balboa Blvd. to the Project If the Project serves as such a barrier, it likely will divide the community. The DEIR should be revised to show the access points and routes from Balboa Blvd. through the Project to the Bay. In addition, Section 5.4.3 discusses the Land Use Element, Policy C which provides: "Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor." DEIR 5.4.9. Emphasis added. However, the DEIR's discussion of parking requirements shows that, although the Project will provide a total of 209 surface and subterranean parking spaces, the Project demand is only 92 spaces under the current Code requirements; the Project udll result in a total of 117 excess parking spaces. This raises a few problems or questions. First, the code requirements appear at odds with Policy C's requirements. Moreover, the Code requirements seem skimpy: one space for every two rooms; one space for 300 square feet of the proposed Community Center and Girl Scout House; and four spaces for the four tennis courts. Likely, each visitor enjoying a Project/resort room will require one parking space; likely, each individual using the tennis courts will require parking. The DEIR should include a further study regarding the parking demand of the Project to ensure that Policy C of the Land Use Element is met. Z3 EQAC Page 13 May 28, 2004 In our earlier comments on the NOP for the proposed Project, we noted that the Project Description failed to discuss employee, contractor and supplier parking and access. The DEIR also fails to discuss how parking and access will be provided within the proposed Project for these groups. The Section goes on to say that the proposed Project will provide 117 parking spaces beyond what is required by the code. Perhaps these "excess" parking spaces are intended to accommodate employees, contractors and suppliers, but this issue is not addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR should be revised to address the issue of parking for these groups, because parking on the Peninsula is such an important issue. As indicated here and below, Section 5.4 addresses the Project's parking demands and Section 55, Transportation /Circulation includes no panting analysis. This confusion creates another problem. Although Section 5.4 discusses the Project's parking requirements, it fails to discuss existing parking including street parking. We believe that the Project will result in a loss of parking spaces from current levels. Based upon our information and calculations, the following is a tabulation of the parking spaces which the Project will cause to be lost: Metered public parking at 18th street curbside 5 Metered public parking at 18th street lot 23 Community Bldg. Staff 2 Girl Scouts dedicated and gated 10 Public Parking at Tot lot 2 Total Lost Spaces 42 Given this loss of 42 spaces as a result of the Project, there is an excess of only 75 spaces That is, the loss of parking spaces as a result of the Project must be counted against the excess parking spaces. The DEIR should be revised to include a thorough parking analysis under Section 5.6 and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Further, the Project is proposed as a Five Star resort hotel with 110 rooms and fifty -eight (58) employees. We understand that other Five Star hotles in the area require a much higher ratio. As indicated above, the DEIR has eliminated Recreation from the environmental issues to be addressed, even though Recreation had been included in the NOR The DEIR states that the half court basketball court doesn't get much use, according to City's recreation staff, and therefore, will not be replaced. Page 5.4 -12 However, residents of the Peninsula do, in fact, use the court. Because the court is protected from the wind by its location on the Bay side of the Peninsula and between the tennis courts, it is preferred over the full court located on the ocean side at the elementary school. In fact, the City has recently completed some repairs to the court, presumably because it is used. The Final EIR should address this impact and provide necessary mitigation. Further, the DEIR states that the proposed Project would replace the four tennis courts with the same number of courts, but the hotel would offer tennis lessons on the courts. How will this impact the current heavy use of the tennis courts? The Final EIR should include a Recreation section, which analyzes these proposed Project's impacts and provide necessary mitigation. Further, Section 5.4.1 and following sections include a discussion of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan stating that it has "been determined to be applicable to the ZLL/ EQAC Page 14 May 28, 2004 proposed project ..." In fact, the DEIR states that "(t)he project site is designated Recreation and Environmental Open Space." DEIR, 5.4 -3. The DEIR mentions that Charter Boats and Boat Tours may pass the Project. The Project may accommodate some of these boats. The DEIR should address all impacts associated with such large boats and propose necessary mitigation. In addition, any Project permit should condition such use so that any and all such impacts are mitigated, or if not, should restrict such use. One of the objectives of the Recreation and Open Space Element is to "[m]aintain and enhance the scenic character of the City." The policy which supports this objective seeks to "protect and enhance existing view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay ...... Section 5.4.3 states that the Project would proidde view corridors from Balboa Boulevard to the Bay, and therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the objective of the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, the views from Balboa Boulevard through the majority of the proposed Project site will be obstructed by 24 -foot, 27 -foot or 34 -foot buildings which will act as a sound barrier. The Final EIR should analyze this impact more realistically and proiide necessary mitigation. Finally, the DEIR states that, because the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent iAith the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, the Project will not have any cumulative land use impacts. However, the Project requires discretionary actions, e.g. amendments, regarding the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan as well as a Coastal Development Permit. As discussed above, the Project together with other projects listed in Table 4 -1 as well as the efforts to revitalize the Peninsula may create significant cumulative impacts in connection with land use. The DEIR should be revised to discuss and address such cumulative impacts. Incidentally, the DEIR offers inconsistent building setback requirements on 18"' Street. In the discussion relating to land use compatibility, the DEIR states that "(t)he structures proposed along the 18t1' Street will have a setback of 14 to 17 feet. Page 5.4 -8 However, the Aesthetics Section lists a building setback for 18"' Street as 5 feet. This inconsistency should be corrected in the Final EIR. E. Section 55: Transportation/Circulation. Section 5.5 addresses transportation and circulation. This analysis is supported by a special traffic study, Appendix E: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis. This analysis focuses on 7 intersections during weekdays of the "shoulder season," fall and spring when schools are in session. The intersection closest to the proposed project is Newport Blvd. and 32 a St. Sections 5.5.5 concludes that the Project will have no significant transportation and circulation impacts; Section 5.5.6 concludes that therefore no mitigation measures are needed. However, Table A -1 to Appendix E recognizes what every summer visitor to the Peninsula and full-time resident knows: the summer weekend traffic in the vicinity of Balboa Blvd. and 20a' St. is already at LOS E or worse which exceeds the City's standard of acceptable service, LOS D. Although the Project traffic may not exceed the 1 % increase threshold, it likely will contribute to the existing traffic problem. Moreover, as indicated above, the Project together with other projects `Zj EQAC Page 15 May 28, 2004 identified in Table 4 -1 as well as the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula likely will have cumulative impacts which require mitigation. The City may wish to consider improved traffic flow measures in this area to include, for example, limited on -street parking, better turn-out lanes and improved traffic signal timing/synchronization. In our comments on the IS/NOP for the Project, we requested that the DEIR "analyze and; if necessary, propose mitigation for Project impacts on seasonal traffic problems ". It further requests that the DEIR "discuss and analyze the Projects design and impact on the intersections at 15th, 16th, 17th and 18t' streets with Balboa Blvd." The DEIR did not take the suggestion and none of these intersections were addressed. The DEIR should be revised to address these intersections, provide an environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on transportation in the vicinity, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Further, traffic associated with Resort employee, construction and service vehicles is not mentioned in the DEIR. Are there plans to schedule deliveries and plans for off -site employee parking to minimize traffic impacts? Correlatively, the DEIR does not address traffic access and internal circulation at the site. As indicated above, the DEIR states that the Project will not have significant impacts on vehicular access and, by implication, no impacts on internal circulation. Yet, the document is silent on these issues. The DEIR should be revised to address and consider vehicular access and internal circulation, identify any Project related impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. Also, the Project may have short-term impacts on transportation and circulation. Section 5 suggests that the Project will require a construction traffic management plan. Yet, Section 5.5 contains no analysis of the short-term construction impacts of the Project on transportation and circulation. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the short term construction impacts on traffic and circulation, discuss the construction traffic management plan, and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Finally, as discussed briefly above, the DEIR attempts to address parking demands in connection with the Land Use analysis which discusses code requirements for the Project. However, the DEIR should include an actual study on the parking demands for the Project which considers and addresses all Project features. However, Section 5.5 should include a parking study which addresses the Project's parking demands, access to parking lots, and related issues. The DEIR should be revised to address these potentially significant impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation. F. Section 5_6: Air Quality. 'Without any analysis of hazards and hazardous materials in or around the Project site, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no impacts on air quality in that the Project «gill "not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or generate objectionable odors." DEIR, 5.6 -12. ZS EQAC Page 16 May 28, 2004 However, without the hazardous materials analysis, this conclusion is difficult to support. As indicated above, the Project is near several areas subject to significant contamination. Such may have migrated to the site. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of such materials and pollutants, the air quality analysis should be revised to include and refer to the pollutant analysis, and if necessary, mitigation should be proposed. G. Section 5.7: Noise. Section 5.7 addresses potential noise impacts associated with the Project. As indicated in Section 3. 1.1 and elsewhere, the Project is partially surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Such are sensitive noise receptors. Section 5.7.3 recognizes that the Project's heating, air conditioning and ventilation equipment may create minor amounts of noise but.concludes that such noise is commonplace. However, the Project's operations will include other non - commonplace noise sources including delivery and trash trucks, employee transportation and other vehicular noise sources not present under the current configuration. The DEIR should be revised to include a noise study of the Project impact on residences including those along 19t' St. and West Bay, and 18t' St. and West Bay. If necessary, the revised document should propose adequate mitigation measures. In addition, the Project may attract other noise sources including Charter Boats and Boat Tour operators. Such new sources likely will generate noise sufficient to adversely affect the residential neighborhoods. The DEIR should analyze all such impacts including noise impacts to residential neighborhoods across the bay and propose adequate mitigation. Further, Section 5.7.3 indicates that a primary noise source is traffic and that the Project will not be affected by noise from traffic on Balboa Blvd., because the buildings will block noise from Balboa Blvd. However, given this sound barrier, the Project may generate noise from various events which noise may adversely affect neighbors across the bay. Section. 5.7 contains no discussion or analysis of such noise generation and impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include such an analysis and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Section 5.7 shows that noise levels associated vdth the Project Adll not be significantly higher than they are now except during the construction phase. Since Municipal Noise Codes are formulated in ten-as of 24 -hour average noise levels, it is likely that short term noise impacts may be sienificant without mitigation. In Ndew of this, we recommend that the DEIR include mitigation measures to ensure that construction companies and crews should be required to use all reasonable care to minimize noise generation by silencing loud equipment when feasible, avoiding early morning deliveries, controlling construction -site radios, and so forth. These considerations will minimize neighborhood disturbance and potential complaints. Construction companies should be encouraged to build subassemblies off -site when possible. The supporting noise impact analysis, Appendix. G. notes that construction equipment noise N, dU reach 90 dB when operating at full load. This will probably result in exceeding acceptable noise levels at the original or relocated Tot Lot(children's play area) during construction. Mitigation of this effect in the form of sound barriers around the Tot Lot should be required. Z_/ EQAC Page 17 May 28, 2004 R. Section 5.8: Aesthetics. Section 5.8 concerns the potential aesthetic impacts of the Project. Section 5.8.2 discusses Project impacts including those associated with public views, building heights, and setbacks. Among other things, the DEIR indicates that the Project grill enhance public views. However, the DEIR is silent on the manner of enhancement. As indicated above, the DEIR maintains that the Project will create sound barrier so that vehicular noise will not reach Project visitors. Given this feature, it is unclear how the Project will enhance public views but diminish noise from Balboa Blvd. As indicated above, the DEIR contains some inconsistencies regarding set backs. The computer - generated visual simulations are helpful in illustrating the type of architecture and the overall look of the buildings. However, the simulations appear to have altered the lighting between the before and after condition. For instance, Exhibit 5.8 -2 clearly shows the architectural features of the Project in the after condition; the lighting in the before condition makes it impossible to assess what is there. In addition, there are some inconsistencies with what is being said in the text and what is being illustrated in the simulations; and in some cases; the computer simulations are misleading. In addition, there are inconsistencies within the text. The text on Page 3 -5 states that "(t)he maximum height proposed for the two -level villas is 27 feet while the proposed tower will be 34 feet in height." The text on Page 5.8 -2 states that "the hotel will have a maximum height of 24 feet. The main lobby drill have a height of 34 feet." However, the computer simulation, Exhibit 5.8 -3 shows a tower that appears to be 10 feet taller than the surrounding buildings. Will the main lobby area be 10 feet taller than the other hotel buildings? Considering that the hotel lobby is almost 20,000 square feet, which is nearly 20 percent of the "Total Enclosed Floor Area," Table 3.2 -1, Page 3 -5, the height and overall scale are not accurately represented in the computer - generated visual simulations. Also, all of the computer simulations show no overhead utility lines, though such lines exist today. Yet the DEIR contains no discussion of this Project feature. Please confirm that these utilities will be placed underground as a part of the Project In our comments on the IS/NOP, we stated the DEIR should analyze and address Project related aesthetic impacts to the character of Balboa Blvd., which «gill be substantially altered by the volume and mass of the structures that are proposed. The DEIR states that the setback for the proposed Project from Balboa Boulevard is 15 feet. Does this include the main lobby with a height of 34 feet? Again, this is not clear from the computer simulations. However, if that is the case, that volume and mass will have a considerable aesthetic impact on the character of Balboa Boulevard. Finally, Section 5.8.3 addresses cumulative impacts. It concludes that because the projects listed in Table 4 -1 are remote from the Project, it would not contribute to any cumulative impacts. However, as indicated throughout, additional projects must be considered including the revitalization efforts in the Peninsula. The DEIR should be revised to consider and assess the cumulative impact of the Project together with the efforts to revitalize the area, and if necessary, propose mitigation. z EQAC Page 18 May 28, 2004 I. Section 5.9: Public Services. 1. Section 5.9.1: Police Senfices. Section 5.9.1 concludes that, based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Police Department, the Project will have no significant impact on police senTices. The DEIR fails to discuss the authorization and position of Lieutenant Klein and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. Further, in our comments on the IS/NOP, we requested information regarding the number of service calls both for the Project as well as the other Project Alternatives. The DEIR contains no such information. In addition, the City has experienced demands on police services during the summer including on the Fourth of July. The Project may require additional staffing at this time as well as others. The DEIR should be revised to include the requested information, provide additional information concerning peak demands on police services including the Fourth of July, and, if necessary, provide mitigation, e.g. private security for the Project. ` 2 Section 5.9.2: Fire Senices. Section 5.9.2 concerning fire services draws a similar conclusion as above for similar reasons: based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Fire Department, the Project -,;vdll have no significant impact on police services. The DEIR fails to discuss the authorization and position of Mr. Lerch and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. In addition, Section 5.9.2 observes that: "[W]ith two fire stations located Adthin one mile of the project site, emergency response time would be adequate." This may be misleading: we understand that the responding station may not be the closest station. Moreover, staffing at the stations differ: only one of the referenced stations has medical personnel. In addition, as indicated above, the DEIR does not discuss access and internal circulation. Although the DEIR promises that emergency access roads and resources will be provided, the DEIR contains no discussion for such access and resources. The DEIR should be revised to provide this discussion. Also, this section states that for fire suppression, "the municipal water supply should be adequate." DEM, 5.9 -3. This statement should be stronger. The DEIR should be revised to include a study of the availability of fire suppression resources to ensure that the water supply will be adequate in the event of a fire. GG j EQAC Page 19 May 28, 2004 Both Section 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 indicate that the Project together with others will have no cumulative impacts on these services. However, as indicated above, the DEIR's cumulative impacts analyses for all impacts focuses upon Table 4 -1. The DEIR's cumulative impacts analysis should also consider the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula to ensure that the Project together with the Table 4 -1 projects as well as the revitalization efforts do not have cumulative impacts on various resources including fire and police services. 3. Section 5.93: Solid Waste. Section 5.93 addresses solid waste issues. Section 5.9.3 estimates that, in the existing condition, the Project site generates 522.31 pounds per day of solid waste. This section estimates that the Project will generate 403.5 pounds per day. These totals come from Tables 5.9 -1 and 5.9 -2. However, the estimate of waste generation for the existing condition seems high. Table 5.9- 1 addresses the existing condition and projects that the mobile home park generates 481.6 pounds per day. Although this estimate is based upon State of California estimates that a household generates between 4 and 8.6 pounds per day. Table 5.9 -1 uses 8.6 pounds per day. This is problematic for several reasons. The DEIR fails to explain why the existing condition uses the maximum expected trash generation. Further, the DEIR fails to consider that many residents in the existing condition are only part time residents. Both of these would significantly lessen the estimate of the existing condition. Also, the projection for the Project seems low and fails to consider the type of solid waste generated by the Project. Much of the waste generated by the Project would include wet kitchen trash which would require more frequent collection. Also, we are unaware of any similar resort or hotel within the City that would generate such a small amount of solid waste. Section 5.9.3's cumulative impact analysis is likewise inadequate. The section contains no cumulative impact analysis: it merely concludes that the amount of waste would be an incremental contribution and would not be significant. The DEIR should be revised to study the solid waste generation both for the existing condition and the Project condition, and if necessary, propose mitigation. 4. Section 5.9.4: Water Service. Section 5.9.4 addresses water supply and service. Further, this section indicates that the Proj ect will require relocation of the existing water main to a different alignment on the site. It concludes that this relocation will have no impacts. However, wdthout more explanation, this is questionable. Residents, schools and other businesses in the area will suffer during the construction and relocation process. The DEIR fails to recognize this impact and provide mitigation for these short term impacts. EQAC Pale 20 May 28, 2004 5. Section 5.9.5: Wastewater Service. Section 5.9.5 addresses waste water issues. Under existing conditions, the site generates a total of 7;093 gallons per day; the Project is proposed to generate more than three times this much: 22,553 gallons per day without any increased capacity to handle the increase flows. Moreover, the cumulative impacts analysis concludes that the Project together with future development will not create significant impacts. However, given that the Project will significantly increase demands on an aging infrastructure and the cumulative effect of the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula, the DEIR should include a study to insure that capacity and infrastructure are adequate and that the Project will have no significant wastewater impacts. 6. Section 5.9.6: Gas; and Section 5.9.7: Electrici Both sections conclude that the Project will have no impact on these services. Both sections recognize that the Project will require twice as much gas and electricity as the existing condition. Moreover, both sections indicate that, even with this doubling together with future development including the revitalization of the Peninsula, the Project will not have cumulative impacts The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the adequacy of resource supply as well as consider alternative sources, e.g. solar to replace electric consumption. If necessary, the DEIR should propose adequate mitigation. VII. Section 6: Other CEOA Considerations. Section 6.1 addresses significant and unavoidable impacts. It concludes that the Project will have no such impacts. As indicated above, Section 5.3 indicates that even after mitigation, "only one significant unavoidable impact would remain" on benthic resources in or around the Project site. DEIR, 5.3 -13. The DEIR should be revised or explained so that this problem is resolved, and the public and decision makers may understand the Project's impacts as well as the need for any additional findings. Section 6.2 concerns growth inducing impacts. As indicated above, the Project is part of a revitalization effort for the Peninsula. As such, the Project may have growth inducing impacts. As elsewhere in the DEM, Section 6.2 fails to consider the Project in relation to these revitalization efforts. The DEIR should be revised to consider the Project's growth inducing impacts when considered with these revitalization efforts, and if necessary, propose mitigation. VIII. Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. A. Section 7.1: The No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing state is the project alternative. Section 7.1.2 states that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it maintains the site in its existing condition. Nonetheless, because the No Proj ect si EQ AC Page 21 May 28, 2004 Alternative will not meet any Project Objectives, the DEIR concludes that the No Project Alternative is not feasible. However, Section 7.1 is inadequate. First, the DEIR's analysis of the existing site is inadequate. The DEIR fails to discuss and explain all of the environmental impacts associated with the current use and the existing condition including hazardous materials, water quality, land use, and other issues of the existing condition of the site. As to the Project Objectives, as indicated above, some of the Project Objectives are problematic: the advancement of economic goals do not seem to be appropriate environmental goals. Further, and more importantly, the DEIR fails to discuss exactly how the Project meets or advances these economic goals. B. Section 7.2: The Marinanark Marine Recreation Alternative. Section 7.2.1 discusses the Marine Alternative which includes parkland, land for the Girl Scout Center /Community Center, tennis and basketball courts, over 248 parking spaces, boat moorings and a boat launch. Section 7.2 .2 is the impacts analysis for the Marine Alternative. This section concludes that the Marine Alternative would result in: less impacts than the Project to geology and soils, aesthetics and public services; similar impacts as the Project for land use and planning; and greater impacts than the Project for hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation/circulation, air quality and noise. Many of these latter stem from the analysis' estimate that the Marine Alternative would generate more traffic. However, this estimate is without substantiation or analysis. Indeed, it seems unlikely that this alternative will generate significantly more traffic. The DEIR should be revised to provide a full and complete traffic analysis of the Marine Alternative including variants and discuss the impacts in relation to the Project. If the Marine Alternative generates less traffic, then other impacts including air quality, noise, traffic and other related issues would be lower. If so, then the Marine Alternative could be the environmentally superior Alternative. However, this conclusion is based upon specific features of the Marine Alternative which could be modified to eliminate such impacts. For instance, Section 7.2.2 notes that the Marine Alternative will have greater water quality impacts, because it would include greater parking areas and impervious surfaces, As discussed above, the DER fails to discuss the amount of pervious surfaces for the Project. Moreover, the Marine Alternative could use alternative paving methods for the parking spaces including pervious pavers. Such would lessen any water quality impacts for the Marine Alternative. Or again, this section indicates that the Marine Alternative wall have greater impacts on biological resources, because it would include "larger boat slips and boat launch" than the Project. Again, these features can be changed. Section 7.2.2 recognizes that the Marine Alternative's impacts on biological resources could be mitigated. 32- EQAC Page 22 May 28, 2004 As for land use, the DEIR states that both the Project and the Marine Alternative are "compatible with surrounding land uses consistent with the General Plan." DEIR, 7 -4. However, the analysis fails to discuss whether the Marine Alternative will require a General Plan Amendment. The DEIR should be revised to provide more detail and analysis for the Marine Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank and its feasibility. C. Section 73: The Reduced Intensity Alternative. Section 7.3 addresses the Reduced Intensity Alternative which would include an 88 room hotel, a 4,500 square foot restaurant and 12 boat slips. Section 7.3.3 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Among other things, Section 7.3.2 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have greater transportation and circulation impacts, because it would result in 869 average daily trips as opposed to the Project's 640 average daily trips. However, many of those trips are associated with the large restaurant. A different project feature, e.g. a smaller restaurant and /or parkland, would reduce such trips, perhaps below the Project level. As before, the Reduced Intensity Alternative fixes on features that may create significant impacts whereas other possible features with fewer impacts are not analyzed. The DEIR should be revised to consider other features for the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank. IX. Miscellaneous Considerations. We note that the Project in the IS/NOP is entitled the Newport Regent Beach Hotel. The Project for the DEIR is entitled the Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan. The DEIR should explain the change and the proposed Community Plan. X. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the DEIR be revised to address the issues raised above. 33 TO FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT EIR -¢ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Supplemental Report Agenda Item 33 June 8, 2004 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, icampbell(a city.newport- beach. ca. us Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) The Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan on June 3, 2004. The meeting was noticed through a mailer to nearby properties and an advertisement in the Daily Pilot. Attendance by the public was less than anticipated with the Council Chambers being filled to approximately 213rds capacity. Attached is a summary of comments that were either made by Planning Commissioners or members of the public. The minutes of the meeting will be prepared and forwarded to the Council for the public hearings scheduled for July. Prepared by: es W. Campbell, Senior Planner Attachments Submitted by: Sharon Z. Woo K) Assistant City nager 1. Summary of comments received at the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004 Planning Commission and Public Comments Marinapark Resort and Community Plan EIR Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2004 Project site is only remaining open space on peninsula and should remain open space; Project development will effectively block public access to beach; Views from 2 "d stories of homes on Balboa Blvd. will be blocked; More analysis of impacts on Harbor and Bay needed; Marine Recreation Alternative is better than project and could be improved upon to have lesser impacts than project; 28 -foot slips are not large enough to accommodate craft consistent with "yachting resort" description; Market research information should be submitted to show viability of project and project alternatives; Boat slips included for resort guests are not the best use for the general public; More emphasis on effect on the water part of tidelands is needed; Conclusions regarding consistency of project with Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan are not supported in the analysis; Details on mitigation for biological impacts not yet known; Proposed project is a water - enhanced use, not a water- dependent or coastal- dependent priority use; Analysis is needed to determine if the boat slips are truly an integral part of the resort format; It appears the pierhead line would need to be moved to accommodate the boat slips; Need to determine how many bedrooms and parking spaces are included in Marinapark mobile home park; Bay water quality is already compromised and beach was closed one of every two days last July; Traffic can only be exacerbated by project; Owners of summer homes will not be here to vote in November election; 1 Planning Commission and Public Comments Marinapark Resort and Community Plan EIR Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2004 Description of project as "yachting resort" is not meaningful; Yachters stay on their yachts, not at resorts; Retention of site as open space with no buildings would ensure retention of views to the bay; Parks Department submitted proposal in response to City Council Request for Proposal that is not included in the EIR as project alternative; Marine Recreation Alternative does not include back -up data supporting conclusion that more traffic is generated by this alternative than by project; Procedurally, EIR text should identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives to the project, not the project itself; Number of parking spaces in Marine Recreation Alternative could be reduced to lessen impacts; Project is clearly the economically superior alternative; Marine Recreation Alternative included to make project look good; Number of additional vehicular trips that would exceed 1% of movements at Newport/PCH in PM peak hour and at Hospital/Newport in AM peak hour should be indicated; EIR needs to indicate why additional 520 daily vehicle trips is determined to be "not significant" impact e.g. what number of additional trips would be significant; Project does not satisfy the "project objective" relating to additional marine- related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating; Project does not meet recreation needs of citizens; Project conflicts with General Plan Land Use, Harbor and Bay, and Recreation and Open Space Elements; Project reduces public access to the beach and bay but should increase public access; 2 Planning Commission and Public Comments Marinapark Resort and Community Plan EIR Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2004 City needs to provide justification for changing land use designation from Recreation and Environmental Open Space to Recreational and Marine Commercial other than simply to accommodate this project; Economic viability of Marine Recreation Alternative should be analyzed; Project is not consistent with Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element including those relating to impacts of land use changes on water - dependent and water - related land uses and with Recreation and General Plan Open Space Element relating to need for aquatics and swimming pool facilities, upgrading of Las Arenas Park, and not mentioning resort hotel, as well as the need for boat launching and bilge pumping facilities; The "No Project" alternative in the EIR assumes passage of legislation that would allow continued use of site as mobile home park; Per EQAC comments, "Recreation" section of EIR needs to be supplemented with facts and analysis to support conclusions therein; Impact on recreational opportunities needs to be addressed; Parking analysis needs to be expanded as relates to loss of current parking and to documentation of demand generated by project; Marine Recreation Alternative conclusions require qualitative or quantitative support in EIR; Conclusion that smaller resort hotel will entail lesser impacts needs to be supported by facts. EIR -7 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting June 8, 2004 INDEX Assessment District No. 69; declaring the improvements to be of special benefit; describing the district to be assessed to pay the costa and uses thereof; providing for the issuance of bonds; and designating the area derground utilities district; c)Resolution No. 2004 -50 giving prelim in a roval to the report of the assessment engineer, setting the time and plac a public hearing as July 27, 2004; and ordering the intention of assessmen of procedure for Assessment District No. 69; 2) approve the Bond Coun Agreement with Robert Hessell; and 3) approve a Professional Services eement Amendment with Harris and Associates for an additional fee of $ , The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: Heffernan, Rosansky 33. MARINAPARH RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Senior Planner Campbell reported that the comment period ends June 9. 2004, for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Marinapark Resort. He announced that in addition to the presentation at the current meeting, public hearings would be held before the Planning Commission on July 8, 2004, and the City Council on July 13 and 27, 2004. Senior Planner Campbell introduced David Lepo, the project manager, and Mike Houlihan of Michael Brandman & Associates, who prepared the EIR. Council Member Heffernan asked what hearings would be held before the project is submitted to the voters, in addition to the hearings already announced. He specifically asked when the voters would learn about the ground lease terms and other issues. City Attorney Burnham stated that the City Council would consider the ground lease, the fiscal impact report and certification of the EIR at the meeting of July 27, 2004. In addition, the election would be called by resolution. He stated that the City Council could hold additional public meetings if the City Council determines that more information should be provided. City Attorney Burnham stated that there is also the potential to adopt the Planned Community (PC) text. Council Member Heffernan asked if there would be a vote by the City Council on the project prior to it being presented to the voters. City Attorney stated that the lease and the fiscal impact report would be considered and discussed by the City Council, and that the lease could be approved subject to the other permits and land use approvals being issued. Council Member Heffernan asked if the voters in the City would know who on the City Council is supportive of the project and who is not. City Attorney Burnham stated that it would be up to the City Council, but that most likely opinions would be expressed during the process. City Attorney Burnham noted that the agreement between the City and Marinapark LLC approved an exception to the normal practice. Council Member Heffernan asked if the site plan, layout and other detail Volume 56 - Page 989 C -3389 Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (38/100.2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting June 8, 2004 fF�f0124.1 would be approved prior to the project being submitted to the voters. City Attorney Burnham responded in the affirmative, but stated that the City Council could include a requirement for final approval of the site plan in the terms and conditions of the lease, which would be approved on July 27, 2004. Council Member Heffernan asked what the voters would be approving if they haven't approved the site plan. City Attorney Burnham stated that they would be approving a general plan amendment to allow for the construction of a 110 -room resort consisting of approximately 110,000 square feet. He added that they would be approving the concept, understanding that if all other permits are obtained by the project proponent, the lease would guide the development and operation of the property. Mayor Ridgeway asked if the PC text had been submitted for the project. Senior Planner Campbell stated that the draft PC text is available and subject to review and amendment. He stated that the timing of when the PC text will be presented to the City Council is up to the City Council. Council Member Webb asked when the first copy of the lease and the fiscal impact report would be available. City Attorney Burnham stated that the terms and conditions of the lease should be available within the next thirty days. Council Member Webb noted that the lease won't be available until approximately two weeks before the City Council will need to make the final decisions and approvals. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the lease will also be available in summary form. Council Member Webb asked when the fiscal impact report would be available. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that it should be available within the next couple of weeks. Council Member Webb again noted that both the lease and the fiscal impact report won't be available until approximately two weeks before the City Council will need to make the final decisions and approvals. Council Member Nichols asked how much the project could change before the EIR would be inapplicable. City Attorney Burnham stated that the project reviewed in the EIR would be the project that would be developed, if all approvals are received. Council Member Webb stated that the approval from the Coastal Commission could require some substantial changes. City Attorney Burnham stated that unless the approvals increase the size of the project, the approvals would be within the scope of the analysis in the EIR. If the approvals would cause the project to have impacts that weren't evaluated or increase the severity of the impacts, the EIR would have to be revised. Mayor Pro Tem Adams noted that it's only dealing with the general plan amendment, and not necessarily with the specifics of the project. Council Member Heffernan asked how voter approval would be affected if the Coastal Commission, for example, reduces the size of the project, Volume 66 - Page 990 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting June 8, 2004 INDEX making the project less economically feasible City Attorney Burnham stated that voter approval is for the general plan amendment, which authorizes the development of a project up to a certain size. He added that the City Council will approve the lease before the matter is submitted to the voters, which will indicate to the voters what the City intends to do if the project is approved. He stated that the lease is an administrative function, which cannot be delegated to the voters. The voters are only approving a general plan amendment, which is a conceptual approval of the project. In response to Mayor Ridgeway's question, Senior Planner Campbell stated that the purpose of the presentation at the current meeting is to provide information on the project, and receive feedback from the City Council on the adequacy of the E1R and issues that should possibly be addressed prior to the upcoming public hearing meetings. City Attorney Burnham added that the presentation is also intended to provide information to the voters. Steve Sutherland, applicant and partner of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan, stated that the project has been before the City for a number of years. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Sutherland displayed the location of the project on the Balboa Peninsula, as well as the site plan. He reviewed the various aspects of the site plan, and stated that the plan is for a 110 -guest room luxury destination resort. He stated that the 110 rooms will be located in 16 villa -style buildings, all designed in residential scale, and lower in height and density than many of the neighboring homes. Mr. Sutherland stated that the project will help to beautify the surrounding area and the traffic generated by the project will be below the Measure S thresholds. He stated that the current use at the site includes a mobile home park with 56 tenants. He displayed several before and after view simulations. Mr. Sutherland stated that the community improvements of the proposed project include beautification of the area, commitment to fund a minimum of $500,000 to remodel the existing American Legion facility, rebuilding the public tennis courts, and construction of a new Girl Scout House and community center. He stated that the City currently operates tennis and sailing programs at the site and that this will continue. He additionally noted that the public will have access to the resort's specialty restaurant and grounds, and that public beach access will be improved and new view corridors and walkways will be provided. Mr. Sutherland reported that the total annual revenue to the City is anticipated to be close to $3 million, and would include Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), sales tax and property tax. He stated that it is also expected that property owners will benefit from increased land values, and that the project will help with the revitalization of the area. Council Member Webb stated that there appears to be no room for landscaping to camouflage the wall around the tennis courts. Mr. Sutherland stated that there is a 3 -foot setback that can be layered with different types of groundcover, trees and foliage, and that he also is concerned about how the project will look, to both the residents and the guests of the property. Council Member Webb stated that the wrought Volume 56 - Page 991 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting June 8, 2004 INDEX iron fence that is proposed at the view corridors would substantially block the views. Mr. Sutherland stated that the view corridor is 30 to 35 feet on each side. Council Member Webb stated that he's anxious to see the fiscal impact report to see how the $3 million revenue figure is justified. Council Member Nichols stated that it appears that the project does not have adequate parking. Mr. Sutherland stated that there are no other Five Star resorts in Orange County to base a comparison on and that the proposed project will not need the number of employees needed at the larger resorts. In response to Council Member Nichols' question, Mr. Sutherland stated that the resort's employee pool is expected to be approximately 150, but the number on the site at any given time would be approximately 50. He emphasized that the project is for a small luxury resort. Referring to the staff report, Council Member Heffernan asked how the issues raised by the Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (EQAC) regarding the EIR would be addressed. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that those comments along with all other comments received will have written responses, and that the consultants at Michael Brandman & Associates are already working on those. The comments should be available well before the July 8, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, Assistant City Manager Wood noted that the concerns of the Planning Commission included additional backing for the conclusions on traffic and parking, more information in the analysis of consistency with the general plan, and more facts and analysis regarding the alternatives. She stated that the comment period for the EIR is 45 days and ends on June 9, 2004. Council Member Nichols stated that EQAC wanted an additional chance to review the EIR after their initial questions were answered. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that their comments will be responded to, which is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The City Council has the authority to approve the final EIR. EQAC does not make the decision on whether an EIR should be recirculated, or found to be adequate and certified. Assistant City Manager Wood additionally noted that there is a lack of clarity on whether EQAC actually recommended that the EIR be recirculated. Council Member Heffernan asked if EQAC will provide responses to the responses by the consultant. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the City's procedure does not include a provision for the EIR to go back to EQAC for a second review. City Attorney Burnham added that the City's procedures also do not include a provision for EQAC to comment on the responses. The adequacy of the EIR and the adequacy of the responses to all of the comments received on the EIR are decisions made by the City Council, which has the full discretion to determine if the document is in compliance with CEQA. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, City Attorney Burnham stated that the City Council will need to weigh the comments made and review the responses to determine if they adequately address those comments. Council Member Heffernan stated that it would be more efficient for the individual that made the Volume 56 - Page 992 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting June 8, 2004 INDEX comment to review the response. City Attorney Burnham emphasized that the decision on the adequacy of the document is strictly that of the City Council. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation, but they will not make the determination. Council Member Bromberg noted that EQAC is a diverse group of individuals and they all realize that they are not the decision makers or the policymakers. Council Member Nichols noted that the City Council does have the option of recirculating the document, which would include recirculation to EQAC. Assistant City Manager Wood encouraged the council members and the public to provide comments on the EIR at the current meeting. Robert Walchli stated that he's a proponent of public use of public property and is generally against conversion to private control. He stated that he's not opposed to a compromise, noting that a hotel with increased public access could be feasible. He asked what the revenue from the proposed hotel would be used for and what the analysis of leaving the property as open space is. He suggested that there be provisions to restrict the use of the boat slips by charter boats and to provide increased public access. Mr. Walchli stated that the people should be able to vote on what they want the site to used for. He, additionally, asked what would happen if the project goes bankrupt and if the community center would be free. Lastly, he stated that there doesn't seem to be any guarantee that what the voters approve is what will be developed. Jim Hildreth stated that he was glad to see that boats would be allowed. He felt, however, that parking dinghy's at the site should also be considered. Laura Dietz, EQAC member, stated that when EQAC formed the subcommittee to review the Marinapark draft EIR, she felt that one of the members might have a conflict of interest because of their vocal opposition to the project. She learned that this matter is not relevant for EQAC, which is an advisory committee. Ms. Dietz stated that she missed the meeting when EQAC compiled their recommendations and that she disagrees with a number of them. She stated that the EQAC members still need to learn more about EIR's and the CEQA process. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, City Attorney Burnham stated that vocal opposition to a project is meaningless when looking at the legal definition of conflict of interest by a member of an advisory committee. He stated, however, that opposition to a particular project on the part of a decision maker could potentially constitute a denial of due process. Council Member Nichols stated that he was at the EQAC meeting when the project was reviewed. He stated that a concern was expressed for the possibility of the charter boats being able to utilize the piers at the site. Volume 56 - Page 993 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting June 8, 2004 P. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the largest dock that is being designed is 26 feet. Council Member Nichols stated that the plan is not to berth the boats. but to pick up charter passengers. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that it is not a part of the project description. Council Member Nichols stated that EQAC also questioned using the underground parking lot for temporary water storage in the case of a major rain storm and how well it would work. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that all of EQAC's concerns will receive a response and that these will be provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Council Member Webb stated that two of the project objectives will eliminate the recreation public use alternatives from being considered or feasible, because they do not generate revenue. He specifically cited the two objectives, which were to reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between tidelands revenue and expenditures, and to provide additional general fund revenues that will help the City maintain high levels of public safety and municipal services. He stated that he has previously requested that an alternative be shown in the document for a "no project" alternative that followed the recreation and open space element without a mobile home park. He stated that the "no project" alternative included in the document includes the mobile home park and the other existing uses. City Attorney Burnham explained that the City is obligated to evaluate the impacts of "no project ", or no development, pursuant to CEQA, which is why the current use at the site is included in the document. Council Member Webb stated that a fourth alternative could still have been included, and that the public use alternative in the document is for marine - related use and not park use. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, City Attorney Burnham stated that the lease revenue would be tidelands revenue and would be required to be used for tidelands purposes. The TOT revenue would go into the general fund. Mavor Pro Tern Adams to continue through the agenda until midnight, if The motion carried by acclamation. 3. ORDIN AMENDING SECTIONS 12.24.065 AND 12.24.080 OF THE NBMC R DING REDUCING THE PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF RIDGE K ROAD FROM SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD TO NEWPORT C076T DRIVE. Jim Hildreth stated that he hoped the s7phadlimits weren't being changed just to generate revenue. He asked how not on would be made and stated that signs are often not adequate. He Bugg d that the speed limits be placed on the roadways themselves. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to introduce Ordinance No. Volume 56 - Page 994 INDEX (100 -2004) EIR -8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 July 8, 2004 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (PA 2003 -218) 1700 West Balboa Boulevard APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) RECOMMENDATION Review the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), receive public comments during the public hearing, and adopt the attached draft resolution recommending City Council certification of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. DISCUSSION Background: The project background, project description, and a summary of the Draft EIR are provided in the report provided to the Planning Commission for the June 3`d study session. EIR Certification Process A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project and circulated for public comment from April 26, 2004, through June 9, 2004, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). During that time, affected government agencies and the public submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission received public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project at a study session on June 3, 2004, and then provided comment and requested clarification and additional information on various impacts analyzed in the document. Planning Commission comments and responses to those comments are included in the Final Environmental Impact Report together with comments received during the public circulation period for the Draft EIR and the respective responses to those comments. The Planning Commission now should recommend to the City Council whether or not to certify the Final EIR. A recommendation to certify the FEIR is appropriate upon finding that: 1) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2) the Planning Commission reviewed and considered information contained in the Final EIR; and, 3) the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission as a representative body of the City as lead agency in preparation of the Final EIR. The City Council will hold public hearings and consider the Planning Commission recommendation on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and on July 27, 2004. On July 27th the City Council may certify the Final EIR if, after reviewing the document and considering the Planning Commission recommendation, the Council makes the three findings noted above. Final EIR Summary: The Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, a listing of persons and organizations that commented on the Draft EIR during the public circulation period, a compilation of those comments, and responses to those comments provided by the City as lead agency for the project pursuant to CEQA. Comments and Responses to Comments The Final EIR includes all written comments on the Draft EIR received through June 9th and comments received from three agencies after that date. Correspondence from each commenter is accompanied by responses to comments set forth in that correspondence. Responses were prepared by the City's EIR consultant and City staff. Responses may provide clarification on an issue by referral to an EIR section, may include additional discussion as clarification of an issue raised by the commenter and addressed in the EIR, or may indicate an additional or revised mitigation measure formulated in response to a comment. Comments not relating to environmental impacts may simply be noted for the record. In response to comments received, additional mitigation measures have been formulated and previously defined mitigation measures have been modified to further reduce adverse impacts. These mitigation measures and the reasons for their inclusion or modification are as follow: Mitigation Measure LU -1 Environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR included those associated with bulkhead and groin wall placement, dredging, fill placement on the sandy beach, and extension of the slips beyond the pierhead line. Although the impacts associated with placement of this structure were determined to be less than significant, the project proponent has agreed to incorporate the modified dock specifications into the project as set forth in Mitigation Measure LU -1 to further reduce potential impacts. The modified dock eliminates the twelve boat slips originally proposed and replaces them with a 260 - foot long "marginal" dock. This will reduce the amount of dredge material from 1,750 cubic yards to a maximum of 500 cubic yards, reduce the amount of bay bottom that will be disturbed, and eliminate the need for approval to construct improvements beyond the pierhead line. Mitigation Measure HM -1 This new mitigation measure requires that the project proponent provide a listing of all hazardous materials and their quantities that may be used or stored on the project site during construction. The impact relative to hazardous materials used or stored on site during construction previously was determined to be less than significant with mitigation and the new mitigation measure was added to further reduce the potential impact level in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure BR -6 Modification of the dock plan as in Mitigation Measure LU -1 results in a reduction in the area of benthic and shorebird foraging habitat that is disturbed and a consequent reduction in the amount of replacement habitat that must be developed off -site. Revision of this mitigation measure reflects the reduced habitat replacement area. Mitigation Measure HWQ -1 Modification of this mitigation measure adds a requirement that in -water construction activities be limited to the period from October 1 to March 31. This mitigation measure was modified in response to comments from the Regional Water Quality Control Board indicating this would be a condition of permit approval for construction of the dock. The time period restriction will prevent construction activities that would interfere with wildlife reproductive activities. Prepared by: Ja es W. Camp ell, Senior Planner Attachments 1. Draft Resolution Submitted by: Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City ager ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REGARDING THE MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BALBOA 13OULEAVARD BETWEEN FIFTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH STREETS (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 200311021). WHEREAS, Marinapark LLC (formerly Talla Sutherland Hospitality), 4500 Campus Drive, Suite 650, Newport Beach, California, has applied to the City of Newport Beach for approvals necessary to develop a 110 -room luxury resort hotel, related ancillary facilities and community facilities on an 8.1 acre site on the north side of Balboa Boulevard between 15th and 18a' Streets; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse Number 2003 1102 1; and WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on November 4, 2003, and ending on December 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department; and WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on April 26, 2004 and ended on June 9, 2004; and WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document dated July 2004, distributed separately due to bulk and hereby designated by reference as Exhibit EIR -2 of this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. All comments and responses were considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time the Final Environmental Impact Report, comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a listing of persons and organizations that provided written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report during the public circulation period, a compilation of those comments, and responses to those comments, was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearings. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2003 1 1 02 1) designated by reference as Exhibit EIR -1 of this Resolution has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR adequately analyzes project - related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report identified by State Clearinghouse No. 200311021. ADOPTED this 8m day of July 2004, by the following vote, to wit: BY: Chairman BY: Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT 2 h7 ExxIBIT EIR -1: ENVIRONMENTAL E"PACT REPORT [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] M EXHIBIT EIR -2: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] I FTR -9 To: Planning Commission From: James Campbell, Senior Planner" Date: July 7, 2004 Re: Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Environmental Impact Report City of Newport Beach Planning Department Attached are the two Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (one dated February 17, 2004 and the other dated April 9, 2004) for the Marinapark project EIR (SCH# 200311021). To: City Council From: James Campbell, Senior Planner Date: July 7, 2004 Re: Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Environmental Impact Report City of Newport Beach Planning Department Attached are the two Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (one dated February 17, 2004 and the other dated April 9, 2004) for the Marinapark project EIR (SCH# 200311021). Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 EIR -10 Page 3 of 39 DRAFT SUBJECT: Marnapark Resort and Community Plan Draft ITEM NO.5 Environmental Impact Report (PA2003 -218) PA2003 -218 1700 W. Balboa Blvd. Recommended Marinapark LLC, requests entitlements to remove and /or demolish certification of existing structures on the property and build a 110 -room luxury resort the EIR hotel that would include a lobby and registration area, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four tennis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Girls Scout facility, and a tot lot. Chairperson Tucker described the goals of the hearing and then went through some provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, which is referred to as CEQA, so that everyone is clear what is before the Planning Commission tonight and the type of testimony that is relevant for what is before us. Goals of Hearing: The sole purpose of this hearing is to review for adequacy the Marinapark Resort EIR (including proposed mitigation measure), comments and responses to comments which have been provided to the Commission (collectively, the Final EIR, or FEIR). We are not here tonight to hear about whether or not you or we like the project. To be candid about it, it doesn't really make much difference what anyone in this building thinks about the project, since if the Council decides to put this matter on the ballot in November, all who live in Newport Beach and vote will have the final say. Our charge tonight is to review the FEIR for adequacy. If we find that the FEIR adequately addresses the potential impacts to the environment of the construction of the project, then we should recommend that the Council certify the FEIR. If not, then we will make a different recommendation to the Council. Certification of the FEIR is not an approval of the project, merely that the FEIR adequately summarizes the effects the project would have on the environment, after mitigation measures are implemented. I would like the administrative record to demonstrate that a discussion of the issues took place at the Commission level and that we understood the consequences of the project before us for consideration. I intend for us to demonstrate that understanding by discussing substantive issues raised in the EIR, the public's written comments to the EIR, the responses to comments as well as credible and relevant verbal comments from the public at this hearing. The foregoing will provide the basis for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council and, as required by CEQA, will be file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 4 of 39 DRAFT based upon substantial evidence in the record. I have worked up a list of issues to be discussed. These are the issues which I believe are most substantive and therefore most worthy of discussion at this hearing. The list is based upon comments received on the EIR. Please keep in mind that not every impact is a 'significant' impact. The EIR addresses what is significant and what is not and how one knows. Some of the effects are judged on empirical data (i.e. traffic and noise) and some of them are judgment calls (i.e. land use compatibility). Substantial evidence is defined by CEQA and does not include personal opinions not supported by fact, no matter how heartfelt. The Planning Commission is bound by CEQA to disregard argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion and other evidence which is not credible. After we review the issues list, as it may be supplemented by the Commission, we will then take public testimony. Each speaker may raise EIR related issues which the speaker believes merit further discussion. Finally, we will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the Commission to provide any comments a Commissioner has on the list of issues, or otherwise. After that, we will consider whether recirculation is necessary. Finally, we will vote. I apologize in advance for what I expect will be a rather formal proceeding. However, if the FEIR is certified and thereafter challenged in court, the administrative record will include an actual verbatim transcript of our hearing, so I want the record to be complete and to demonstrate that we understood our responsibilities under CEQA and that we considered all substantial evidence that was presented to us before we reached our decision. Thanks to the diligence of our staff and consultants and the sophistication of the commenting public, I believe we and the public will easily be able to understand the consequences of the project. That is the goal of this hearing. He then read the following excerpts from the CEQA Guidelines that govern how these documents are prepared. The Basic purposes of CEQA are to: . Inform governmental decision - makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. . Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. . Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 5 of 39 DRAFT requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. . Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. . The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. . CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. . CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument of the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement. . An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision - makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. . In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentators. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. . Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 6 of 39 assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. . An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. . Arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. . Evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical changes in the environment is not substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Chairperson Tucker then noted that staff and the Commission will talk about the issues and acknowledge the issues raised in the comments and some of the responses to comments. Following that, it will be time to take public testimony. List of issues: . Traffic: . a. Standard of significance - what is the standard that the City uses and how is it implemented? Mr. Edmonston answered that the standard of significance that the City uses is a two -fold standard provided for in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The first step is to see of the project traffic would add 1% or more to the traffic expected to be at the intersection one year after project completion. If it exceeds 1 % at any intersection, then it goes to an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculation. The City's standard is level of service (LOS) D or ICU greater than .90. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 7 of 39 . b. Series of intersections selected for analysis, comment on how those were selected. Mr. Edmonston answered that the standard process is that his office looks at their knowledge of the City, the size of the project, and comes up with an initial list. If during the traffic study, it is found that the intersections at the edge away from the project still are exceeding 1 %, then we would add additional intersections to where we would clearly go out far enough to where we have defined the threshold area. The same methodology and protocol was used for this project as for all other projects in the City. . c. Trip generation rate - there were several comments that the EIR did not take account of the various types of uses within the building such as the meeting space, restaurants, etc. Why was the trip generation rate used the proper rate? Mr. Edmonston, referring to the Trip Generation Rate Table in the DEIR, said there is a reference that all those rates are to be found in the 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 (ITE). The resort hotel rate came from a study conducted by the engineering firm of Austin Foust Associates who also did the study for this specific project. They surveyed a number of well known resort areas across the country and came up with the trip rates used. Comparing those for the peak hour traffic to what is in the ITE, they are somewhat higher in both the AM and PM peak periods, so the numbers used in the report are somewhat more conservative than ITE would provide for. The way those numbers get into the ITE or into the study that Austin Foust and Associates did was actually counting driveway traffic. The driveway traffic would include patrons of the hotel, delivery trucks, employees of the hotel, all the traffic going on and off the hotel property is represented in those counts and they are averaged by the count of the rooms. That is the same process used for establishing the anticipated traffic for this project. Commissioner Tucker noted that during the last meeting he had asked a question about how many more vehicle trips needed to be generated before it tripped the intersections that were performing closest to level D. The response was that at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway an additional 131 AM peak hour trips and at Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road an additional 931 PM peak hour trips would need to be generated. He then asked, is that a small amount of increase from a project, a moderate amount, a huge amount? Mr. Edmonston answered that they looked at the most critical of the critical intersections and based on the peak hours, backed into the number it would take for an additional 340 rooms to exceed the 1% in cause of the next level of analysis. It would take roughly four times the size of this project to have that impact. The other issue is that the file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 8 of 39 DRAFT consultant did counts over this past holiday weekend of the actual mobile home park because that was one of the other questions raised during the previous hearings is how much traffic really is in that mobile home park. They found it never exceeded about 50 cars per hour, which is the peak traffic that is forecasted for this project. Based on that comparison of the site, there really would be no increase, but based on using the standardized rates the City typically uses, there is a small increase in traffic but no increase great enough to be significant. Ms. Wood added to the question on how comparing the impact from this project versus what it would take to bring those two intersections to Level of Service E. As Mr. Edmonston said, the numbers that it would take are 131 at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway and this project contributes 3 trips during the AM peak hour at that intersection; and at Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road it would be 931 trips to have the peak hour reach Level of Service E and the project contributes 16 trips. Chairperson Tucker noted that is a stark contrast. Lastly, there were some questions that some of the commenters had about not analyzing Seventeenth and Eighteenth and Twentieth Streets. Why weren't those analyzed? Mr. Edmonston answered that the response to that is the way traffic is assumed to arrive at this site, we were looking at approximately 12 vehicles in the peak hours that they would be traveling on that segment of Newport Boulevard. It is significantly less than 1 % of what is out there. It wouldn't be noticeable. It was so much below the 1 % threshold, which is again our first threshold we look at. Chairperson Tucker noted that under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) you can have a significant amount of traffic increase from a project, but if it does not rise to the level where the project is worse than Level of Service D, then under the City's ordinances, it is not a significant impact. Mr. Edmonston answered that is correct. There are two criteria, one is the 1% threshold with the assumption that if the project adds less than 1 % of the traffic that is a number too small to even look further. If it exceeds 1 % you would look further. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission for any other comments or concerns on traffic issues; there were none. Chairperson Tucker then continued: . Boat Slips: . a. Comments in terms of the configuration of the boat slips and the impacts of installing those boat slips. One of the file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 9 of 39 recommendations of the Harbor Commission was to come in with a floating longitudinal dock. Mitigation measure LU -1 has that as the dock profile. One of the questions raised was that this new dock profile has not been analyzed in the EIR. Can staff say how this measure is addressed in the prior comments on impacts. Ms. Wood answered that it has been analyzed especially in response to comment B20. This mitigation measure answers some of the concerns about dredging and reduces the amount of dredge material from 1,750 cubic yards to a maximum of 500 cubic yards. It eliminates the need to do the bulkhead and any fill and also does not extend beyond the pier head line where the previous proposal would have required some approval to extend beyond the pier head line. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission for any other comments or concerns on boat slip issue; there were none. Chairperson Tucker continued. Review of contaminated substances: EQAC questioned why the level 2 studies weren't available with the Technical Appendices with the EIR. The Commission now has received the Level 2 studies, which were quite brief in nature. Will staff comment on the sufficiency of that material for review. Mr. Houlihan of Michael Brandman and Associates, consultant for the City answered. He noted that his firm had prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report as well as the Responses to Comments document. The question regarding the Level 2 Studies, both studies were prepared by Petra Geotechnical. There were two different studies because there were two different locations of samples taken. The first set of samples were taken at the low tide line and the second set of samples were taken in the area where the dredging is going to occur. Under both sets of samples they were tested for various concentrations of hazardous materials. There are four types of hazardous materials tested for and included semi - volatile organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and total petroleum hydrocarbons. For each one of those on both sets of samples, none exceeded any of the action levels for those constituents. Chairperson Tucker noted it was not included in the original data that was available because it was really by way of background information and there was nothing that indicated there was anything further to study. Mr. Houlihan answered there was no further analysis to do as there was a determination that the levels were pretty low and didn't need action. They were referenced in the Bibliography as two separate studies. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission for any other comments or concerns on the contaminated substances issue. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 10 of 39 Commissioner McDaniel noted the Is there any reason why you would looking why you went to five feet. samples were taken from five feet. need to go deeper than that? I am Mr. Houlihan answered that five feet was determined as the amount of excavation that was needed. It is the lower level of excavation. Chairperson Tucker continued: Tideland boundary - the tideland boundary was covered by the City Attorney at the last meeting and to summarize it the tideland boundary has not been identified. It either gets identified by agreement, which doesn't seem to happen or litigation, which I guess is the more common approach. It is an issue that was out there and to my mind the project, whether it is on tidelands or not you can pretty well tell what is going to be dug up and what is not going to be dug up. Tidelands seems to have a lot more to do with the types of uses that can occur and who gets the revenue than per se a pure environmental impact. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission for any other comments or concerns on tidelands issue. There were none. Chairperson Tucker continued: . Loss of recreational facilities. a. There is a temporary loss of all facilities when the construction is taking place. And a permanent loss of the basketball court area, the tot lot and tennis court will be back with the new project. There will be some green area along the tennis court frontage that will be gone. He then asked the Commission if anyone needed further analysis than what was in the Response to Comments. He was answered no. He noted that it seems all we have lost is a half court basketball court and it is hard to view.that as a significant affect. Chairperson Tucker continued: Parking - could staff review what is the replacement for the currently metered parking lot and how that works. Ms. Wood answered that the replacement will actually increase the number of spaces. Right now, the parking lot is metered and available for the general public. What is proposed as part of the project is a larger lot that roughly doubles the number of spaces. Part of it would continue to function as metered parking for the general public. What the applicant is trying to provide with the new half of it, is to provide more secure, more guaranteed parking for people who are coming to use the Girl Scout House and Community Center. He has proposed some sort of access gate to make that work and then at times when the Girl Scouts or the Community Center did not need that file: //H:\P1ancomm\2004 \0708.hhn 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 11 of 39 DRAFT parking, it like the other half would be available for the general public. For most of the time we would have a greater supply of parking for the general public. The details on how to handle the reservation system still need to be worked out. The number of parking spaces is actually increased and the goal is to provide a system where some of them are secured and always available for the Girl Scout and Community Center needs. Chairperson Tucker noted that basically the metered parking spaces are in a bigger lot and are still more or less the way they are. In a few places the parking needs for the patrons was brought up and the parking .needs of the staff for the facility and suppliers were brought up. Would staff answer? Ms. Wood answered that similar to the trip generation for the traffic analysis, the parking requirements on our Zoning Code are designed to meet the needs of not only the guests or the people coming to the restaurant or people who might be coming to a function in the ballroom, it also includes employees. What we require for hotels is one space for every two rooms, so for this 110 room hotel proposal it would be 55 spaces. Then if we add what is required by Code for the Community Center and the Girl Scout House that is a requirement of 21 spaces; for the tennis courts it would be a requirement of 16 spaces so we have a total requirement for the entire project of 92 spaces. What is being provided in this proposal is 209 spaces so there are over 100 spaces more than our Code requires. Even if the Code is somehow not on the mark, and I am not aware that we have parking problems in any of our other hotels that meet our standard, we still have a greater number than required. Chairperson Tucker noted that what is available is over twice what the requirements are. Say we had instead of a car for every two rooms, we had a car per room, we should still be okay. He then asked if any Commissioners had issues with the comments or responses to comments on parking; there were none. Chairperson Tucker continued: . Alternatives: a. Why wasn't there a greener alternative which is less intense? For instance, Dr. Vandersloot suggested tearing up what is there and leaving it in its natural state after hauling out the debris, presumably sand. Why wasn't an alternative such as that proposed? Ms. Wood answered that the EIR is supposed to analyze alternatives that would be feasible and could have the potential to have fewer effects than the proposed project. Part of being feasible is to meet the project objectives. The process of redeveloping this site, which the City owns, started at least in my memory in 1997 with a Revenue Study that was done for the City Council which concluded that a hotel on the site would produce the greatest amount of revenue for the City. Since then the City Council has taken a lot of steps to pursue file : //14:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 12 of 39 that alternative beginning with issuing the request for proposals, working with the State Lands Commission to determine the tidelands boundary to decide where various kinds of uses would be appropriate, receiving the proposal from Sutherland Talla Hospitality and others and then finally selecting this hotel proposal over some others including one from our Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, which people might consider greener. I think it has been clear for a while that one of the City's objectives for this property is to have something that would generate some revenue and having a completely vacant or natural site is not going to do that. So that did not seem to be a reasonable alternative to analyze for comparative purposes. Chairperson Tucker noted that Councilman Webb noted that with the project objectives that existed that there really wouldn't be a project that could be an alternative that wasn't a commercial project in large measure that would measure up, if you will, to the project. It is basically the same answer is, that is what the Council has decided is the project and objective. Ms. Wood noted that although the marine recreation alternative that was included in the Draft EIR does not achieve those economic project objectives or would not to the extent of the proposed project, so there has been something considered that would be less commercial. Chairperson Tucker then asked for an explanation of the rationale of the staff in terms of what was included in that marine recreational alternative in terms of facilities. Ms. Wood answered that what we tried to do in putting that alternative together is to include facilities that we have heard a demand or the desire for from various segments of the community. So there was recreation such as the facilities that are there today with some expansion of those, some provision of marine facilities to satisfy the boating segment of the community, and slips for charter boats to tie up which would address some of the concerns that we hear about an existing commercial use in the harbor and provide a better facility for that. We were looking at a rare piece of land that could become vacant and how would we use that best to satisfy a number of recreational needs that we have heard in the community. Chairperson Tucker noted that Commissioner Eaton had comments at the last meeting regarding alternatives and environmentally superior alternatives. He asked if he was satisfied with the response to comments or do you have some additional comments you would like to make and we'll see if we can get you some responses here. Commissioner Eaton answered he was not satisfied. All his comments were grouped together and the comment about the environmentally superior alternative being called the project as opposed to an alternative, which is what the Guidelines require, was not responded to at all. So I was going to ask if we can now have some supplemental response as to that particular issue. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 13 of 39 DRAFT Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, answered he does not understand Commissioner Eaton's question. He said he had tried to respond. Commissioner Eaton answered he would repeat what he said at the last meeting. What the Guidelines say is that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project, which was the case here, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. In this case what the EIR has designated as the environmentally superior alternative is the project itself, which in my opinion is not from among the other alternatives and my question then and now is how does that relate to the requirements of the Guidelines? Chairperson Tucker noted that we only have two choices. Commissioner Eaton answered, right and I have some follow -up comments if you think this is the appropriate time to ask those questions. Chairperson Tucker told him to go ahead and ask and we'll see if we can't come up with a response. Are you still on alternatives, if so, go ahead and discuss all you want about alternatives. Commissioner Eaton answered, yes he is still on alternatives. In the response to B96, you will recall one of the questions was how was it determined, and this was an EQAC comment, that there was going to be more traffic from the marine recreational alternative than from the project and the response was well that will be stated in the response document and the response document talks about how big the parking lot is and then an assumption as to how many times those parking spaces would turn over. My first question is, the numbers don't seem to match what the assumption is. It talks about two or three times per day turning over but the numbers in the paragraph don't seem to match that. The second question is, a number of comments in the document particularly talking about the traffic projections from the project itself refer to the fact that they attempted to provide traffic generation rates in accordance with the TPO which calls out for using the ITE Seventh Edition and we just heard tonight that actually one of those came from a different study, not the ITE. My question is why weren't the ITE rates also used for the marine recreation alternative, as an example, why didn't you use rates from the beach park alternative plus the marina alternative, combine those and compare that to the ITE rates for the hotel? As a matter of fact what happens when you do that, if you assume the full 8 acres as beach alternative and 20 full slips in the marina -- with a horizontal dock it will be less than that but assume that -- the traffic is less if you use those rates and obviously Mr. Edmonston will have to go back to verify that. My question is, if the traffic generation is less using the ITE generation rates that were used for the project and which several of your responses said you should use and you felt compelled to use for the hotel itself, does that then suggest that if the traffic rates are less that then the traffic, air quality and noise impacts are less and that therefore in fact the marine alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, which would then comply with the CEQA section file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 14 of 39 that talks about the environmentally superior alternative being selected from among the alternatives? Difficult question and complicated. Chairperson Tucker stated I guess if that is what the Guidelines say and my recollection is they do, then I guess one of those two other alternatives was the environmentally superior alternative. As I recall, the reduced sized project because it had a free standing restaurant also carried more trips than the project. Am I correct in that? Ms. Wood answered, yes. Mr. Joe Foust from Austin Foust Associates who prepared the traffic study is ready to respond. Mr. Joe Foust, principal of Austin Foust Associates prepared the traffic study. He noted that the comment Mr. Eaton is referring to and specifically the marine recreational use could be quite variable but in particular we were talking about a 250 car parking lot with some 8,000 square feet of the Girl Scout uses and some other things. Trip rates, I started out looking at it that way but if you are going to build a 250 space parking lot in that area, parking being what it is, I'm sure that unless you have severe enforcement, that parking lot is going to get used. If you have 250 spaces and it is used just one time a day, that is 500 trips, 250 cars in and 250 cars out. So where that trip generation comes from is simply the use of that parking lot, if each space is used only once a day somebody parked there all day long or parked for five minutes and then it was used again, you have 500 trips there. That is the same as the size of the project that we are talking about . In that area my experience and I think your experience too is that the turnover which I am conservatively estimating at two to three times a day, in other words each one of those spaces will be used two or three times. Each time that you use that space and fill that lot you are talking about a multiple of 500. So conservatively i think you could expect to generate 1,000 to 1,500 out of that parking lot alone, which is substantially in excess of the size trip generation for the marina hotel we are talking about which is at 500. So that is where that comes from. As far as adding on top of that, then the 250 car parking lot is going to cover the uses of the 8,000 square feet more or less of the various types of buildings that are going to be there. The trip generation came from the use of the parking lot and a reasonable expectation that lot would be heavily used and turn over two or three times a day. If it only turned over once, then it's a push on the project in comparison with the project. Chairperson Tucker asked if that was reasonably responsive to Commissioner Eaton. Commissioner Eaton answered yes as far as the traffic generation aspect, but he would still like to hear about the alternative. Commissioner McDaniel asked Mr. Foust if a parking lot has X amount of spaces, you are considering that non -users of the hotel will be parking there as well? If this project was a swimming pool and the parking spaces were there people would be using them to go to the beach and do other things. I am concerned that these trip file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 15 of 39 generations that you are talking about are specific to the use of the hotel and the facility that is there. Or, is the hotel getting adversely impacted with these trip generations because it will be open for other facilities? Am I making sense? Chairperson Tucker noted that what Commissioner Eaton is talking about is the alternative where there isn't a hotel there. It is just a marine recreation facility. Commissioner McDaniel answered okay. I want to separate those two to make sure we are talking about the project or something else. Mr. Foust added the hotel project has its own parking which is part of the hotel and that parking will be for the hotel. It then has the replacement of the existing lot and then some metered parking that is being replaced. We are not building or putting in parking that is not already there except for the hotel. I understood the alternative would be to have in addition to some 8,000 square feet of buildings to replace the uses that are already there, the Girl Scouts, that we would also be building a 250 space parking lot. Commissioner McDaniel answered I got it, thank you. Chairperson Tucker noted that with a hotel, the presumption is that you are bringing people into the area that might not otherwise be there. But with the parking lot when you are talking trips you usually are talking just who crosses the drive or how many people cross the drive and not try and figure out who they are. You have seen the alternative uses that are proposed, is it your opinion that the number of new trips into the area as opposed to people that drive into the area and say wow, look they have a new parking lot here I was coming down here anyway and I don't know where else I was going to park. Are there people that would have been in the area anyway versus new trips or do you believe the new trips by the uses that are shown on the alternative still equate to the conservative number of trips that you have assumed? Mr. Foust answered the conservative 500 that I am talking about is the net. That is the net increase over what the mobile home park is generating now. In total it is a little over 600, so there is a credit for the mobile home park down there of its trip generation on its limited usage. There are 24 full time uses and that generates about 120 trips a day. So, when I talk 500 trips that is the net increase over what is there today. The existing parking is already there today. The 500 does not include the existing trips into those parking lot spaces used, we are calling that a wash in terms of the public parking. Chairperson Tucker noted his confusion. I thought the marine recreation alternative use also generated at least as many trips or more trips than the hotel project. Mr. Foust answered, again I'm saying the 250 space parking lot if you just filled up each space just once a day that is 500 trips. That is a net push right there, I am saying that it would turn over more then that. In file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 16 of 39 DRAFT my estimation, it is likely that that 250 space parking lot of the new alternative that you are talking about, new spaces, would produce substantially more traffic than the hotel would produce. I don't feel I have convinced you yet. Chairperson Tucker stated okay. Intuitively, I am still a little troubled by the fact that the hotel is going to bring in people that weren't in the area and that the 250 space lot -- I am just looking for some comfort- - that there is enough other uses on the site where you will at least have as many new people introduced to the area that weren't already down here that just happened to stumble across these new parking spaces. Mr. Foust answered that in addition to that lot we have 8,000 square feet of building. Chairperson Tucker noted that there are other uses on site, such as the boat launch. Mr. Burnham added that you have to assume that if there is a new parking lot down there and it is open to the public and there are no restrictions limiting its use to guests or patrons of a particular facility, it will fill up with persons who would otherwise not be in the area. You have to assume that, just like we assumed that of those mobile homes that aren't being used as full time residences, we assume no trips for those. You have to assume kind of worst case in terms of a public lot on the peninsula. It's going to turn over multiple times during any given day if you have access to the beach as you would under those circumstances in the other facilities. It is a pretty conservative assumption and because I wanted to address Mr. Eaton's comments on alternatives, I have always considered the project to be an alternative that you would measure the no project alternative against. But, after looking at the Guidelines, I think he is correct, I think you have to select an environmentally superior alternative out of the alternatives to the project as opposed to the alternatives and the project. I believe Mr. Houlihan is prepared to do that. Commissioner Eaton clarified that for the traffic generation the mobile home park was not assumed to be full occupancy, but I believe it was for the purposes of deducting from the generation of the hotel. Is that correct Mr. Foust? Mr. Foust answered no. We only assumed that the mobile home park generated about 120 daily trips out of 24 that were occupied. The others were not occupied, generating no trips. Chairperson Tucker noted that's today. Who knows what is going to happen ten years from now? It could be fully occupied if it were a mobile home park and people could be living there full time. Mr. Foust answered that as Mr. Edmonston pointed out because that issue was raised at the last meeting, and has been raised a number of times, I took the liberty to go out and count it over the July 4th holiday weekend. I did not count how many were occupied but 50 - 60 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 17 of 39 vehicles an hour going in and out of that facility is a little bit more than what the marine hotel will generate. Chairperson Tucker noted his comment at the last meeting was how many bedrooms and how much occupancy. To me I wasn't convinced that fully occupied for the mobile home park wouldn't be more intense. Mr. Foust noted that based on this past weekend, there wouldn't be a change, you wouldn't see anything. You would see actually a minor reduction. Mr. Burnham noted that the result of all of this is the EIR would overstate the traffic impacts of the project compared to the existing conditions. Chairperson Tucker noted he understands what it does. It is important to put it on the record so that it is there and what is used today was very conservative. Commissioner Eaton noted that quoting from pages 5.5 -2 and -3, it says, 'to be conservative related to the project's traffic contribution, the net increase in trips was determined by the difference of the number of trips associated with a fully occupied hotel and the number of trips associated with a fully occupied mobile home park'. Are you now saying that is not correct? Mr. Foust answered we assumed only the 24 units were actually occupied in the winter. That sentence is not correct. Chairperson Tucker noted the sentence is not correct but the schedules are correct. Mr. Foust answered yes. Continuing Chairperson Tucker noted in other words you were assuming 5ADT per occupied mobile home. Mr. Foust answered pretty much, yes. I would have to look at the exact numbers, I thought it was 5.22, but whatever, it is close enough. Chairperson Tucker asked if there was anything else on the alternatives. Commissioner Toerge noted that at the June 3rd public hearing, I raised a couple of concerns about statements in the conclusions for the alternatives to the proposed project. Namely, the conclusions state that the marine recreation alternative would meet many of the project objectives. However, it is not known if the marine recreation alternative is economically viable and therefore it is unclear if it meets the objectives related to the City revenues. In the response to comments, it is stated that it is not known if the marine recreation alternative is economically viable because an economic analysis was not conducted for this alternative. However, this alternative was included because it was expected to be able to be economically viable file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 18 of 39 DRAFT and a feasible altemative. It is a very important reference to me. I do have a question of staff and that is can you share with the commission and the public the relevance of economic feasibility in an EIR at all. Is it a relevant issue, or is it not? Ms. Wood answered that Mr. Burnham should answer that when he returns. Chairperson Tucker continued with land use compatibility issues. We had several comments by the Harbor Commission that had to do with the Harbor and Bay Element. It led me to want to have staff comment on the applicability on the Harbor and Bay Element polices, new development on land not previously used for harbor related purposes. Ms. Wood answered that as noted in your introductory remarks Mr. Chairman, some of these things are judgment calls and I think the land use compatibility is one of those areas where it is more of a judgment call than an empirical data driven planning decision. To me, the comments from the Harbor Commission seem to express a view' that it is only first priority water dependent uses that should be allowed on waterfront property. I think that the policies actually provide a priority system which includes water enhanced uses such as the proposed hotel use. I think that is a question for the decision makers, whether that is something that is going to be acceptable and in this case as the people vote on this general plan amendment. Some of the other policies in the Harbor and Bay Element direct the City's decision makers to consider the continued viability of the harbor in making land use decisions. It doesn't say that you can only allow uses that are essential to the operation of the harbor, but they are looking to protect existing uses of that nature. I don't think that the proposed hotel does threaten any of those kinds of uses. It's not a case where we are instituting residential use next to a boat yard where you would be bringing in people who would then be complaining about the noise or smell that might be coming from that operation. The hotel use is completely compatible with the American Legion that is next door, there is no impact on the American Legion Marina and by the way, this is an opportunity for me to note that our public notice on this hearing included a map that showed the entire property the City owns including the American Legion site and I just wanted to clarify that the American Legion is not part of this project. It will remain as it is except to the extent that the developer works with the American Legion to make improvements to their existing facility. Chairperson Tucker noted that if you have something that prioritizes uses but lists this particular type of use as a third priority, it is still listed as a potential use. Ms. Wood answered it is not prohibited. It is consistent with that general plan policy, it may or may not be what the decision makers want the use of this site to be. That is to be decided later, but it is not an environmental question as long as it is not a prohibited use. Chairperson Tucker asked Commissioner Toerge if he was satisfied with the responses to your questions you asked at the previous file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 19 of 39 DRAFT meeting. Now that the City Attorney is back we will go through the previous one. Are your concerns sufficiently addressed? Commissioner Toerge answered that his concerns at the last meeting revolved around the conflict of the proposed project with a number of elements in the General Plan. In the responses to comments, to summarize it briefly, that is why this is before the Planning Commission and why there is going to be a General Plan Amendment and a Zone change to accommodate this project. He then summarized for the City Attorney, in the conclusions related to the alternatives of the project proposal there was a statement in the draft EIR that the marine recreation. alternative would meet many of the project objectives; however, it was not known whether the marine recreational alternative would be economically viable. In the response to comments there is a statement that it is not known if it is economically viable because an economic analysis was not conducted. However, this alternative was included because it was expected to be able to be economically viable and a feasible alternative, which satisfies my concern of last meeting. The question that I have is, is economic viability relevant in the review of an EIR? Mr. Burnham answered it is relevant in determining whether an alternative is feasible. Economic viability is a specific consideration in the Guidelines in determining if an alternative is feasible both in terms of whether you should consider that alternative in the draft EIR and whether the alternative feasibly attains project objectives. Commissioner Toerge asked how do we know? There is no economic data, no feasibility study on either the proposed project or the alternative in the EIR in the public record. Mr. Burnham answered it is assuming that the alternative is economic feasible. Chairperson Tucker noted it assumes viability for purposes of the environmental analysis. Commissioner Toerge asked how do we make those leaps of assumption that either project is economically viable, either the proposed project or the alternative without data? How does the EIR make that representation without data in the public arena? Mr. Burnham answered that to some extent there are some assumptions that are not fully supported by fiscal impact reports. You are not required to do a full blown fiscal analysis of an alternative or the project in the EIR. To some extent the rule of reason is used in another context, but typically hotels do provide more of a potential for economic viability than say a parking lot that is adjacent to sand, which is the so- called green alternative. Even unsuccessful hotels may be required to pay rent where the lenders may be required to operate an unsuccessful hotel or if an unsuccessful hotel is turned over to the City, maybe the City can operate it successfully. Chairperson Tucker noted it is my understanding that there is no need file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 20 of 39 DRAFT to have an economic analysis for a project because if someone wants to do a project that is stupid, that is their prerogative, as long as it is not environmentally damaging. The reason you have a feasibility feature on an alternative is so that you don't end up with something whacky or highly unusual alternatives that may sound great but there is no feasibility to it. Anything else on that Commissioner Toerge? Continuing, Chairperson Tucker asked how do you propose that we deal with the environmentally superior issue now that we have to select something other than the project? Mr. Burnham answered you should hear from the consultant who prepared the EIR who is probably most familiar with its contents and I believe that is Mr. Houlihan. Mr. Houlihan with Michael Brandman and Associates answered that while you were discussing I was going through and comparing both the marine recreation alternative to reduced alternative to see which one would be environmentally superior. As CEQA states you are basically doing a comparison between the proposed project and the alternative. What we had identified was that each of the alternatives, the marine recreation alternative as well as the reduced alternative, were not environmentally superior. So going through that evaluation, I was going through the various issue areas that we evaluated. Of the issue areas, they are geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, land use and planning, transportation or traffic, air quality and noise, aesthetics and public service or utilities. Going through a brief review or a brief overview, I identified a greater amount of impacts related to the marine recreation alternative. Again, the impacts are still considered less than significant for both the alternatives and can be mitigated. However, again all we are doing is comparing which one might have greater for example traffic effects. There is traffic information provided in the response to comments for the marine recreational alternative and in the draft EIR for the reduced alternative. For the reduced alternative there is less traffic. As a result there would be less air emissions created. As a result there would be less noise impacts in the area. In addition the reduced alternative has a smaller boat slip component compared to the marine recreation alternative; therefore, less dredging would be required and less impacts on biological marine resources. In addition because of less dredging associated with the reduced alternative there would be less water quality impacts to the bay. So, through that evaluation I have come up with the conclusion that the reduced alternative is environmentally superior to the marine recreation alternative. Chairperson Tucker stated that in either event, so I am understanding this, it is still your opinion that the one with the least amount of environmental impact is the project. You are saying as between the other two, we need to designate the one that your analysis comes up with as a reduced project which is the smaller hotel with a free- standing restaurant. Mr. Houlihan answered yes. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 21 of 39 Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any questions on comments on the discussion, there were none. I think we were at noise now. Commissioner Cole asked to hear from staff the so- called controversy relating to the changing in the land use designation from recreation and environmental open space to recreation and marine use. Particularly addressing some of the comments I thought were not in my opinion weren't overly well addressed as it relates to the concern regarding the housing that is demolished in the Coastal zone if those houses are occupied by low and moderate income housing. Just a thought on the General Plan need for that. Ms. Wood noted that the need to replace housing in the Coastal zone arises only if those units are called, in that section of the law, affordable. For the Coastal zone replacement housing it's whether the occupants of the housing units are of low and moderate income, it has nothing to do with what the rental or other costs of the housing are. We have received some information since the response to comments document went out from a report we are doing on the relocation impact study, which is not complete yet. But, it has found that there is sufficient replacement rental housing in the region and in fact has found that in the surrounding communities, with the exception of Newport Beach, that a lot of the rents for existing housing are actually less than some of the people are actually paying now for their housing costs in the mobile home park. Commissioner Cole asked to walk through the need for a General Plan Amendment and the process and why the change in land use designation is necessary. Ms. Wood answered that the current designation of recreational and environmental open space does not allow for the development of a hotel. It would allow the tennis courts and even allow some commercial recreational facilities but not visitor accommodations. The proposed land use designation, which is recreational marine commercial, does allow for visitor accommodations, so the project could not be approve without the General Plan being amended to change that land use designation. The project also requires an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element because it talks about future and additional recreational facilities on this site with particular reference to aquatic facilities and so if the project is to go forward that Element needs to be amended as well and have that language changed. Commissioner Toerge asked the Harbor and Bay Element as well or any element of the General Plan that is affected? Ms. Wood answered any Element that is affected. We believe the only two are the Land Use and the Recreation and Open Space. We believe it is consistent with the Harbor and Bay Element. Chairperson Tucker noted I guess that was a direct question that I had asked earlier. Noise is the next one. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT . Noise . a. What amount of noise finally gets to the point it's a significant problem or significant for environmental purposes. I think people expect that if there is an increase in noise that somehow that is allowed, well it actually is allowed. Describe briefly for us how noise is dealt with in our ordinances. Ms. Wood answered, the standard in environmental review is that increases of less than 3 decibels are not detectable to the human ear. In this case, because we have not had a significant increase in traffic from the project, and traffic is usually the greatest contributor to noise increase, then we also do not have a significant noise impact. There will be short term impacts during the construction period and there may be some noise from hotel operations such as things like live entertainment or deliveries. Those kinds of noise impacts are controlled by the provisions of our Municipal Code and the EIR has found that following the Municipal Code will keep those impacts to less than a significant level. Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any questions or comments on how noise was dealt with in the response to comments, there were none. Continuing he asked staff to go through the four additional mitigation measures that have now been recommended with this last staff report. Ms. Wood answered: That the first one is Land Use 1 on page 35 of the response to comments document in response to comment B20. This is the mitigation measure that involves re- design of the marina to what is called the longitudinal or marginal dock and that was done in response to comments with regard to dredging and fill. It eliminates the fill impact and reduces significantly the dredging impact and also does not extend beyond the pier head line. The next is Hazardous Materials 1 on page 30 of the response to comments document in response to comment B3. This requires that the project proponent provide a list of all hazardous materials and their quantities that may be used or stored on the project site during construction. The draft EIR had not found that there would be significant impact from hazardous materials but because of the concern raised in the comments, especially with proximity to the elementary school, this mitigation measure was added to further reduce those impacts. The next is Biological Resources 6 on page 62 in response to comment C2. It is related to the first new mitigation measure with regard to the longitudinal dock and this is with regard to the mitigation for the biological impacts. The ratio of mitigation is increased from 3:1 to 4:1 in response to the California Coastal Commission; that would be their requirement. With that file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm Page 22 of 39 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 23 of 39 increase in the ratio, even though the amount of dredging has been reduced, the area of mitigation required does increase from .71 acre to .95 acre. The final one is Hydrology and Water Quality 1 on page 63 in response to comment C6. This is an addition to an existing mitigation measure which just restricts the construction activities in the water between October 1 through March 31, so that it does not interfere with wildlife reproductive activities. Commissioner Eaton noted the way it is worded, shouldn't the words 'to the period' be added between activities and between? The way it's worded it is not quite clear whether you are talking about between October and March or between March to October. Ms. Wood said yes. Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any other issues that a Commissioner would like to raise at this point or any other comments just generally on the responses to comments. Commissioner Eaton noted this is an opportunity to fill in if there are any gaps and it becomes part of the administrative record, is that correct? So, if I perceive there are any gaps this would be the place to attempt to fill them in. Mr. Burnham answered it is always a good idea to try to highlight what you believe are needs for additional information. I am not sure that we would refer normally to this as an opportunity to fill in the gaps. Chairperson Tucker noted there are not gaps. Mr. Burnham added that we need to know if there are and then we assess those in terms of providing additional information or maybe it is in the document elsewhere. Commissioner Eaton noted he has a few of those: The first one is on page 55 - it talks about the marine recreation alternative being designed to be consistent with the existing General Plan designation and tidelands restrictions. Later on in the tidelands restrictions you talk about marine water tidelands restrictions as well as upland tidelands restrictions. My question is if the marine recreation alternative exceeds the pier headline is that a tideland restriction? Mr. Burnham answered no. Did we talk about upland tideland restrictions because that is definitely an oxymoron. There are uplands, there are tidelands, but there is no upland tidelands. Commissioner Eaton answered that in the response to comments on page 101, in response to G4, you did. Continuing, file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 24 of 39 On Page 62 you are re- wording either a description or a mitigation measure but at the bottom of C2 you are talking about replacement benthic habitat at the ratio of 4:1 to what had originally been proposed before you had revised the pier so that it did not have the displacement of the benthic habitat that the original pier proposal had in the project. My question is that still necessary to have that 4:1 ratio which results in 41,344.24 square feet of mitigation? Ms. Wood answered, yes it does. Although the re- designed dock reduces the amount of dredging it doesn't eliminate it completely and the ratio has increased from 3:1 to 4:1. Commissioner Eaton asked if you need to have such an extensive amount of mitigation if the displacement wasn't as great because of the LU1 mitigation that took out the fact that you would have to dredge in order to make room for the dock. Therefore, if you don't have to dredge nearly as much of the benthic habitat I assume you don't have to replace as much of the benthic habitat. Ms. Wood answered no we don't have to replace as much but because the mitigation ratio has increased, those two factors combined still. Commissioner Eaton stated that it looked to me like you had based even the 4:1 based on the original displacement. Mr. Houlihan answered that the comment related to C2, there is a proposed project with mitigation measures. The mitigation measure modifies or reduces the size of the dock. We still have a proposed project but with the mitigation measure it is modified. It was still necessary to go back and identify what the proposed project's effect was. We looked at the total amount of effect that we identified in the EIR and included the Coastal Commission recommendation 4:1. What we had done in this mitigation was three tiers and I noticed that on page 63 the second and third paragraphs of that mitigation measure were not indented but there is a quotation after the third paragraph that was to be included as a mitigation. Basically it identifies the proposed project and what is the need for mitigation; and then the second paragraph is if the mitigation measure BR -5 is included, then what if the off -site mitigation is required; and then the third paragraph if BR5 and LU1 is included what is the off -site mitigation requirement. It is a three tier. Commissioner Eaton noted that those are alternative measures in effect depending on if LU1 is included. Am I transposing that correctly? Mr. Houlihan answered as long as the mitigation measures LU1 and BR5 are approved by the City Council. Commissioner Eaton answered that explains it. He then continued: file: //14:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 25 of 39 On page 69 your response to D1 from the Coastal Commission. This might be too small except that the Coastal Commission comments are going to become important later on in the comment. The last part of their comment D1, asked whether or not you had made the delineation of the wetlands based upon their definition or the Corps of Engineers definition. I suspect that will become an issue later on and you didn't respond to that question. Mr. Burnham answered that every improvement that is occurring within the water would be considered wetlands under either definition. I am not sure that it would have any environmental significance. Ms. Wood added that the end of that comment from the Coastal Commission is concerned about fill and with the implementation of the new mitigation measure LU1, then there would be no fill. That is what the response indicates. Commissioner Eaton answered okay and continued: On page 102, your response to G13. The comment was that the additional access through the hotel is beneficial and is basically related to access between Balboa Boulevard and the beach. It is pointed out that there will be two new accesses through the hotel. The comment was that is great as long as the hotel security doesn't restrict that access. Is there going to be a mitigation measure or lease provision making sure that doesn't happen, and that was not responded to in that response. Mr. Burnham answered that he could guarantee that the lease will provide that the lessee comply with all laws. Those will include mitigation measures that are approved by the City Council, conditions imposed by the City Council, Coastal Commission, Army Corps, etc. Being the landlord we have the ability to enforce those provisions by declaring a default or breach of the lease. We will augment the response accordingly. Commissioner Eaton continued: On page 120, the response to H26. The comment of H26 was that in the opinion of the commentator, to maintain perceived fully public access to the beach there should be some mitigation measure or lease restriction or some measure to prevent the hotel from, in effect, taking over the beach by starting to provide services, such as umbrellas, chairs, etc., in effect occupying the public beach with their private facilities and that was not responded to. Mr. Burnham stated he would make the same comment. The lease will, and in fact, they have talked to the project proponent about providing the public some amenities on the beach. But, the lease will make it clear that the hotel shall not interfere with the public's ability to use the beach and that will include putting any thing on the beach that is not available to the public. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 26 of 39 Commissioner Eaton answered okay and continued: On page 137, the last sentence in response to K5 says please also see response to comment K7 regarding emergency evacuations. But there is not a word in K7 about emergency evacuations, so I was wondering if that was intended to refer to some other response. You will clarify that before it gets to Council I assume? Mr. Burnham noted we will clarify that. I think it is fair to say that the additional number of folks on site will not have a material impact on the evacuations in the event of emergency given the number of folks generally on the peninsula at any given point in time. Commissioner Eaton answered he would not quarrel with that and continued: On page 149, the next to last sentence of the response to 02, says please see response to comment B22 regarding land to water access. But the response to comment B22 talks about hazardous materials and doesn't seem to have anything to do with land to water access. I was wondering again if that was intended to refer to some other response? Ms. Wood answered yes, we will get the correct referral in that. Commissioner Eaton continued: On page 166, which is the start of the U comments. The first comment was not numbered and therefore not responded to. Was that because you determined that wasn't an environmental comment that needed to be responded to, or did you just miss it? Mr. Burnham answered that in response to the observation, I believe we need to provide a brief response. I think the comment does raise some environmental issue. But those are environmental issues that we have addressed in other responses. Commissioner Eaton continued: On page 173, the response to U4. It says the tennis courts are at grade. Did you really mean to say that? It is my understanding and most of the other responses talk about them being four olive feet above grade. Ms. Wood answered that is an error. The tennis courts will be atop the parking structure that is five feet above grade. Commissioner Eaton continued: . On page 105, in the response to G23, it says if the decision makers wish to consider the possibility of additional file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 27 of 39 DRAFT modifications to the Marine Recreation Alternative as they evaluate the impacts and the desirability of the Marinapark proposal, they may do so based on the information provided. Can the recommenders to the decision makers also do that namely us? Mr. Burnham answered that the agreement the City Council struck with Sutherland Talla really focuses the attention of the Commission on the recommendations relative to the certification of the environmental document, but, certainly any Planning Commissioner can offer comments in the record as to his or her feelings about the project or the alternatives. Chairperson Tucker asked if anyone else had any comments or questions on the response to comments. Commissioner Daigle noted she would just like to thank the community for all their input and comments and looks forward to any additional comments in any areas you believe that continue to need to be addressed. Chairperson Tucker noted next will be the public testimony part of the hearing and it is a standard operating procedure and as our agenda indicates the time allotted to speakers at Planning Commission meetings is three minutes per person and that is the time allotted tonight as well. Questions that you may have, you ought to ask and then move onto something else. We won't answer the questions as you are standing there, you will need to use your three minutes or however much of that you care to use. We will attempt to answer the questions after you are through. The lights on the podium will start off green and turn yellow when you have one minute left and red when your time is up and you will need to wrap it up right when your time is up so we can move on with this hearing item. When you do come up, keep in mind as I indicated earlier that argument and unsubstantiated opinion and speculation are things that CEQA specifically tells us we can not consider. The more technical and directed your comments, the better. With that, come up, introduce yourself for the record and take your three minutes or however much of that you need and give us any comments that you want tonight. Public comment was opened. Louise Fundenberg, president of Central Newport Beach Community Association thanked the Commission for receiving their three page document which you got today via fax. Our group is concerned particularly about the statement that there are only fifty employees. It was stated in the draft EIR and also in the responses. Yet, at the City Council meeting of June 8th, in response to a question made by Councilmember Nichols, Mr. Sutherland stated he would have a pool of 150 employees but anticipated only 50 of the employees would be on site at any one time. We are concerned because this makes the shift changes if you have that many employees and we feel an analysis should be made on the fact that there are 150 employees and not just 50 employees. It affects the parking and the traffic and is file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 28 of 39 a concern to us. Thank you for your time. Chairperson Tucker asked those of you who want to speak to come on down and fill the front seats so that we can move this along, if anybody wants to speak. I'm not seeing anybody. Jan Vandersloot, representing himself and the citizens group SPON, Stop Polluting Our Newport. I live in Newport Heights and I am wanting to pass out two documents; one is my comments and one is SPON's comments. The first thing I would like to say is I have not been able to receive a hard cover copy of the EIR and I have not been able to access the Internet to see what the Environmental Impact Report says on the Internet. I am on the Internet a lot. The fact that the site is unavailable so much of the time makes it not a good tool for public access or public input. Basically I would like to ask that you seriously consider whether or not the recreation and environmental open space alternative is not actually the environmentally superior alternative. The fact that the consultant is now saying that a development alternative is the environmentally superior alternative to open space and recreation just is astounding to me. I have never heard of that in twenty -five years of looking at environmental impact reports. I just can not understand that and I think the basic reason is that the marine and recreational alternative you have before you may be too big and have too many boat slips on it. But the fact that you have open space devoted to recreation, how that can not be the environmentally superior alternative tome just boggles my mind. One of the reasons I think for that also is that what you are comparing this hotel project and I should say hotel timeshare project, you are comparing that to existing conditions, you are not comparing it to what the way it is zoned. It is zoned and is designated on the Land Use Plan as recreation and environmental open space without the mobile homes there. That is what this project ought to be looking at as a comparison, what is a hotel compared to entirely open space without the mobile homes. All this is addressed in the SPON comments, I would like you to read that part of it. But that is the basic reason why you are saying that the environmental open space alternative is not the environmentally superior alternative. I would like to mention that. I live in Newport Heights and I have a hard time getting parking down at the beach on the peninsula and if you are thinking about the citizens of Newport Beach and our children and our grandchildren, we don't want to be driving around the peninsula around and around and around looking for a parking spot and have a potential parking lot on this REOS designated land built up with a hotel and having people coming in from Japan and Germany coming to that hotel and we don't even have enough parking space for our own citizens to be there. Thank you for choosing the REOS alternative as the environmentally superior. Mr. Burnham noted that CEQA does require the EIR to evaluate the project against what is on the ground, a plan to ground comparison as opposed to a plan to plan comparison. Craig Raiger, 1721 West Balboa. Needless to say, this project would have a huge impact on my quality of life. The gentlemen here spoke file: //H:\Plancomum\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 29 of 39 about how many people were counted coming out of the trailer park over the holiday. He failed to mention that I sat on my patio and watched gridlock for 3 1/2 hours over the weekend every evening, which severely impacts not only myself but everybody downwind of me. So that is a severe impact not only just myself but everyone downwind of me on the peninsula. We also receive overflow parking from everyone who comes to visit the Newport Pier that can't find parking in that small parking lot. They park out in front of our place at the blue meters down as far as they can. Everybody that is going to be coming to visit the people in the hotel are now going to impact people farther downwind more and more as people try to come and visit the pier have to search for parking much further down. One of the things I haven't seen anyone mention so far is the visual impact. It isn't my right to have a view of the harbor, but this will take a one story trailer park and turn it into a two story facility which will severely impact my view of the harbor, which wasn't my God given right, but currently I enjoy that along with everybody else along that part of 18th and 17th block and part of 16th block. Once again I think the parking, the in and out you are comparing a 26 unit trailer park to a 110 unit facility. I believe the parking will just make our gridlock completely unbearable and affect the property values of everyone in Newport Beach. My final comment is I don't know why anyone is considering this project, the City of Newport Beach has been experiencing a 15% increase in revenue over the last couple of years. Why do we need this project, it isn't for the revenues we don't need it. It impacts the entire peninsula community adversely, I don't see anything good about it. Dolores Otting, a resident of Newport Beach, stated she had called to get a copy of the document on Friday as she was going away for the weekend and the document wasn't ready on Friday, it was ready on Saturday. I believe a copy of the document was placed in the library, which met the Brown Act requirement of 72 hours prior to the meeting on Thursday. I have not been able to access it on line either, so it isn't anything that's really been available for the public and I haven't had time to go to the City to get it. So, my concerns might already be addressed that's why I preface that. First of all, car rentals. Normally, when you go to a five star hotel or any hotel, you can go downstairs to the concierge and they can get you a car. If you can experience 3 1/2 hours of gridlock, nobody in the hotel is going to want to have to wait 3 1/2 hours to get their car rental. So, I am wondering if there are accommodations in the hotel to have car rentals on site available for rental. Another thing that people do when they go to a hotel, since you only have one parking space per two rooms, is they get a cab. I don't remember in the document reading anything about taxis, cabs, where they are going to park, how they are going to park. Another thing that I have noticed is because I travel past Hoag Hospital a lot and I sometimes go early in the morning or late in the afternoon, is they're building a new tower there. The construction traffic, I don't remember anything in the document and I could be wrong, that designated how they were going to deal with the construction employees. Okay? Because you go around Hoag and on Hospital Road and stuff and all those areas, everything is filled up with construction employees that walk then too. So, I am wondering how that's going to be accommodated for parking for the people that live file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0708.btm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 30 of 39 DRAFT there. These are my concerns with the document without having read the responses. So thank you very much. Chairperson Tucker noted you will have the opportunity to raise any issues that you discover between now and the Council meeting next week. Marie O'Hora, thanked the Commission for recording her responses at the last meeting. It is the first time in recorded history that they spelled my name right, she really appreciates that. I thank you for over the weekend, I did notice the trip wires, and I thought really you are taking our comments seriously. You've asked for an additional study on the traffic on Balboa Boulevard and I was very grateful and we drove over them a lot. There is just one little problem with where they were placed. They were placed across from the tennis courts. Now, that is not access into the Marina Park and I spent most of my 4th of July in the Marina Park and I am very sorry that in my 35 years of residency I did not get one of those units because it is one of the quietest spots in Newport Beach. And I don't know who was counting traffic but there was no traffic. I had a very lovely tour and spent three hours at the park and thought if they ever renew these leases, boy, I'm going to be first on the list. Now, the other thing that I would really comment about is a parking space for every two rooms. Now is this going to be the carpool destination resort? I really find that very difficult, you are going to have this many rooms and people really do bring their cars. Now, the other thing is I called around to what I consider elaborate hotels, and asked if you have a five star hotel, how much staff do you have per person? Because obviously at a five star hotel you do more than a one star hotel. And, what they explained to me is that they have two to three and a half staff for every person that comes and uses the hotel as a guest. Now, unless you have a great number of employees who are using our rapid transit system, that's going to mean a lot of cars. Now, my last comment is who owns this property? I know the City of Newport Beach owns this property. I consider myself just a teeny tiny part of the City of Newport Beach, so I feel that we own this property. I think we have a right to say how it will be used and I don't know what the best use is, but I don't feel the best use is a hotel. Thank you. Tom Billings, with Protect Our Parks, noted we will find out in November whether the public wants 10 put a hotel on public park land or whether they want to have a park and stay a park for their community benefit and use. I realize that is not an EIR question at this point. Although, if you look at economic viability, is that the only criteria, which was brought up by Mr. Eaton, and I would say no, it should not be. Let me just hit on a couple of key points that I found as grievous faults in the EIR results and again Mr. Eaton thank you for clarifying which to me seems crystal clear, it seems like it wasn't to the others. Mr. Toerge thank you, you reflected on it as well. Number 1, the objectives are written so that only a hotel proposal would be selected as the preferred alternative. The objectives over - emphasized the need for the site to generate revenues for the City which is inappropriate for the future use of file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 31 of 39 the park. The code, I guess it is 21.001 requires government agencies to develop standards or procedures to consider alternatives. It was spoken of a marine use alternative but that there wasn't enough information and never got into economic viability. Currently there is an alternative use that is being developed by a group of people in Newport Beach that care about this community use and it is called Las Arenas Aquatic Center. I won't go into detail about that right now, but it is an alternative marine use and recreational use which falls into the category of what the General Plan calls for at this time. Of course, I know that in the election in November we will decide on whether the public wants to change the General Plan and give away this property to a developer for a hotel. Number two, the Impact Analysis should also assume that the mobile homes are removed. I guess you call this plan to plan versus plan to ground. I don't know EIR or DEIR rules specifically without getting advice from a CEQA counsel at the time, but if you are looking at plan to plan hotel or recreational use to General Plan well then you are comparing a hotel to a park. Is economic revenue generation to take care of City insolvency the justification or is what the public wants a criteria? I realize this is not an EIR issue at this time but I consider it in my mind that it should be. Georgine Vaught, resident of Newport Beach, noted her recollection is that Mr. Sutherland said that there were going to be timeshares built on this property. Nowhere in the information that I have received tonight does the word timeshare appear. Is that going to have any effect on the EIR? Chairperson Tucker answered that he was not sure of what the speaker received tonight, but he has stacks of information that does mention the timeshare use. Ms. Wood added that the draft EIR and in a few places in the Response to Comments it does indicate that the project description includes the potential for twelve of the units to be fractional ownerships, which is a different way of saying timeshares. Madelene Arakelian, resident on the peninsula and has spent 60 years down in Newport Beach. I remember when we changed the Fun Zone that was the beach my husband courted me on. And now I have a deep concern that this strip of land that is supposed to be for marine use is going to be designated for a hotel. Last night I walked it and I don't know how many of you have walked it, but it is absolutely', gorgeous. And to think that we are taking this away from the public'' gets me very angry. I have a question for Sharon. The General Plan Amendment has not been done yet? If it hasn't been done, and at the moment it is designated for marine use, and has the tideland issues and everything else, shouldn't that have been done already so that we could go forward with this project? Or, is it when we vote on it in November we're voting for the General Plan Amendment and not for a hotel? file: //H:\P1ancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 32 of 39 Mr. Burnham answered that in November, if the EIR is certified anc Council calls an election, yes the General Plan Amendment would be what the voters would either approve or disapprove to amend the Land Use and Recreation Elements to allow the construction of the resort. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Tucker asked if staff wanted to respond to any of the comments or would any Commissioner like a response to any of the comments. He then noted he would like to hear about car rental: and taxis. I guess car rentals we don't know what the use is going tc be on the inside of the hotel but just as a matter for hotel trir generation rates, I would guess the concept of a taxi service would be included or should be if it wasn't? Mr. Edmonston answered that again typically the determination o these rates, all traffic entering and leaving the property is tabulates and then divided by the number of rooms to come up with the trip rate per room. Yes, to the extent that the other sites were studied tc determine this rate, I would expect they would have the same sort o uses, whether it's limousines or airport shuttles or rental cars. It woulc have been the same other than if a rental car is coming from an of site location it would have four trips, two coming and two leavinc associated with the stay versus if it was on -site it would come bah and stay there. There might be some minor difference agair depending on whether these other sites had on site storage of renta vehicles or if they were always in a situation where they came fron some off -site location when a client wanted one. Chairperson Tucker noted that we did discuss earlier in a fair amoun of detail the exact or at least our best estimate how much more traffir would have to occur before we had a recognizable level of service degredation under the TPO. I don't think additional taxi trips is goin( to get to that level that we are going to trip something. Your answe basically is that it is included in the base trip generation rates. It ma) not have specifically called out taxis, the manner in which the people come to and fro, but it contemplated all trips. Mr. Edmonston answered yes, the studies were done at resort hotels which we felt was the most appropriate category for this project. Ms. Wood noted that another potential impact of rental cars could be i they are stored on site then they are occupying parking places. But it this case where the parking that is provided is more than twice wha the Code requires, I don't see that that would have a potential to havf a significant impact. Mr. Burnham added I don't think it would be a significant impact either but that use is not listed as part of the project description. So as fa as I am concerned if that use were something that the hotel operato wanted to develop on site, they would need the environmenta document reviewed and we would have to look at that as ar amendment to the project. I don't think it is permitted given this file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 33 of 39 DRAFT project description. Commissioner Eaton asked about Mr. Billings' comments and Dr. Vandersloot's comments and particularly the SPON letter referring tc the no project alternative. Having been in this practice I can remember two cases in particular, one in Anaheim and one in EI Dorado County where it said where you have a situation where you have a likelihood of a plan that could be implemented, and an existing situation, you really need to do two no projects to look at both. In both of those cases, the existing plan had a much higher intensity and density allowed. What they did in those two cases, they compared only. to the higher plan and said, well we have nothing but benefits here by reducing that as opposed to what was actually on the ground. I believe that the essential character of those cases were taken into account in Section 15126.6 Paragraph E subsection 3, sub b, where it says, "if disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, (in this case I'm interpreting that to mean like eventually requiring the displacement of the mobile homes because they conflict with tidelands restrictions) such as a proposal of some other project, this no project consequence should also be discussed." It reiterates it saying, "However, where the failure to proceed with the project will not result in the preservation of the existing environmental conditions that analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non - approval." Do you feel this EIR runs the risk of not taking that into account? Mr. Burnham answered, no, because I think the marine recreational alternative is the flip side to the no development, no project alternative, which is the retention of the mobile home park. The marine recreation alternative would be a no project as a no General Plan Amendment. It would be a project that is consistent with the existing General Plan designation for the site both in the Rec and Open Space Element and the Land Use Element. I think that takes into account what could happen if the mobile home park were removed as part of this process and I also think it is somewhat remote to conclude that the mobile home park -- let's assume the voters reject the General Plan Amendment -- at that point in time my suspicions are that the City would try to figure out what to do and potentially develop • marine recreation alternative, either the one proposed in the EIR or • different one. That I suspect would take a substantial amount of time during which the mobile home park would remain in place. Chairperson Tucker noted that the Guidelines say about alternatives to the proposed project, "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation." I think that, back to the Guidelines, the nature of the project and the objectives, I think that staff has picked out and justified, as they are required to do, is to publicly disclose their reasoning for selecting alternatives. At least in my opinion, they have file: //H:1Plancomm\2004 \0708.btm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 Page 34 of 39 DRAFT met the burden here. They could have picked a lot of other alternatives and maybe they should have picked a lot of other alternatives, but in terms of what is required by CEQA, which is really all that is before us tonight, it seems to me that they have given an alternative that allows comparison to the project. That is kind of the nature of the beast that we are dealing with here. Does anybody else have questions? Commissioner Selich noted on the letter from the Central Newport Association, paragraph 3 on the second page where they were requesting the analysis on the impact of 150 and not on 50 employees, I thought an interesting point was brought up on the shift changes. I don't think it would be 150, but 50 if everyone changes shift at the same time. I was wondering if staff had any comments on that. Ms. Wood noted she actually has had some experience working in a hotel. Perhaps we should have Mr. Foust talk about this too, but I do not believe that these employees are going to all change shifts at the same time. The majority of the chamber maids are there in the morning and then some come for the evening turn down service and depending on what day of the week it is you may have fewer or greater number of employees working in the restaurant. You may or may not have a function going on in the ballroom, which is not a very big one in this case, and so people would come at different times and perhaps not even every day for that sort of thing. Some of the employees are going to be the grounds maintenance crew and they will have different schedules than the people working in the rooms or restaurant. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of those will turn over on a shift as if they were working in a factory. Commissioner Selich noted that one of the comments made various times on the EIR is the fact that it is a five star facility so there is going to be a greater ratio of employees to guests then you would have in a normal hotel. Also, earlier in the information that was brought out it was indicated that we are parking this hotel at twice the ratio than normally we require a hotel to be parked at so we probably have that covered in any event. Ms. Wood added that it is also important to keep in mind the size of the ancillary facilities, the amenities that are included in this hotel versus what you might find in other hotels, which also affects the employee count. In many hotels such as the Ritz Carlton, the St. Regis, even the Montage that we have in the region, those hotels include large ballroom space and can accommodate large functions and even business meetings. Where in this case even though it is called a ballroom, given the size I am not sure that is a good term— it is only 3600 square feet, which is a little bit smaller than the building we are in. Given that information, I think the lower employee count per room is reasonable for this proposal versus what you would see in one where you need to have a lot more food service people for those facilities. Commissioner Daigle noted should more units become timeshares file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 35 of 39 over time, how would that affect traffic? Mr. Burnham answered that we would again have to look at any potential environmental impacts associated with a conversion of more resort units to fractional ownerships which I do not believe would happen and will not be allowed by any lease. Mr. Foust can address any impacts. Mr. Foust answered we have assumed a full 100% occupancy of the hotel, so all the rooms would be occupied all the time every day of the year. A little bit of research into that suggests it is 85 or 90% is probably realistic. Again, everything we have done traffic wise has been done on the conservative side. In terms of timeshares, they do not achieve 100% occupancy all the time. The probability is although you might get a few more families come in and maybe have a guest or two, I suspect that the trip rate for the timeshare throughout the year would result in a lower than 100% of all of the hotel rooms. It probably would be a net traffic benefit to have the timeshare compared to a fully occupied five star hotel. Chairperson Tucker then addressed the consideration and the need to make substantial changes to the draft EIR and to recirculate the draft EIR. Ultimately, the purpose of CEQA is a disclosure law. Really in its most simplistic form it's an effort to try and make sure the decision makers and the public understand the nature of the project involved and the consequences to the environment if the project were to have been built. And so, when I look at the issue of recirculation, it needs to be in accordance with the Guidelines as well, that the agency is required to recirculate when significant new information is added to the EIR after the public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review. In this particular case, I believe that just the level of sophistication of the comments, the number of comments we have had, the detail that we have been through and the discussion that we have had, I am not seeing a significant omission that needs to be corrected at this point. It's not that the document is perfect; it is far from perfect because it is not possible to make one of these things perfect. I think the public's participation in pointing out errors and failure to recognize nuances and to look at every aspect of this project is just testament to the fact that no matter how hard you try, you can't get to perfection. CEQA does not require perfection. This is a re- development of a project where the ground has already been developed. It's not like it's 500 acres with coastal sage scrub, wetlands and environmentally endangered species, which is a lot harder to understand than this project. I feel in this particular case, at this point, there is no aspect of this project that I do not have a good understanding of what its consequences will be. There were some areas that I think we pointed out tonight where the document and the administrative record could be strengthened and I think we have done that. I am not seeing the need to recirculate. I will throw this open to the rest of the Commissioners and see if we have any, other feelings on that or any comments on the EIR generally but particularly we need to come to the conclusion of whether or not to make substantial changes and we need to recirculate the EIR. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 36 of 39 Commissioner Eaton noted he disagrees with the selection of the reduced alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. I think the marine recreational alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because I think the wrong traffic analysis was used. They should have stuck with the ITE generation as they did for the project and the other alternatives. That would have demonstrated, if they had done that, that there was actually less traffic and therefore less traffic impacts and less air quality impacts and less noise impacts and that should have been the environmentally superior alternative. However, my real concern was that we were not identifying one of the alternatives as an alternative and that has now been taken care of. An alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. In terms of looking at the basic impacts of the project itself, I don't think which alternative is the environmentally superior alternative is that relative. I think we do have a comprehensive view of the impacts of the project itself and therefore, I don't think the document needs to be recirculated and I am prepared to eventually recommend certification. Commissioner Cole noted he generally concurs. The environmental consultants and the City did an admirable job of putting this together and have in my opinion adequately addressed potential impacts to the environment and I have found there is no significant evidence to show that there has been any kind of impacts in any areas. I think they have also adequately addressed the threshold regarding alternatives so I am also in favor of not recirculating the EIR and I would recommend that we proceed with the certification and send this to the City Council. Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees. We have had some exhaustive testimony and some very good quality input from the public and from staff and environmental consultants and the Commissioners and I don't see any significant omission. I also appreciate very much our Chairman's summation tonight of our charge this evening, that our responsibility is to be sure the document adequately brings forth the environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures. That is really our charge, does this document do this? A vote to certify this EIR is not a vote for the project. It is simply representation that the project EIR does indeed address those impacts and the potential and likely mitigation measures. At this point, 1 am not in favor of a re- circulation of the draft EIR. Commissioner Selich noted he was not going to make any kind of speech. He supports what the Chairman's comments were on it and I think it is in adequate condition to move on to the Council. Commissioner McDaniel noted he agrees. Commissioner Daigle noted she also would not be in support of re- circulating the document. Chairperson Tucker noted that concludes that part of it. Are there any final comments on the draft EIR? He noted once again, as Commissioner Toerge points out, our charge is to come to a file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 37 of 39 conclusion on the adequacy of the document. There are a lot of people that feel strongly that this property should not be used for a hotel project. Ultimately, if they show up at the ballot box, assuming it gets through Council, which I shouldn't assume because it might not, then it will be up to everybody to express their opinion as to the project. In doing that, certainly those who have participated in the project understand what its consequences are and they have kept us honest by making sure we understand what the consequences are. Hopefully you have seen that we did read the document, we read the comments, we read the response to comments and we spent a lot of time on this matter to discharge our duty which is to pass a recommendation along to the Council as to the adequacy of the EIR. I do have a question of the City Attorney before we make a motion and that is how do we deal with the environmentally superior alternative? We have the consultant recommending one alternative and Commissioner Eaton has a different opinion and I guess right now we have a resolution that doesn't refer to either choice. I am not exactly sure how we correct the record to pick the environmentally superior alternative. Mr. Burnham answered I would suggest that you straw vote that issue and adopt a resolution revised to reflect the straw vote. I understand Commissioner Eaton's point of view. If you use an ITE rate maybe you could come to the conclusion that the marine recreational alternative is environmentally superior. There is evidence to support either determination. Chairperson Tucker stated we would then just adopt the resolution that is in the staff report modified to reflect the environmentally superior alternative we select. Mr. Burnham answered yes. Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton that the environmentally superior alternative be the marine recreation alternative based upon the ITE generation rates. Commissioner Cole - would be in favor of supporting the City Attorney and the consultant's recommendation and keep the environmentally superior alternative the proposed one presented by the consultant. (no) Commissioner Toerge - in favor of the straw vote that the marine recreation alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. (yes) Mr. Burnham noted for the record he does not have an opinion, just to clarify. Commissioner Selich - noted that though it might seem counter intuitive I think that the consultant's recommendation makes sense. It is analytically consistent with the rest of the document so I support that one. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 07/08/2004 DRAFT Page 18of39 Commissioner McDaniel - in favor of this consultant's project as it is. Commissioner Daigle - supports the consultant's recommendation. Chairperson Tucker noted he guesses it doesn't matter what he thinks, it sounds like the consultant's recommendation is the way we are going. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to adopt the resolution recommending City Council certification of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Final Environmental Impact Report that is attached to our staff report as attachment 1 and that we modify that resolution to reflect that we have selected the environmentally superior alternative of the reduced project alternative. Are there any comments? Ms. Varin noted that Commissioner Daigle has listened to all the previous meetings on our tapes and is able to vote on this item tonight. Commissioner Eaton added his commendation to the commentators, particularly EQAC and the Harbor Commission. The Harbor Commission really went to a lot of work and a lot of their comments unfortunately aren't really going to pertinent unless ultimately the hotel is voted down and the alternatives for the site are considered. They have a wealth of good information in there that can be used in that circumstance. Chairperson Tucker noted we all can second that. We had a great participation level with very good comments. Anybody else, wish to say anything? Ayes,. Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel, McDaniel No and Daigle Absent: None Abstain: None None DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. C1 ouncil Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that at the meeting of June nd the City Council adopted the amendment to the Corporate with regard to medical and dental uses. b. Planning Commissio-Nls..representative to the Economic Development Committee - [miss ioner Selich noted that at the next meeting there will a fiscal impact analysis presentation on Marinapark. The me is on the 21st at 8 a.m. here in the Chambers. c. Report from Planning Commission's representativ to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. Ms. d file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0708.htm 07/20/2004 EIR -11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 18 July 13, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (PA 2003 -218) 1700 West Balboa Boulevard APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) ISSUE Should the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (formerly the Regent Newport Beach)? RECOMMENDATION Review the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), receive public comments during the public hearing, and continue the public hearing to July 27, 2004. DISCUSSION Background The project background, project description, and a summary of the Draft EIR are provided in the report provided to the City Council for the June 8th study session (Attachment 1). EIR Certification Process A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project and circulated for public comment from April 26, 2004, through June 9, 2004, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). During that time, Marinapark EIR July 13, 2004 Page 2 Draft EIR. The Planning Commission received public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project at a study session on June 3, 2004, and then provided comment and requested clarification and additional information on various impacts analyzed in the document. Planning Commission comments and responses to those comments are included in the Final Environmental Impact Report together with comments received during the public circulation period for the Draft EIR and the respective responses to those comments. The City Council also held a study session on June 8; no additional comments on the DEIR were received. On July 8th, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, and recommend to the City Council whether or not to certify the Final EIR. A summary of Planning Commission deliberations and the adopted Resolution recommending City Council action on the EIR will be sent to City Council members on July 9th In order to provide adequate opportunity for public input, the City Council will hold public hearings on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and on July 27, 2004. On July 27th the City Council may certify the Final EIR if, after reviewing the document and considering the Planning Commission recommendation, the Council finds that: 1) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2) the City Council reviewed and considered information contained in the Final EIR; and, 3) the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council as the legislative body of the City as lead agency in preparation of the Final EIR. At that time, the City Council may also take action as appropriate to place the General Plan Amendment proposed with this project on the November ballot. Final EIR Summary: The Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, a listing of persons and organizations that commented on the Draft EIR during the public circulation period, a compilation of those comments, and responses to those comments provided by the City as lead agency for the project pursuant to CEQA. Comments and Responses to Comments The Final EIR includes all written comments on the Draft EIR received through June 9th and comments received from three agencies after that date. Correspondence from each commenter is accompanied by responses to comments set forth in that correspondence. Responses were prepared by the City's EIR consultant and City staff. Responses may provide clarification on an issue by referral to an EIR section, may include additional discussion as Marinapark EIR July 13, 2004 Page 3 clarification of an issue raised by the commenter and addressed in the EIR, or may indicate an additional or revised mitigation measure formulated in response to a comment. Comments not relating to environmental impacts may simply be noted for the record. In .response to comments received, additional mitigation measures have been formulated and previously defined mitigation measures have been modified to further reduce adverse impacts. These mitigation measures and the reasons for their inclusion or modification are as follow: Mitigation Measure LU -1 Environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR included those associated with bulkhead and groin wall placement, dredging, fill placement on the sandy beach, and extension of the slips beyond the pierhead line. Although the impacts associated with placement of this structure were determined to be less than significant, the project proponent has agreed to incorporate the modified dock specifications into the project as set forth in Mitigation Measure LU -1 to further reduce potential impacts. The modified dock eliminates the twelve boat slips originally proposed and replaces them with a 260 -foot long "marginal' dock. This will reduce the amount of dredge material from 1,750 cubic yards to a maximum of 500 cubic yards, reduce the amount of bay bottom that will be disturbed, and eliminate the need for approval to construct improvements beyond the pierhead line. Mitigation Measure HM -1 This new mitigation measure requires that the project proponent provide a listing of all hazardous materials and their quantities that may be used or stored on the project site during construction. The impact relative to hazardous materials used or stored on site during construction previously was determined to be less than significant with mitigation and the new mitigation measure was added to further reduce the potential impact level in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure BR -6 Modification of the dock plan as in Mitigation Measure LU -1 results in a reduction in the area of benthic and shorebird foraging habitat that is disturbed and a consequent reduction in the amount of replacement habitat that must be developed off -site. Revision of this mitigation measure reflects the reduced habitat replacement area. Marinapark EIR July 13, 2004 Page 4 Mitigation Measure HWQ -1 Modification of this mitigation measure adds a requirement that in -water construction activities be limited to the period from October 1 to March 31. This mitigation measure was modified in response to comments from the Regional Water Quality Control Board indicating this would be a condition of permit approval for construction of the dock. The time period restriction will prevent construction activities that would interfere with wildlife reproductive activities. PUBLIC NOTICE A Notice of Public Hearing was published on July 3, 2004, in the Daily Pilot. The notice was also mailed on July 2, 2004, to owners of property within 300' of the proposed project and to those who previously requested notification of public hearings on this matter and the notice was posted at the site in multiple locations. Submitted by: James Camplifell Sharon Wood Senior Planner Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. June 8, 2004, staff report to City Council 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Response to Comments ATTACHMENT 1 [June 8, 2004, staff report to City Council] This Page Left Intentionally Blank (f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 33 June 8, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, Campbell O city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) ISSUE:. Review of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (formerly the Regent Newport Beach) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). RECOMMENDATION: Review the proposed project and DEIR, receive public comments, and provide direction on issues to be addressed at the Planning Commission public hearing on July 8, 2004 and at City Council public hearings on July 13 and July 27, 2004. DISCUSSION: Background: Under terms of the agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Sutherland Talla Hospitality (now Marinapark LLC), the City is required to hold one Planning Commission public hearing and one City Council public hearing on the project EIR. Pursuant to the agreement, the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council whether or not the EIR should be certified, but will not recommend whether to approve or disapprove the project. The City Council is to certify the EIR, if appropriate, and schedule the election on the General Plan amendment, but will not approve or disapprove the project. In making its decision on the details of the ballot measure, the City Council will have the ability to make some changes to the General Plan amendment request submitted by Marinapark LLC and the Planning Commission may include suggested changes to the General Plan amendment with its recommendation to City Council. I The Marinapark site is zoned Planned Community (PC), and the required project approvals include a Planned Community Development Plan. The Planning Commission and /or City Council will have approval authority for this plan and any use permit, site plan or other subsequent approval required in the PC text. In addition, the City Council has the authority to approve a lease for use of this tidelands property. The Study Session is intended to give the City Council and the public the opportunity to understand the project proposal, to begin reviewing the potential environmental impacts of. the project, and to identify issues that need to be addressed for the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Final EIR on July 8, 2004 and for the City Council's public hearings on the Final EIR on July 13 and July 27, 2004. Prolect Description The Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan is proposed on property currently occupied by the Marinapark Mobile Home Park, Las Arenas Park, Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, four public tennis courts, one -half basketball court, a children's play area, and a metered parking lot on an 8.1 -acre site on Balboa Blvd. between 15th and 18th Streets. The project applicant, Marinapark LLC, proposes to remove and /or demolish existing structures on the property and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that will include a lobby and registration area, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four tennis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility, and a tot lot. EIR Certification Process A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the project and circulated for public comment on April 26, 2004. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, the review period is 45 days and will end on June 9, 2004. During this time, affected government agencies and the public may submit written comments on the Draft EIR. To date, the City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee and the Southern California Association of Governments have provided written comments on the Draft EIR (Attachment A). The Planning Commission and members of the public provided comment on the Draft EIR at a public study session on June 3, 2004; a summary of comments will be provided to the City Council on June 4. At the end of the Draft EIR circulation period on June 9th, written comments received and written responses to these comments will be included with the Draft EIR document in the form of the Final EIR for the project. On July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and make its recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not to certify the Final EIR. The City Council will hold public hearings and consider the Planning Commission recommendation on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and on July 27, 2004. On July 27tH the City Council may certify the Final EIR if it determines that, after reviewing the document, the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. Draft EIR Summarv: The Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft EIR identifies the range of potential environmental impacts that could result from construction and operation of the 110 - room Marinapark Resort. The range of impacts analyzed in the DEIR was based on an Initial Study (included in the DEIR) that concluded that no further analysis was needed for environmental issues related to agricultural resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation. The DEIR includes a description and analysis, by subject area (Land Use, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Traffic, etc.), of each impact determined to be potentially significant. Based on this analysis, a level of significance is assigned to each potential impact: "No Impact "; "Not Significant "; or "Significant." Mitigation measures are identified for "significant" impacts. A level of significance is again assigned to each potential impact according to the extent that proposed mitigation measures may reduce the severity of the impact. Alternatives to the project that may result in lesser impacts on the environment than the proposed project are also evaluated in the Draft EIR. As shown in the "Executive Summary" (Page 2 -1) of the DEIR, the analysis concludes that, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, no significant impacts to the environment would result from construction and operation of the Marinapark Resort. Potential environmental effects of the proposed project which can be mitigated so that no significant impacts result are indicated below. Impact Geo logy and Soils Liquefaction of soils during an earthquake Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Degradation of water quality Overload storm drain system Mitigation Measure Building design and construction incorporating structural components that resist soil collapse Preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Construction of on -site detention basins 1 Impact Biological Resources Cement walkway results in loss of shoreline habitat for shorebirds Disruption . of benthic: resources through loss of soft bottom habitat Long -term impacts to fish resources through loss of soft bottom foraging habitat Mitigation Measure Development of shorebird foraging habitat replacement site Development of benthic habitat replacement site and revision of slip plans to include elevated walkway from beach to slips Development of benthic habitat replacement site Disruption of California least tern Preparation and implementation of a and California brown pelican Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan foraging behavior through site incorporating best management practices grading and bay dredging and construction noise Periodic loss of eelgrass through maintenance dredging Loss of halibut nursery habitat Construction, vessel movement, and increased turbidity levels could affect Eelgrass Restoration Project Bulkhead and support pilings for boat slips will result in long -term loss of sand beach and soft bottom habitat Development of a plan for restoration of eelgrass habitat pursuant to Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Development of a benthic habitat replacement site and preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Development of benthic habitat replacement site and revision of slip plans to include elevated walkway from beach to slips and development of a benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site \1) Impact Air Quality Dust resulting from construction activities Exceed thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases through use of paint and other coatings in construction phase Mitigation Measure Compliance with Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and adopt and implement a construction traffic management plan Use pre- coated materials, high pressure low- volume paint applicators with 50% efficiency, lower volatility paint The Executive Summary of the DEIR also includes environmental components that would not be adversely affected by project development and operation as shown below. Land Use: Project development is consistent with General Plan Policies and the Harbor and Bay Element and the Newport Beach Municipal Code and with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies on public access, views, parking, dock facilities, public restrooms and historic resource inventory; project complies with Zoning Code for Community Plans; project is compatible with nearby land uses and maintains public beach access and replaces existing recreation facilities; structures nearest the Bay will be one -story and structures adjacent to 15th and 18th Streets will be similar in scale to nearby buildings; Transportation: The project will generate a net increase of 520 average daily trips during the "shoulder" e.g. fall and spring season which, compared to existing traffic, does not represent a significant impact. The project would generate a net increase of 360 average daily trips during the summer season which, compared to existing traffic, does not represent a significant impact; Noise: The project is consistent with the City's performance standards for locating land uses in noisy environments; restriction of construction hours would reduce adverse effect of equipment noise to less than significant level; noise modeling indicates no increase in traffic - related noise levels; �i Aesthetics: The architectural features of buildings included with the project are consistent in size and scale with existing development and existing views to the bay from public rights - of -way will be substantially maintained; Public Services and Utilities: Existing public facilities and resources for police and fire protection were deemed adequate to serve the project based on interviews with the respective department representatives; facilities and infrastructure for solid waste disposal, water service, wastewater service, natural gas, and electricity were all deemed adequate for the needs of the project based on information from the respective service providers. Alternatives to the Marinapark Resort project are analyzed in the DEIR and their potential impacts are compared with those of the proposed project. Any of the alternatives may be determined to be environmentally superior if, overall, the magnitude of impacts is less than that of the proposed project. Each alternative, however, must also be evaluated in light of the project objectives identified by the City of Newport Beach and set forth in the DEIR as follows: • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands; • Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between t6ideland revenue and tideland expenditures; • Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents; • Enhance public access and community faci8lities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users; • Ensure that site redevelopment does not generate noise, glare or traffic that could adversely impact the residents in the vicinity or the American Legion adjacent to the site; • Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. Alternatives analyzed in the DEIR, the magnitude of overall impact compared with the project, and the extent to which each meets project objectives identified above are as follow: "No Proiect/No Development Alternative" This alternative assumes that existing mobile homes and recreational facilities remain. No additional environmental impacts would result but this alternative would not meet project objectives for area revitalization, consistency with tidelands restrictions, reduction of tidelands deficit, generation of additional revenue, or provision of additional marine - related facilities. "Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative" This alternative assumes removal of the mobile homes and development of new recreational facilities including 2 charter boat moorings, 20 boat slips, parkland, a Girl Scout/Community Center, tennis /basketball courts, and beach and boat slip parking area. This alternative would result in lesser impacts to geology and soils, aesthetics, and public services and utilities as compared with the proposed project. Impacts associated with land use and planning would be similar to those of the project. Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality, geological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise would be greater as compared with the proposed project. The Marine Recreation Alternative would meet project objectives related to area revitalization, consistency with tidelands restrictions, and provision of additional marine - related facilities. This alternative, however, may not reduce the tidelands revenue deficit and may not generate additional general fund revenue or enhance public access without an expenditure of tax revenue. "Reduced Intensity Alternative" This alternative assumes development of an 80 -room luxury resort hotel, a 4,500 square -foot restaurant, and 12 boat slips. This alternative would result in lesser impacts to geology and soils and to aesthetics as compared with the proposed project. Impacts associated with traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities would be greater for this alternative than for the proposed project. Similar impacts would be incurred for hydrology and water quality, geological resources, and land use and planning. n,� Based on consideration of the relative impacts of each alternative compared with the proposed project, and on the extent to which each alternative and the proposed project satisfy the objectives set forth by the City of Newport Beach for redevelopment of the proposed project site, the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan is deemed to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative consistent with guidelines set forth in C EQA. CONCLUSION: The Study Session will allow members of the City Council and the public to. better understand the proposed project and to evaluate conclusions about potential environmental impacts set forth in the Draft EIR for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. The Study Session will prepare the City Council for public hearings on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and July 27, 2004, and for City Council determination after public hearing on July 27, 2004 whether or not to certify the Final EIR. If the City Council certifies the Final EIR on July 27th, the City Council may at that time adopt a resolution calling for the proposed General Plan amendment for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan to be placed before the Newport Beach electorate in November. Prepared by: Submitted by: lames W. Cam bell, 1 Senior Planner Attachments haron Z. Wood Assistant City ager ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #200311021 [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] 15 This Page Left Intentionally Blank -,�D ATTACHMEMT 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS SCH #200311021 [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] 0 EIR -12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 18 July 13, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort & Community Plan (PA 2003 -218) 1700 West Balboa Boulevard Final Environmental Impact Report Fiscal Impact Analysis APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Review the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and receive public comments during the public hearing; 2. Review and comment on the draft fiscal impact analysis; and 3. Continue the public hearing to July 27, 2004. DISCUSSION: Environmental Impact Report: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project on July 8, 2004. At the conclusion, the Commission adopted the attached Resolution, recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, with the Reduced Intensity alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Commission Discussion: The Commission reviewed the statutory intent and purpose for preparing, circulating, and certifying an Environmental Impact Report, and focused their discussion on several areas of impact analysis included in the DEIR and in comments received during the public circulation period. These areas were traffic, revised dock plan, hazardous Marinapark EIR and Fiscal Impact Analysis July 13, 2004 Page 2 materials, tidelands boundary, loss of recreation facilities, parking, alternatives to the project, land use compatibility, noise, and revised /additional mitigation measures. City staff and consultants summarized the analysis and conclusions in the DEIR and responded to Commission questions as each was introduced. This report highlights issues where information was clarified or added, or changes to the EIR were recommended. Traffic Staff noted that the trip generation rate used to analyze the proposed hotel was not the rate found in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual, but a rate that had been developed by Austin Foust Associates, the traffic consultant, in a study of resort hotels. This rate is higher than ITE's resort hotel rate for peak hours, and therefore results in a more conservative traffic analysis than would have been the case using the ITE rate. The DEIR should be amended to cite the correct source for the trip generation rate. The traffic consultant also noted that the traffic study assumed that only 24 mobile homes (those occupied by full -time residents) were occupied and generating traffic. The tables in the DEIR are correct; the text on page 5.5 -3 should be amended to delete the reference to a "fully occupied mobile home park" and explain the assumption regarding 24 occupied units. Aftematives Because the DEIR found the proposed project to have less environmental impact than any of the alternatives except no project, it concluded that the project is the environmentally superior alternative. The City Attorney advised the Commission that CEQA requires the lead agency to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the' alternatives to the project. Michael Houlihan of Michael Brandman Associates, who prepared the EIR, provided the Commission with a comparison of the Marine Recreation and Reduced Intensity alternatives. The DEIR shows that impacts from both alternatives would be less than significant, but the Reduced Intensity alternative would have less impact in the areas of traffic, air quality, noise, biological resources and water quality. Based on this analysis, he recommended that the Reduced Intensity alternative be identified as the environmentally superior one, and the Commission accepted the recommendation. Public Comments: Four pieces of written correspondence were received at or prior to the Planning Commission hearing, and they are attached to this report. Eight members of the public spoke at the hearing. In addition to commenting on the environmentally superior alternative and project impacts they would experience, public comments raised a few issues to which staff responded. Marinapark EIR and Fiscal Impact Analysis July 13, 2004 Page 3 Employees The DEIR states that the hotel will have 50 employees in total, but the project proponent has stated that there will be no more than 50 employees at any one time. In addition, existing luxury hotels in the region have a higher number of employees per guest room. Staff responded that hotel employees would work on varied schedules depending on work assignment (e.g., housekeeping vs. grounds maintenance), day of week, and whether there is a ballroom function. Therefore, there will not be shift changes involving all employees at the same time, which could have greater traffic and parking impacts. In addition, the small size of the proposed ballroom (3,600 square feet) was noted as a reason for a lower employee requirement than other hotels with larger conference and banquet facilities. Altematives The Commission was asked to consider the Marine Recreation alternative as the environmentally superior one. Speakers also suggested that another alternative should be analyzed in the EIR, one that would be consistent with the existing General Plan but would not retain the mobile home park. The City Attorney advised that the Marine Recreation alternative accomplishes that because it is consistent with the existing General Plan and includes removal of the mobile home park. Traffic A question was raised regarding the impact of car rental activities at the hotel, and the City Attorney noted that such activity is not part of the project description, and would not be permitted without additional review. Another question was whether the use of taxis by hotel guests would change traffic impacts, and staff noted that the traffic counts done to establish the trip generation rate included all vehicles arriving and leaving the hotel. Fiscal Impact Analysis: The City's agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality requires that a fiscal impact analysis be prepared before the City Council certifies the EIR. Staff retained Applied Development Economics (ADE), the firm that is doing the fiscal impact work for our General Plan update, and they have analyzed the proposed project using the fiscal impact model that was developed for the General Plan work. ADE's draft report is attached. It may be revised prior to the City Council hearing on July 27, based on comments from the Council and public at the meeting on July 13. To provide a complete understanding of impacts, the fiscal analysis includes revenue expected from rent on the property and costs to close the mobile home park. In the case of rental revenue, the analysis assumes the lease terms that have been developed Marinapark EIR and Fiscal Impact Analysis July 13, 2004 Page 4 by the Council committee on lease negotiations, which will be discussed by the full Council in closed session on July 13. That discussion could result in amended terms, which will require revisions to the fiscal impact analysis. For closure of the mobile home park, the analysis assumes the costs suggested by a draft of the relocation impact report, which will not be finalized prior to July 27. For other costs and revenues, the analysis uses projections in the market study prepared by PKF Consulting for the project proponent and reviewed for the City by Keyser Marston Associates. Finally, cost and revenue factors developed for the fiscal impact model and reviewed by the General Plan Advisory and Update Committees and the Economic Development Committee were used for items not specifically projected for this project. The fiscal impact analysis concludes that the current land uses generate positive net revenue of $696,000 per year, which is attributable primarily to lease revenue. The projected impact of the project is positive net revenue of $3,544,773 (in 2004 dollars) in year 4, when the project is stabilized. This positive impact is projected to increase for the five years after stabilization included in the analysis. For the project, rent would generate approximately half the net revenue, and transient occupancy tax would generate over $1,00,000. Submitted by: Am�-� S aron Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Planning Commission Correspondence 3. Fiscal Impact Analysis ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. 1640 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REGARDING THE MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BALBOA BOULEAVARD BETWEEN FIFTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH STREETS (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 200311021). WHEREAS, Marinapark LLC (formerly Talla Sutherland Hospitality), 4500 Campus Drive, Suite 650, Newport Beach California. has applied to the City of Newport Beach for approvals necessary to develop a 110 -room luxury resort hotel, related ancillary facilities and community facilities on an S.1 acre site on the north side of Balboa Boulevard between 15th and 16`" Streets; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse Number 200311021; and WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on November 4, 2003, and ending on December 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department; and WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on April 26, 2004 and ended on June 9; 2004; and WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document dated July 2004. distributed separately due to bulk and hereby designated by reference as Exhibit EIR -2 of this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. All comments and responses were considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission held apublic hearing at which time the Final Environmental Impact Report, comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a listing of persons and organizations that provided written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report during the public circulation period, a compilation of those comments. and responses to those comments, was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearings. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 200311021) designated by reference as Exhibit EIR -1 of this Resolution has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR adequately analyzes project - related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report identified by State Clearinghouse No. 200311021, with Section 7.4 of the Draft EIR amended to read as follows: "Based on the analysis in this EIR and on the requirements of Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, he reduced intensity alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project." ADOPTED this 8'' day of July 2004, by the following vote; to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT BY: Larry Tucker, Chairman BY: Jeffrey Cole; Secretary 2 EXHIBIT EIR -1: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] EXHIBIT EIR -2: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] MRS. CAROL MARTIN 1824 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CaOomia 92663 July 8, 2004 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 5300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. Re: Response to Marina Park DEIR Gentlemen: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUL 0 :8 2004 AM I 7BI 0111X12�1�2� 456 Thank you for the explanations of those issues I addressed regarding Marinapark's DEIR. I agree that the plan's change of dock design may mitigate some sealife issues. I disagree with these points: Traffic for Events The answer is inadequate. Whether or not events are the developer's intention, the facilities are clearly in the plan and therefore parking and traffic provisions for these ancillary uses need to be addressed. Metered Parking Lot These spaces are currently available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Accessibility only during hours of operation of the Girl Scout House and the Community Center is a reduction of public parking, which is so valued in this location and protected by City policies. Sidewalk Width on Balboa Bbd. can be an environmental issue in addition to a site plan issue if consideration is given to the ambiance of the pedestrian's experience when sharing space with others and their pets. A 4 -foot sidewalk adjacent to grass or sand is environmentally different from the same width sidewalk adjacent to oncoming traffic and a fence. In consideration of the frequency with which local residents utilize walking as a means of transit or recreation; this change in environment needs to be acknowledged and in addition the safety of children utilizing this route should be analyzed. I believe these issues require further analysis: Traffic Flow I repeat, "adequate provision should be shown for access routes that do not slow local traffic unassociated with the development". Pursuant to the information .. provided in the Response to the DEER, this is not addressed at the 171b Street left turn into the hotel entrance. In addition 10vph service vehicles entering the 15's St service entrance through a limited access alley M11 significantly impact traffic flow at 15`s Sweet and Balboa Blvd. This has not been addressed adequately. Acoustics/Noise All responses fail to acknowledge the environmental impact of how noise travels across water echoing as it progresses and does not include mitigation measures to prevent intrusion on Lido Isle and the Lido Peninsula. This project's architectural design has potential for creating periodic increase in ambient noise levels across the water above levels now existing. Prevention of the problem should be the goal rather than dependence on enforcement of the city code to remediate the intrusion after construction is completed. Dock Whereas I would agree that the change of-dock design should reduce disruption of sea life and improve water quality, the new plan for a 260 foot dock has not been analyzed in relation to environmental impact. These comments should be included. Thank you for your attention to these issues. Sincerely, Carol Martin Central Newport Beach July 7, 2004 Community AssoriaLon P.O. 13ox 984 e Ne -wrt Bcarh, ralifcmii 92661 Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92659 PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF NEWPORT BEACH JUL 0.8 2004 7181911011111211121314,516 Re: Draft EIR - Marinapark Resort and Community Plan- Responses to Comments Members of the Planning Commission: Directors of the Central Newport Beach Community Association ( CNBCA) have reviewed the Response to Comments to referenced EIR and the staff report for referenced project for your meeting of July 8, 2004 and wish to offer the following comments. Recommendation In order to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR, the Planning Commission must find that the EIR adequately analyzes project - related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives. We feel that, in its current state, the EIR cannot meet the criteria foe these findings and thus must be augmented and recirculated. Inadequacies Despite comments made by CNBCA and others to the NOP and the DEIR, Recreation continues to be deleted from analysis as being not significantly affected. The response (1-15) does not address the impact of the proposed change of zoning and use on the overall recreation policies of the City as embodied in the LCP and Recreation Element of the General Plan. In other responses concerning recreation, this site is equated with resident serving (Quimby type) recreation and ocean beach and completely fails to recognize the unique characteristics of the site as being on a bay beach. There is little such beach with its potential for still water activities (use by small children, swimming, hand boat. launching, boating lessons, etc.) available to the public. The public marine oriented recreation use of this site Is wholly consistent with the Tidelands Trust, a factor dismissed by response H5. The effect of this project on recreation is a significant effect pursuant to CEQA and should be analyzed as such. Modifications to the dock design were made pursuant to responses received. The Marine Recreation Alternative design described in the EIR was not altered in the responses. Consequently this alternative continues to bear negative analysis from a dock design that is not feasible. This alternative should be redesigned into a project that is feasible. Response H39 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative is not adequate to address concerns over the skewing of intensity that casts the hotel alternative in a favorable light. Responses (including H21) use the deficiencies in coastal access under present conditions as a defense to continue to perpetuate deficiencies. Proposed access to the beach is through an imposing gate system at the entry to a luxury hotel — not inviting to the ordinary beach user, and the existing pathway to the beach adjacent to the American Legion will also be the service entry to the hotel, an unpleasant and potentially unsafe beach access. Currently there is little visual access to the bay through the site. This is used in the responses as an excuse to again provide very little visual access through hotel gates. Generous visual access should be included as a mitigation measure for the impact of the substantial bulk of proposed facilities. Visual access is a consideration of the Coastal Commission policies (reference Sea Scout Base). Responses to concerns regarding employees continue to refer to 50 hotel employees (H3 et. al.). At the City Council meeting of June 8, 2004, in response to a question posed by Councilman Nichols, the project developer, Mr. Sutherland, stated that there will be an employee pool of approximately 150 people but it is anticipated that 50 maximum will be on- site at any given time. There must be an analysis of the impact of 150 employees not 50. In citing an unemployment rate of 4.1 % in Orange County as a reason for the project not attracting non - residents to work at the hotel, the respondent fails to recognize that economists consider 4% as full employment thus rendering the answer inadequate. Response H7 addresses access from Fifteenth Street down the alley to the garage structure and service area. It states that the alley will be used only by the 50 employees and service vehicles therefore there-is no impact from using this access. If this is correct, despite there being 150 employees and 100 parking spaces, a mitigation measure should be imposed that access to the garage be controlled with only 50 vehicles allowed. 2 Revisions to Exhibit 4 -1, Response H14, are appreciated. The graphic depicts Fifteenth Street north of Balboa Boulevard and West Bay east of Eighteenth Street as metered parking lots. They are public streets with perpendicular parking and are not different in use from any of the other metered parking south of or along Balboa Boulevard. There is a public beach at the end of Fifteenth Street. There has been a very short period of time, which included a major holiday, to analyze the Response to Comments. An FIR is supposed to be an impartial information document for decision makers. The Responses to Comments are defensive, in some cases inadequate and provide advocacy for the hotel project rather than impartial analysis. Your Commission's consideration of CNBCA concerns regarding inadequate analysis of alternatives, submission of incorrect employee information and suggested mitigation measures would be appreciated. Again, our recommendation is that additional analysis and augmentation of the EIR be performed and that the FIR be recirculated. At a minimum, additional time should be given for public analysis of this complex project and its documentdtion by continuing this item_ Very truly yours, Louise Fundenberg, President Central Newport Beach Community Association JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16's Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 November 25, 2003 Office Phone: (,14)848-0770 Office Fax: (714) 848-6643 Email: JonV3@aol.com James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach p Planning Department. "0 d 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Regent Newport Beach Hotel Project Applicant: Sutherland Talla Hospitality Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the Regent Newport Beach Hotel at the area commonly known as Marmapark. Please put me on the distribution list for any notices concerning this project. I just received notice of availability of this document on November 20, 2003, and received the Initial Study itself on Novembei 23, 2003. Due to the citywide interest in this project and an upcoming citywide vote on the project, this Initial Study should have received wider distribution throughout the City. The Initial Study itself does not include a Distribution List, and I request that list be included in the DEIR. I believe there was inadequate public notice of the NOP and IS. I believe the Draft EIR should contain more information than the Initial Study indicates will be included in the DEIK Under Section 1.6, Cumulative Impacts, an analysis should be made of the cumulative impacts of hotels possibly ringing the bay, induced by the development of this project. Also, the Cumulative Impact of loss of REDS from the General Plan should be analyzed, as the St Mark Presbyterian Church project, with loss of 10.81 acres of REDS is being processed concurrently with this project, which will lose an additional 8.1 acres of REDS from the City's General Plan. Under Section 1.7, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, the alternative proposed by the PBR Commission a couple of years ago should be included in the DEIR and analyzed for feasibility and possible adoption by the decision makers. Also, an alternative of creating a passive park serving as a window to the bay along Balboa Blvd should be considered, with removal of the mobile homes, similar to the El Moro situation at Crystal Cove State Park. Under Section 1.8.1, Effects Not Found To Be Significant, the IS finds that impacts to recreation are less than significant or of no impact. However, the project changes the General Plan Land Use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to a District Plary resulting in loss of 8.10 acres of REDS. This is a significant impact and should be considered as such, including the cumulative impacts of loss of REDS designations of other areas in the City, such as the St. Marks project. The St. Marks project is being processed concurrently with the Regent Newport Beach Hotel project, which will result in a loss of an additional 10.81 acres of REDS. The loss of JAN D. VA\DERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16" Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548-6326 Office Phone: (714) 84S -0770 Office Fax: (714) 848-6643 Email: JonV3@Aol.com 8.10 acres of REOS from the Regent Hotel plus 10.81 acres of REOS lost with St. Marks is a cumulatively significant loss of 18.91 acres that should be analyzed and mitigated. Analysis should include traffic and other environmental impacts from both projects since REOS open space is being converted to more intensive uses. Mitigation sites for replacement open space should include land such as the Lower Castaways site. Other mitigation strategies such as retaining more open space in the project site that would retain the REOS designation should be considered, such as 50% retained as open space. Such a strategy, including replacement open space at Castaways, should ensure that no net loss of REOS in the City occurs with either or both of these projects. Section 3, Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, Environmental Checklist Responses, 1. Aesthetics, Environmental Checklist Responses; a) scenic vista, b) scenic resources, c)existing visual character. The DEIR should include an analysis of the scenic vista and scenic resources if the current General Plan designation of REOS is ultimately fulfilled, that is, removal of the mobile homes and other view blocking structures. Under the existing REOS designation, there could be a v6de -open vista of the bay for the public along Balboa Blvd, probably the last opportunity to reclaim and preserve a bay view for the public in perpetuity. The proposed project will forever take away this view, and that is a significant impact. The view corridor that is proposed for the project is pathetic compared to the potential views created by the current REOS designation. Thank you again for the opportunity to make comments and please put me on the distribution list for further notices, including my email address of JonV3@aol.com. Sincerely, n �{ `Jan D. Vandersloot, MD `��G�ve.e�. '�oy r SPON Comments — ':Marinapark EIR 1. The obiectives are written so that only a hotel proposal will be selected as the Preferred Alternative. The objectives overemphasize the need for the site to generate revenue for the City, which is inappropriate for the future use of a park. Who ever heard of a city park is being required to generate revenue to offset citywide police services costs, or pay for the cost to comply with tideland environmental regulations? The objectives predetermine the conclusion that the park shall be converted to a hotel. This contradicts Government Code 21001 that requires government agencies to develop standards and procedures and to consider alternatives. Fiscal issues have taken precedence over action to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environment. An example that confirms the EIR is biased toward the hotel is demonstrated by the City's dismissal of its own Environmental Quality Advisory Committee's (EQAC) concern about the limited scope of the objectives. The EQAC writes: "The DEIR includes no detailed discussion of these and other objectives. However, it is unclear that such objectives are appropriate for the Project site and the current environmental analysis. The only Project Alternative in the DEIR which meets these economic objectives is the Project. Given these economic objectives, the DEIR should include an economic analysis which shows how and why the Project meets these and other objectives, provides a detailed discussion of City revenues from the Project including lease payments, taxes and other sources of revenue, and other economic considerations appropriate" In response, the City writes: "The project luxury resort hotel concept for this site was first presented to the City in 2000 in response to a Request for Proposals sent by the City of Newport Beach to potential developers of the Marinapark site, Marinapark Resort (formerly regent Newport) was selected by the City Council from among the proposals submitted because the project offered potential benefits to the City tht General Fund. Accordingly, the potential benefits of the Marinapark Resort project that were the basis for its selection for the project site have merely been restated as the project objectives" (Response to Comments, Pages 36 and 37). Aside from the disturbing realization that the City is actively seeking proposals to develop public parks with commercial uses, the City has admitted that the selection of EIR alternatives has been manipulated so that only the hotel will meet the project objectives. The notion that parks need to generate significant revenue is counter to the purpose for having a public park. Marinapark consists of only 8.1 acres. By contrast, there is a much larger amount of commercial land on the peninsula. If luxury hotels make economic sense on Balboa Peninsula, a developer may purchase and rebuilt any of the many low cost hotels on the peninsula with no loss of parkland and similar economic benefits to the project. Parks should not be irrevocably developed with commercial interests in order to balance the City's apparent lack of fiscal solvency. The few open spaces in the City, and on Balboa Peninsula in particular, should be protected for our children and future generations. This is especially true as additional residential projects, such as the South Coast Shipyard, will increase demand for limited public recreational opportunities on the peninsula. 2 The impact analysis should assume the mobile homes are removed. The mobile homes are not consistent with the General Plan. And in accordance with the General Plan, the mobile homes will be removed. The City has put mobile home residents on notice that their leases will not be extended. Ultimately, the entire site will become public open space. By including the mobile homes in the baseline land use assumptions for Marinapark, the EIR assumes that the environmental impacts they create will remain forever. By retaining the mobile homes in the baseline, the hotel project appear better by comparison. For example, on Page 5.5 -2, the DEIR discusses traffic as follows: "Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in the number of trips in the project area above that contributed by existing uses. Since the project site currently has a mobile home park that generates traffic, the additional traffic generated by the proposed project will be the net increase of the difference between the number of project generated trips and the number of existing trips from the mobile home park residences." In summary, the City reduces the traffic impact for the hotel by the amount of traffic generated by the mobile home park. This means that the hotel proponent will not need to mitigate all the traffic generated by his project because he gets a credit for the mobile homes. The DEIR uses this same logic to other environmental impacts, such as: • Aesthetics. The mobile homes block views to the harbor. By comparison, the hotel is not better or worse. • Air Ouality. Any air pollution generated by vehicles originating from the mobile home park is credited against air emissions generated by hotel patrons. • Noise. Any noise generated by vehicles originating from the mobile home park is credited against noise generated by vehicles driven by hotel patrons. • Public Services and Utilities. Public services and utilities used by mobile home park residents are credited against public services and utilities used by the hotel. Since the mobile homes' days are numbered, and they are not consistent with the General Plan, it doesn't make sense that the applicant gets to credit the environmental impact of the mobile homes against his proposal. The Elk should compare the environmental impacts of the project with the site absent the mobile homes. This will result in a fair choice between aquatic, beach, and community facilities versus an alternative not consistent with the General Plan that offers a hotel on most of the property with limited public facilities and coastal access. To see how this makes a significant difference, consider the aesthetic impact of the hotel once the mobile homes are removed from the site. If the public knew they had a choice between unobstructed harbor views or a hotel, they would choose the unobstructed views. The addition of the hotel would probably change the DEIR conclusion that there is no aesthetic impact, to a conclusion that the hotel causes a significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact. The fact that this choice is not given to readers of the DEIR contradicts Public Resources Code Section 21005 that requires disclosure of relevant facts. The same point can be made toward the DEIR approach toward other environmental impacts, such as traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities. 3. The permanent conversion of parkland to a commercial use should be categorized a" significant and unavoidable impact. The Elk has not adequately justified the need to replace parkland with a hotel. All land on Balboa Peninsula has been developed. If the City loses this land for a park, there is no replacement land on the peninsula. While it is true that the ocean side of the peninsula has many wide sandy beaches, this is not an overabundance of public open space on the harbor side. The ability to relax on a significant amount of open space to enjoy views of the harbor is a markedly different experience than using the beaches along the ocean. The harbor side park may be more interesting than the ocean, given the high degree of maritime activity that occurs at the harbor, from pleasure craft of all sizes and ages, to sea Life, birds, and views of the islands and beyond. These will all be greatly restricted to a confined area if the hotel project were built. In fact, the tot lot and tennis courts face Balboa Boulevard, and have no relation to the harbor. An example of how the City has not expressed appropriate regard for the future recreational potential of the Marinapark is exemplified by the City's response to Carol Martin's comments regarding the loss of recreational opportunities. Ms. Martin writes: "Open Space The loss of 8.1 acres of Newport Beach's Open Space Element in a recreational area requires mitigation. How will the loss of the Las Arenas Park and beach be mitigated by equal open space elsewhere? This document fails to address this issue." The City responds as follows: "Neither Las Arenas Park nor the public beach will be lost due to the project. As noted on pages 1 -6 and 5.4 -12 of the DEIR, all park facilities other than the basketball half -court will be replaced, and the beach will remain open and accessible to the public. The portion of the site on which the hotel is proposed is currently occupied by the mobile home park, and does not provide open space or recreational opportunities, The Recreation and Open Space Element calls for the retention of the existing park facilities and beach and notes that the site "... affords future opportunities for park, recreation, and aquatic facilities which are not yet fully planned." The element does not indicate specific facilities that should be provided on the site. The project includes an amendment to the Recreation and Open space element, which would remove the reference to future opportunities at the project site." (Response to Comments, page 143) To summarize the City's response to Ms. Martin's comment, the City has stated that it intends to trade approximately 6.0 acres of mobile homes for a 6.0 acre hotel by simply removing a General Plan policy to provide recreation and open space on the entire site. In effect, the City has made up its mind that public will never be permitted full recreational use of the park, and will not be compensated for the loss of 6.0 acres of open space. Once again, parks should not be irrevocably developed with commercial interests in order to balance the City's apparent lack of fiscal solvency. The DEIR does not give the public the opportunity to understand the tradeoffs presented by the project when it determines the permanent loss of approximately 6.0 acres of General Plan open space will be used for a hotel. 4. The "No Project" Alternative should be revised The "No Project" alternative incorrectly includes mobile homes as a long -term land use. Under the current General Plan policies, the mobile homes are a short-term use, inconsistent with the General Plan, and slated for removal once the current leases expire. On Page 7 -2 of the DIER, the "No Project" alternative is described as follows: "The No Project/No Development alternate assumes that no new land uses (including infrastructure improvements) would be added to the project site. The existing mobile homes and recreational facilities would remain. While no development would be permitted under this alternative, the underlying General Plan and zoning designations would be retained, thereby allowing development of the project site in the future." The "No Project" alternative incorrectly assumes that the mobile homes remain. If the City does not change the General Plan, the "No Project" alternative would represent an environmentally superior alternative by a greater margin than the DEIR indicates. Once again, the DEIR does not accurately represent the facts concerning the public's choices for the site, and in doing so, fails to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21005. 4. Detailed DEIR Comments Listed below are detailed comments regarding needed corrections to the DEIR Proiect description 3. 1.1 There appears to be an error in the existing land use description. Clarify whether the reference should be to "residents" as written or actually to dwelling units. 3.1.2 The project description should include a table showing acreages and/or square feet of existing land use designations on the site as well as proposed land uses (General Plan, Zoning) and development square footages. Since the project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, this is needed to fulfill the intent of CEQA that the reader be able to understand the nature of the proposed project. Related Proiects 4.2 Table 4 -1 should be revised to add the proposal to convert 500 Superior from R&D to office. Land Use 5.4.3 Paragraph 2 The public access points referenced should be identified on the site plan. Paragraph 5 The building setback for the beachside walkway is mentioned but there is no discussion of walls and fences that would separate the hotel from the walkway. In order to support the conclusion of no significant impact, there should be a Mitigation Measure requiring that any wall or fence be set back a minimum of 6 feet from the sidewalk, with landscaping installed between wall and walkway. Page 5.4-8 The Land Use Plans Policies and Regulations section needs to include a full description of the proposed GPA. Without this information the reader cannot understand or evaluate the project as required by CEQA, and the conclusion of no significant impact is unsupported. Furthermore, the analysis of Policy C consistency refers to the Traffic section of the EIR, which contains no mention of the employee and ballroom related trips. This section must describe what measures will be used to "minimize congestion" as required by Policy C. Page 5.4 -9 This section (as well as several subsequent sections) reference two public access points along Balboa Blvd flanking the hotel lobby building. The Site Plan in Exhibit 3 -3 shows two pairs of gates between Balboa Boulevard and the beach at the referenced location. Gates generally function in an urban landscape as a visual "keep out' message. In addition, these gates appear to be providing access to the hotel swimming pool. The EIR needs to discuss how the public access described will be reconciled with the needs for swimming pool safety code requirements. Page 5.4 -11 It is not clear how a high level of City services would be ensured by a future negotiation on the part of the City as suggested in the analysis in the first paragraph. If the inclusion of timeshare units in the project may require a development agreement due to potential impact, such impact needs to be determined an analyzed in this EIR. This section inappropriately defers analysis to some later time and defers mitigation to some action on the part of the City Council. Therefore the conclusion of consistency with General Plan Policy G is inappropriate and inconsistent with CEQA. Page 5.4 -12 Discussion of consistency with Policy 5.1 (see comment regarding Pg 5.4 -9 above). Page 5.4 -13 A hotel is not a water dependent use. The analysis of the Harbor and Bay Element fails to note that the private hotel component of the project is inconsistent with policies HB 1. 1.2 and BB 1.2.4. It should also be noted that the public marine park Alternative would be consistent with these policies. Page 5.4 -20 This section states that the Municipal Code specifies that a dock may not extend beyond the U.S Pierhead line. How does the obtaining of a permit from another government agency make the project consistent with the Municipal Coe.? This needs to be clarified or the conclusion needs to be changed. Additionally, the discussion of the NCCP should cite the studies done to support the conclusion that no biotic resources occur on the site. 5.4.5 This section proposes no mitigation measures. As noted in the above comments, some mitigation measures may be necessary. Aesthetics Exhibit 5.8 -4 Photo 3 illustrates the importance of open design fencing in maintaining views. A mitigation measure should be added to the EIR to require that all fencing and walls be comprised of open design (such as wrought ion) in order to preserve and enhance harbor and open space views consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the spa building described as "two story" actually is shown in the photo as having a significant one story component adjacent to eh project entry. This helps maintain an open view corridor and should also be requires a mitigation measure. Exhibit 5.8 -5 Photo 4 shows a number of trees and shrubs on a berm between the tennis courts and Balboa Blvd. Is the setback sufficient to accommodate the plantings illustrated? How will light and ventilation be provided to the parking area underneath? The photo also shows a clear view of a boat on the bay. How will such a view be assured, since this point is shown on the site plan as parking structure egress? The mitigation measure referenced in the comment on Exhibit 5.8 -4 above would preserve this view. Without such a measure, the illustration will be a pretty picture that is discarded when the "real" design is developed for the project. P 5.8 -11 The lighting analysis should include the likelihood of architectural lighting, its potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary. Public Services and Utilities Tables 5.9 -2, 5.9 -4, 5.9 -6, 5.9 -8 and 5.9 -10 should be revised to include the cafe use and the new boat slips. Without a full tabulation of the project uses, the analysis is inadequate, and the conclusion is unsupported. Other CEOA Section 6.1 — Significant unavoidable adverse impacts Due to the inadequate analysis noted in the comments above, the conclusion that all impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance is premature. Section 6.3 Irreversible Commitment to Resources that would be involved in the proposed action if implemented This section acknowledges the more or less permanent presence of large structures on the site. However it fails to discuss the implications of public land being used for a private business serving only visitors able to pay a very high price. The removal of this public property from a truly open public commitment should be discussed and analyzed. Section 7.4 The conclusion makes no sense and needs to be corrected lR FT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MARINAPARK RESORT July 8, 2004 Prepared for City of Newport Beach Prepared by Applied Development Economics 2029 Umversiry Avenue • Berkeley, California 94704 • (510) 548 -5912 1029J Street, Suite 310 • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 441 -0323 ww-w.adeusa.com MO7►fi UM Introduction............................................. ..............................1 Project Description ................................. ..............................2 Land Usc Overcieu ................................. ..............................2 Phasing...................................................... ..............................3 Fiscal Impact A nalysis ............................. ..............................5 LIST OF TABLES 1 Proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Facil ities ......................... ..............................3 2 Projected Phasing For Marinapark Fractionals and Rental. Occupancy Stabilizat ion ..............................4 3 Impact of Existing Marina Park Land Uscs, 2004 ........6 4 Impact of Marinapark Hotel at Stabilization (2009), in 2004 Dollars ...................... ..............................8 5 Net Impact of Marina Park Hotel at Stabilization (2009), in 2004 Dollars ...................... ..............................9 6 Marinapark Fiscal Impact Projections, 2006 - 2014..... 11 INTRODUCTION This memo presents out analysis of the fiscal impacts of the proposed Alarinapatk resort on the City of Newport Beach, in comparison with the impacts of the site's existing uses. This analysis estimates the annual operating costs and revenues for all services provided to the existing uses and the proposed project through the Newport Beach General Fund, the Tidelands Fund, the Gas Tax Fund, and the Measure M Fund. Based on the assumptions and inputs outlined below, it projects the fiscal performance of the development from its initial year of operation through five years after rent stabilization, for a total of nine years. This projection reflects escalations in costs and revenues as the development ages, and is thus presented in fume dollars. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION LAND USE OVERVIEW The site of the. proposed Marinapark Resort in Newport Beach is roughly bounded by Newport Bar and a public beach to the north, Veterans Memorial Park and the American Legion Building to the east, 18`h Street to the west, and Balboa Blvd. to the south. Encompassing 8.1 acres, the site currently houses the 56 -space Marinapark Mobile Home Park, the Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, the Balboa Power Squadron (a boating club), Las Arenas Park, four tennis courts, and a half basketball court. The mobile home court currently has 24 full-time and 32 part-time residents. The primary component of the proposed project is a 110 - room luxury resort hotel. lip to 12 of the rooms may be sold as fcactionals, while the remaining 98 rooms will be available for tent The 19,830 - square foot hotel lobby will include a registration area, retail, a cafe, a restaurant, a bat, a ballroom, and supporting facilities. Other uses associated with the hotel include a business administration building (2,154 square feet) and a spa villa (6,191 square feet). The project also includes reconstruction of the Girl Scout House and tennis courts, a tot park, and a shared parking facility for the resort and community uses. A summary of the proposed uses is presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 Proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Facilities Land Use Rooms /Square Feet/ Spaces /Acres RESORT Luxury Resort Hotel 110 rooms /66,949 sf Hotel Lobby Building Lobby 3,000 sf Registration 483 sf Retail 60D sf Cafe 550 sf Restaurant 1,124 sf Bar 1,154 sf Ballroom 3,603 sf Supporting Facilities 8,316 sf Total 19,830 sf Business Administration Building 21154 sf Spa Villa . 6,191 sf COMMUNify Community Center /Girl Scout House 61191 sf Tot Park 3,000 sf Public Tennis Courts 4 courts PARKING Structure ID0 spaces Surface 100 spaces Handicap 9 spaces Total Parking 209 spares TOTAL ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA 101,315 sf PROJECT SITE AREA 8.10 Acres OVERALL FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.285 Source: ADE, based on information provided by Nfichael Anndman Associates PHASING This analysis estimates the fiscal impact of the Marinapark resort during each year of its development. Although it is expected that all of the project components will be in place when the hotel begins operations in 2007, it will take several years for rental rates to stabilize. According to PKF Consulting and Keyser Marston Associates, this should occur during the fourth year of hotel operations, in 2010_ In addition, fractionals will be released over a period of three years, beginning the year before development is complete (2006), and ending during the second year of operations (2008). A summary of expected fractional sales, occupancy C 3 rates, and number of occupied rooms through stabilization is presented in 'Table 2. TABLE 2 Projected Phasing For Marinapark Fractionals and Rental Occupancy Stabilization Source: ADE, based on information provided by PKF Consulting and Keyscr Marston Associates M Year Project Component 2006/07 2007/08 2003/09 2009/10 2010/11 (Unit of Measure) (Construction) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Stabilization) Fractional Sales 10 48 38 rUD te , - -erp. _q�q, - Annual Rental Rooms Available (units) 35,770 35,770 35,770 35,770 VQ4 Source: ADE, based on information provided by PKF Consulting and Keyscr Marston Associates M FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GENERAL FUND AND TIDELANDS FUND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This fiscal analysis addresses the revenues generated and costs incurred by the Matinapark resort development as the} impact the City of Newport Beach General Fund and Tidelands Fund. The capital costs stemming from construction of public infrastructure and facilities related to the project would be fully funded by the project developer and are not detailed in this report. SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS Using the Newport Beach fiscal impact model developed for the City's General Plan Update, ADE estimated the annual costs and revenues associated with both Marinapark's existing land uses and those associated with the proposed development. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Next, we considered the net impact of the hotel project at stabilization when compared to the existing uses (Table 5). Finally, we estimated the annual costs and revenues of the proposed project over tune, from the first year of operations to five years after stabilization, for a total of nine years (Table 6). Existing Site Impacts The impact analysis of the site indicates that the current land uses generate positive net revenues of $696,000, with $715,000 in revenues against $21,000 in expenditures. This positive impact occurs despite the predominance of residential land uses (the mobile home park) because the City owns the site and collects land lease revenue from both the residents and the Balboa Power Squadron (Table 3). TABLE 3 Impact of Existing Marina Park Land Uses, 2004 Revenues Mobile Power Total Home Park _ uadron GENERAL RJND Property Tax $570 $570 $0 . .. Saled7aic: $5584- _ $5,589x......, '$0 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 ... Franchise Fees. -:.:: $581 - $58L�... . ...'.$0 Business Licenses $277 $277 $0 - MotorYehlele -in $9n0:::`:$0 Other Intergovernmental $432 $432 $0 .... Lharsje;,forService -: Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $862 $862 50 ,.. Licen3es'and Permtss 5709 .'`: _ $103.. ;;0 Use of Property $1,458 $1,458 $0 og er Revenue ; .. Interest Income $1 $1 $0 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $13,312 $13,312 $0 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $318 $318 $0 _ cli ges for 5ery ce $9 Use of Money and Property $703,413 $701,479 $1,9_35 $855 MEASURE M $3 $3 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $704,599 $702,664 $1,935 TOTAL REVENUE $717,911 $715,976 $1,935 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,841 $2,841 $0 ice Fire ,_iPiblk Works -.:.= $5,526; 55 626, -• :'$0 Community Development $622 $622 $0 _ ... 'Gomniunity Sern[es -.::; _ CIP Streets $146 $146 $0 _ _ IXher.d6 PrO7eLYS'. $798 - -N- SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,894 $20,894 $0 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 s0 $0 Oil and Gas $0 $0 $0 CIP $230 $230 $0 GAS TAX 5175 $175 $0 MEASURE M $118 $118 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $523 $523 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $21,417 $21,417 $0 NET $696,494 $694,559 $1,935 Source: ADE, 0 , of Nenpon Brach M Project Impact 8, Net Impact at Stabilization Analysis of the proposed project indicates that in the year that hotel rents stabilize (year 4), the Marinapark resort will generate positive net revenues of about $3.54 million (in 2004 dollars), with $3.57 million in revenue against 526,000 in expenditures. Large revenues arc generated due to both the prospective land lease terms and the transient occupancy tax generated by the project (fable 4). Subtracting the revenues generated by existing site uses from this amount results in a net revenue increase of $2.85 million for the Newport Beach budget, including the General Fund, Tidelands Fund, Gas Tax Fund and Measure M Fund (Table 5). C� TABLE 4 Impact of Marinapark Hotel at Stabilization (2010), in 2004 Dollars Revenues Lodging_._ GENERAL FUND Property Tax 566,980 Sales Tax $4533 Transient Occupancy Tax $997,697 Fra,.j. se ees_ :$1,177 Business Licenses $253 Other Intergovernmental $514 $2-7 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,027 Use of Property $1,736 —OlherR everuq.--- $1,82 Interest Income $16,895 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $1,091,899 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $379 w a -a-9 Use of Money and Property E2,477,810 0 MEASURE M $860 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $2,479,059 TOTAL REVENUE $3,570,959 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,286 PO Fire $4,947 . . Works ......... Community Development $740 ty. , rvicgs .:�� AQ CIP Streets $845 1950, SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $24,239 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 Oil and Gas $0 CIP $254 GAS TAX 51,009 MEASURE M $684 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,947 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $26,185 NET (COST)/REVENUE $3,544,773 Source; ADL, City of Ncwport Beach, Keyser rJam. tom Associates, PKF Consulting Nore: Public uses am not listed because thev do not gTricorc any costs or revenues in this scenario. &I, TABLE 5 Net Impact of Marina Park Hotel at Stabilization (2010), in 2004 Dollars Revenues Existing Proposed Site "Jed Net Impact.,_ GENERAL FUND Properly. Tax $570 $06,980 $66,410 `.; ?:Sales Tax - :.:..'$5;589. ...$2;53,3':.: ($3,055) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $997,697 5997,69; ..:51,777 Business Licenses $277 $253 {$24) Motory'ah In°Leu $950 $D ($250) Other Intergovernmental $432 $514 S82 Serince.:.: ..:.,,:.$3337..,':...52,7$2.,: = ::$445' Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $862 $1,027 $164 `: li�knsesariti!Peimt� :-.'::$t03 :;5133 i. 579: Use of Property $1,458 $1,730 $278 ':5187 ....... '. . X529 Interest Income $1 516,895 $16,895 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $13,312 51,091,899 S1,078,386 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $318 $379 S61 �rarge3;for Service:.:' -, Use of Money and Property $7'03,413 $2,477,810 $1,774,397 _GAS TAX MEASURE M $3 $800 $857 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $704,599 $2,479,059 $1,774,461 TOTAL REVENUE $717,911 $3,570,958 $2,853,0_4_7_ Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,841 $2,286 S$555) _ 57 77z _ $1,-45: Fire $0 $4,947 54,947 .. .... Publl[ 4VOrks, .$5,626. _:$6 696 _ - ..: 5b -;072 Community Development $622 $740 $118 _ - 5.07,Ifmunity Sevres -- C$4;G33 $D - -. ;. -: :($4;633) - CIP Streets $845 $699 _$146 =S25D $12 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,894 $24,239 $3,343 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 $o Oil and Gas $0 $0 $0 CIP $230 5254 S24 GAS TAX $175 $1,009 $834 MEASURE M $118 $684 8565 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS _ $523 $1,947 $1,423 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $21,411 $26,185 S4,768 NET (COST) /REVENUE $696,494 $3,544,773 $2,848,279 Source: ADE, Ciw of Nmpott Bcach, Kn�er fvlarston Aseociates, PKT Consulting I • `� Project Impact Over Time Based on our projections, the project will initially generate a negative fiscal impact for the City, but by the time the project commences operations in 2007, the fiscal impact is a net positive. In year one of operations the proposed project will generate $2.16 million in net revenues, with $2.19 in revenue against $28,600 in expenses (in 2007 dollars). Net revenues are predicted to increase steadily through five years after stabilization. At this point, the development is expected to generate $3.07 million (in 2014 dollars) in net revenues, with $3.1 million in revenues against $36,000 in expenses (cable 6). [This space intentionally left blank) 10 TABLE 6 Marinapark Fiscal Impact Projections, 2006-2014 Slow= AIDE, City of Newport Bmcb, Keys,, Nlaist,un A,,A)ciatts, PKF Consulting L-01 Development Operations Revenues Year I Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (2005) (2006) (2007) (2008) (2009) GENERALFUND Property Tax $71,080 $12,,iOl $73,951 - .. ... .. ....... ..$501454 -- ------------ - $ 0,99 $61572 Transient Occupancy Tax $878,745 $997,269 $1,134,178 Business Licenses $277 $285 $293 :Mo Ve-hic e -1 .. - . ...' , . .. "-- -in-L 1 le , I --,,: ------ $o Other Intergovernmental $561 $519 $596 k fqL- . _. :.. e.1 ,,.- . : .. .. $3131 L E3 -,'225 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,122 $1,156 $1,190 Use of Property $1,897 $1,954 $2,012 Interest Income $18,462 $19,016 $19586 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $0 $0 $1,027,256 $1,154,356 $1,298,121 TIDELANDS FUND Ucenses, Permits, and Fees $414 $426 $439 Use of Money and Pro" $565,000 $580,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1,318,868 . 14. MEASURE M $939 $967 $997 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $565,000 $580,000 $1,161,365 51,161,406 $1,320,316 TOTAL REVENUE $565,000 $580,00.0_$_2,188,6,22 $2,313,763 $2,618,438 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,498 52,573 $2,650 Fire $5,406 $5,568 $5,735 rc $7,539. 17..7 :5 Community Development $809 $933 $858 CJP Streets $923 $951 $979 $1,93 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $0 $0 $267486 $271281 $287099 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $o $0 $0 Oil and Gas so $0 $0 CIP 51,080,000 $o 5278 $286 $294 GAS TAX $1,102 $1,136 $1,170 MEASURE M $747 $.,o $793 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,080,000 $0 $2,127 $2,191 $2,257 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,080,000 $0 $28,614 $29,472 530,356 NET (COST)/REVENUE ($515,000) $590,000 $2,160,008 $2,286,291 $2,588,082 CUMULATIVE NET (COST)/REVENUE ($515,000) $65,000 $2,225,008 $4,511,299 $7,099,380 Slow= AIDE, City of Newport Bmcb, Keys,, Nlaist,un A,,A)ciatts, PKF Consulting L-01 Source: AT)H, City of Newport Beach, Keyser V12rston Associates, PKF Consulvng 12 Stabilized - - - - -- - - - - -- -.. Revenues Year Year Year Year? Year Year (2010) (2011) (2012„ (2013) (2014) (2014) GENERAL FUND Property Tax $75,430 S76,939 $78,478 S80,047 $81,648 _ $83,281 sales .,. ' -.. -'. :";$64,921 5.$66,869 __ . ;68,875. ::._ $70941. ': $73;069.. - .$75,61 Transient Occupancy Tax $1,198,432 S1,234,833 $1,274,034 $1,310,435 $1,349,636 $1,391,638 .... _ Fraric6ise Fees -..;: '.° .: -: $14055... :.';1447 ..:. $1,491: -': ,$t,53i,: ' i' $1,581 :; $1,629 Business Licenses $302 $311 5321 $330 S340 $350 Motor Vet {ide -th Lteu,...:.. .., $11'... f0 . �.:" _0 Other Intergovernmental $613 $632 $651 $670 $690 $711 ,Charge5:fix Service ,.,. .:_. :- .. ..:5;3,341 .4i $3,24 ... -_- $3629 -'. 1738::.. Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,226 $1,263 $1,301 $1,340 $1,380 $1,421 L1cen5eSandPemY • -�. .. "5147 ;..$151 .:: ;1�5..: __ $160 ,? $i65� -:'i .jt:gtl. Use of Property $2,073 $2,135 $2;199 $2,265 $2,333 $2,403 Other'Reyenue - ?' .', ".. 'r.i -. 5218 :- $224 "`:� $?31`., $23 f245 ': =; Interest Income $20,174 $20,779 $21,403 $22,045 $22,706 $23,387 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $1,168,263 $1,409,005 $1,452,661 $1,493,636 $1,537,533 $1,584,355 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $452 $466 $480 $494 $509 $524 _ $15 _ ;:x$15 Use of Money and Property $1,309 581 $1 349182 $1 391 166 Si 431 627 $1 474498 $1 519 791 _ MEASURE M $1,026 $1,057 $1,089 $1,122 $1,155 S7 190 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,311,072 $1,350,',18 $1,392,749 $1,433,257 $1,476,177 $1,521 j21 TOTAL REVENUE 52,679,335 $2P 59P723 52,845,410 $2,926,894 $3,013,710 $3,105 875 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,730 $2,812 $2,896 $2,983 $3,073 $3,165 Police Rre 3_5,908 $6,085 $6,267 $6,455 $6,649 $6,848 PublkWotks jfZ,998-. ;8,25$.,. ,'. ;6485._ $873Q _ _ ;9002'::': ..$9;272' Community Development $884 $910 $937 $966 $995 $1,024 CIP Streets $1,009 $1,039 $1,070 $1,102 $1,135 $1,170 Otltrw C[P Pm)eots �-• :T ''.rSt 135, ; -; $1,169..;x- _ _ _ SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $28,942 $29,811 $30,705 $31,626 $32,575 $33,552 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 So $0 $0 $0 Oil and Gas $0 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 CIP $303 $312 $322 $331 $341 $352 GAS TAX $1; 05 $1,241 $1,278 $1,316 $1,356 $1,397 MEASURE M $816 $841 $866 $892 $919 $946 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $2,324 S2,394 $2,466 $2,540 $2,616 $2,695 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $31,767 $32,205 $33,171 $34,166 $35,191 $36,247 NET $2,648,069 $2,727,518 $2,812,239 $2,892,728 $2,978,519 $3,069,628 CUMULATIVE NET $9,747,449 $12,474,967 $15,287,206 $18,179,934 $21,158,453 $24,228,081 Source: AT)H, City of Newport Beach, Keyser V12rston Associates, PKF Consulvng 12 FISCAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The Newport Beach fiscal impact model, developed for the City's General Plan Lipdate, was used as the framework for the analysis. Known characteristics about existing and proposed uses —such as building square footages, assessments, population, and number of employees —wcre input into the model to generate costs and revenues. Wlicre costs and revenue items specific to the project were known, they were substituted for the model - generated outputs. In the case of the proposed project, this procedure was followed for property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), and use of property. The first portion of the analysis looks at fiscal impacts of the existing site and proposed site at stabilization, and calculates the difference between the two. For a valid comparison, both of these impacts were calculated in 2004 dollars. The second portion of the analysis looks at the fiscal impacts of the proposed project over time and, thus, must take inflation into account. To this end, we utilized the three percent inflation rate assumed by PKF Consulting in their calculations. This rate is consistent with Consumer Price Index trends over the past several years. REVENUES Property Tax Because of their public and nonprofit status, most of the existing uses on the Marinapark site are exempt from paying property taxes. However, personal property and improvements related to the mobile home park are taxable, as are boats. The sum of these assessments was multiplied by the County tax rate of one percent and then by 17 percent to obtain the City share of property tax. According to Keyser Marston's estimate, at stabilization the project will generate a property tax of $394,000 (in 2004 dollars), which is equal to one percent of the property's assessed value. ADE applied a rate of 17 percent to this value to determine the portion of the property tax allocated to the Newport Beach General Fund. For the fiscal impact projections, property taxes were inflated by two percent each year (with 2004 as the base year) in accordance with G 13 Propositionl3.' Because we projected to only five Fears after stabilization, we assumed that the propem. would not be sold and reassessed during the period of our analysis. Sales and Use Tax The existing uses on the site generate no taxable sales onsite, but our analysis accounts for off -site purchases by the mobile home park residents. "11e sales tax estimate for the proposed project is based on the food and beverage revenue projection prepared by PKF, Inc. The figure is about 20 to 25 percent higher than average for existing hotels in Newport Beach, reflecting the upper end market segments the project is anticipated to serve? TOTTax A TOT of ten percent is levied on guest room receipts in Newport Beach. This rate was applied to PKF's projected room rental revenue for each year of the proposed development Use of Property A significant portion of the revenues generated by both the existing and proposed uses comes from use of property, or lease payments. In the case of the existing uses, mobile home park residents pay the City a total of roughly $700,000 per year in rent, while the Balboa Power Squadron pays an annual rent of $1,935. The proposed Marinapark resort is expected to pay an annual base land lease of $550,000 per vear during the construction phase and increasing to $1.1 million per year once the project begins operation. The base rent would be credited against additional "percentage rents" equal to 7 percent of room 'Under the provisions of proposition 13, property assessments map 01111.11C raised by a maximum of two petcent each year until the property changes ownership (with a few exceptions). Once sold, Elie property is reassessed to market Value and the two-percent increases begin again. Taxes are limited to one percent of assessed value, plus any additional taxes up to two percent passed by two-thirds of the voters. 2 CJC Research, Inc. Profile of Vinton to Neuporl Beach. 2001. p. 31. Based on surveys conducted by C1C Research, hotel/motel guests in Newport Beach generated about S108.3 million in taxable sales in 2001. For the projected stabilization year of 2010, this would equate to about $478 per room, I-s. the $590 per room projected by PKF, Inc. M 14 income, 3 -5 percent of food and beverage income, and 10 percent of other miscellaneous income. In addition, the developer would make option payments during the initial years following voter approval of the project and receipt of the required permits. Other Revenues "Elie remaining revenue categories were calculated based on per - capita and per - employee factors as described above. EXPENDITURES As with the revenues, the General Fund expenditures in Tables 3 through G were estimated based on per - capita and pet - employee cost factors that were developed for the Newport Beach General Plaza Update. According to the Draft EIR prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, existing fire and police capacities will be sufficient to serve the needs of the proposed project. Consequently, the project is not expected to incur significant expenditures in these categories. The cost figures shown for these services reflect the average cost of additional calls for service anticipated for the project. A 15 r%, 1? 04 A*($ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Attorney This memo summarizes the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines that are relevant to the standards for certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the standards for recirculation of a Draft EIR after the public review process has commenced. According to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall certify an EIR if it represents a good faith effort at full disclosure of the significant environmental effects of a project, identification of possible ways to minimize the significant effects and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. CEQA does not require the analysis in an EIR to be exhaustive. The absence of information - even relevant information - does not preclude certification unless the failure to include the information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation. The standards for the recirculation of a Draft EIR are similar. A Draft EIR must be recirculated when "significant new information" is added to the EIR after the document is available for public comment. According to the CEQA Guidelines: "New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement." CEQA Guid;#nes Section 15088.5(a)). bert Burnham EIR -13 City Council Meeting July 13, 2004 Verbatim Transcript Item No. 18 Marinapark Resort and Community Plan — Final Environmental Impact Report (PA 2003 -218); Fiscal Impact Analysis — 1700 West Balboa Boulevard. Mayor Ridgeway Is there a staff report? Assistant City Manager Wood Yes, there is, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ridgeway I would remind both staff and the audience that this issue is really a certification of the EIR at this point in time. Is that correct? We're looking at public comments on the EIR. Assistant City Manager Wood That's right. And, in this case, the only action for the Council, and we've actually asked that you continue this to your next meeting on July 2701 to take the action, would be to consider whether or not to certify the EIR as being in compliance with CEQA and also to decide on placing the project on the ballot. City Attorney Burnham However, Mayor, I believe a draft fiscal impact report was distributed, so certainly testimony on that document would be appropriate as well. Council Member Heffernan Since we've got folks here obviously dealing with the vote issue, maybe Mr. Burnham, you can explain the relationship about what we're going to do tonight and in two weeks, versus the prior statement by this Council that this matter was going to the voters, and would go to them in November. And, why that would or would not occur based upon what needs to be done tonight and in two weeks. City Attorney Burnham Back in March of 2003, the Council unanimously approved an agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality. And, I guess in answer to Council Member Heffernan's question, the key provision of that agreement called for the City Council to place the Marinapark project general plan amendment on the ballot in November of 2004, if the City Council, prior to that action, certified an environmental impact report for the project. So, that is one of the reasons for the meeting tonight. Council Member Heffernan In simple terms, then, once this Council certifies that EIR - environmental impact report - then this matter does go on the ballot, subject to the residents vote in November. City Attorney Burnham Correct. Council Member Heffernan So, that's the only remaining discretionary act by this Council between it being on the ballot in November. City Attorney Burnham That's correct. Council Member Heffernan And, in addition, that certification is limited by the rules that apply to certification of environmental impact reports, in general, and CEQA, and a bunch of technical jargon. City Attorney Burnham That's correct. Council Member Heffernan In other words, we're not passing on the environmental impact report, we're certifying it. And, maybe an explanation of what that means would be helpful before we get into all the detail. City Attorney Burnham Alright, and I did prepare a brief memo for the Council and copies of the memo are on the table in the foyer. There really were two issues, or are two issues I guess, before the City Council as it relates to the EIR. The first is, should you certify the draft EIR with the additional documentation that is prepared after the draft until the final action of the Council. And, CEQA says that you should certify the EIR if it represents a good faith effort at full disclosure of the significant effects of the project, the potential ways to minimize the impacts of the project and discusses reasonable alternatives to the project. In that regard, the EIR doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't even have to contain all of the relevant information. The real key is whether the EIR contains information adequate to inform the decision maker and to result in informed public participation. So, there is no perfect EIR, I can guarantee you. And, in terms of the other issue that has surfaced — whether the draft EIR should be recirculated — there's really a similar standard. And, in that regard, the draft EIR should be circulated only if significant new information is added to the EIR after the notice of completion was filed. And in that regard, I can read to you what CEQA says is new information that's significant. And, I think this 2 may be helpful. It says, "new information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, including a feasible project alternative that the project's proponents have declined to implement ". And, that's right out of the CEQA guidelines. So, it's not that there is some information added to the draft EIR because that typically happens; it's whether significant new information is added that really deprives the public of the opportunity to participate in an informed way. Council Member Heffernan Mr. Mayor, then my final question. Mr. Burnham, what is the significance of the July 271h date, visa vie the election in November. City Attorney Burnham According to the City Clerk, that would be the last regular Council meeting prior to the deadline for submitting a ballot measure and consolidating that ballot measure with the election in November. Council Member Heffernan Alright, in a nutshell, unless the City Council certifies the environmental impact report by July 27th, this Marinapark matter will not be on the ballot in November City Attorney Burnham The answer is yes, unless you were to schedule a special meeting subsequent to July 27th. Council Member Heffernan Great. Thanks. Council Member Bromberg Mr. Mayor, question for Mr. Burnham. Just following with Mr. Heffernan's line of questioning — then is it fair to presume that if this City Council on July 2701 certifies the EIR or does not certify the EIR, whether we do or we do not, does not constitute an approval or disapproval of the project itself. We're ruling on the environmental document. City Attorney Burnham Exactly. The only statement that makes on the part of the Council is that the EIR prepared for the project is adequate under CEQA and the CEQA guidelines. Council Member Bromberg Thank you. 3 Council Member Webb Mr. Heffernan was asking if — I thought I heard him ask — if the City would have any other approvals after the ballot measure. Let's say it passed, my concern is on site plan. When will the City actually approve the site plan for this project or be able to make adjustments in the site plan that has been submitted to us. City Attorney Burnham Well, you would be able to make adjustments - being the owner of the property — be able to make adjustments to the site plan probably at any point in time prior to the time that you sign the lease and then the lease may specify also that you have the right to make modifications to the site plan. You'd certainly have, I believe, the right to make modifications to the site plan at the next meeting. If you did make modifications that substantially changed the project, that would potentially be grounds for the need to recirculate the draft EIR. Assistant City Manager Wood I think in addition to that, just treating it as any other property. In addition to the general plan amendment that will be before the voters, there is a proposed planned community development plan for this property, which will have to have public hearings and recommendation from the Planning Commission. And, then public hearing and adoption as an ordinance by the City Council. And, I expect that that development plan will require either some kind of a site plan review or perhaps a use permit for the hotel to establish the operational conditions. 5o that again, would be an opportunity at the Planning Commission level and on appeal to the City Council to look at that. Council Member Webb I think that my concern is that in one of the comments that I made relative to the document and the answer back was that the environmental document did not approve a site plan, it only evaluated the site plan that was submitted. And, I just wanted to make sure it was clear that changes can be made in that site plan, assuming that the voters approve it — approve the general plan amendment. City Attorney Burnham Changes could be made, but they certainly couldn't be made in a way that would increase the entitlement or increase the intensity of the development. Council Member Webb The items that I'm concerned with wouldn't increase the intensity. Council Member Nichols I have a question. There is something in the Charter that says there would be a vote of the people before — that this land is to be used for recreational purposes. And, that's into perpetuity or something like that. Unless there is a majority vote El by the people. My question is, the vote on the ballot, would that serve for that purpose or how do you interpret that. Maybe you want to read that. City Attorney Burnham There are provisions in the Charter relative to this particular site, reserving to the people and the public the use of the strip of land not less that 85 feet in depth from the line of mean high tide. But, I believe, the provision that you were talking about would allow. And, I will have to look this up. But, I think the vote that you're contemplating in November would be adequate. But, I also think that if the property had been leased before that time, that you are authorized, as a City Council, to enter into a lease consistent with the provisions with our tidelands trust. But, I will check on that. Council Member Nichols Doesn't' that directly say where you were, that 85 feet from the mean high tide had to — was to be used for public and that whole property from 15th to 18th was to be used for recreation, unless there was a vote of the people. City Attorney Burnham Well, that's not how I read it Council Member Nichols. The Section is 1402 and it says, "the City Council shall have the authority to lease City -owned property, including tide and submerged lands so long as the lease is limited to the term permitted by State law ", which under our tidelands grant is 50 years. The Section goes on to say that, as I indicated earlier, there is reserved to the public a strip of land 85 feet upland of the line of mean high tide. And, as you know, the line of mean high tide has not been established for that particular parcel. Council Member Nichols But, you're saying that a lease that we're contemplating and so forth, would accomplish that I guess, right? That it would be public use or within the scope of that Charter without any vote of the people. City Attorney Burnham Yes. I don't think this Section requires a vote of the people, but I do believe, as you just indicated, the lease would have to be consistent with this provision of the City Charter. Mayor Ridgeway Any other questions? Seeing none, I will open this up to the public. Jim Hildreth Real quick. Why hasn't the median tide level been established is this area. Thank you. Mayor Ridgeway This is effectively public comments on the EIR document, and comments on the fiscal impact report. Mike Johnson Mike Johnson, Newport Beach. I have a couple questions. One, now I'm concerned with the American Legion property. We just heard that this includes property from — all of the property from 15th to 18th, which American Legion falls under. Last week, they passed out a site plan that included the American Legion property. And, this morning, Council Member Bromberg was quoted as saying that the American Legion property was going to be rebuilt. Now, there's some discrepancy here. Is the American Legion property sacrosanct or is it included in this property that is being discussed for another lease. Mayor Ridgeway Mike, are you in contact with your — I think it's your commodore or your commander? Mike Johnson I am, but just this morning, Council Member Bromberg was quoted in the Daily Pilot as saying that the American Legion was going to be rebuilt. Now, I don't know whether the Daily Pilot was wrong, Council Member Bromberg was misinformed — or, I'd just like a clarity on it. City Attorney Burnham Maybe I can help clarify that. The Council recently entered into a — I believe it was a 25 -year lease, or longer? Mayor Ridgeway 25, with a 25 year option. City Attorney Burnham 25, with a 25 -year option of the American Legion parcel, and the American Legion parcel is not part of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan project, but Council Member Bromberg is also correct in that the lease between the City and Marinapark does contemplate a renovation of the American Legion facilities. Assistant City Manager Wood Mr. Mayor, I think some of the confusion arose because the public notice for the Planning Commission and the City Council public hearings had a map attached, and the American Legion and the property in question are all one assessor's parcel. Therefore, the computer automatically drew the line including both, but the project clearly does not include the American Legion. And, the EIR is clear on that. 3 City Attorney Burnham I guess I'm curious as to whether that answers Mr. Johnson's questions or not. Mike Johnson [did not speak at the microphone, but most of what he said was audible] Yes, it does to an extent but I think that up to now, the amount that was going to be offered to the American Legion for renovation was something like half a million dollars, and that does ................. Dolores Otting I'm going to do this anyway because I made all these copies and I...... — good evening, Honorable Mr. Mayor and Council Members, my name is Dolores Otting. I live in the City of Newport Beach. What I have here is the same thing that Dr. Nichols was just talking about, which was brought up by Sandy Gonis on the Notice of Preparation, and her first question was is the proposed project consistent with provisions of the City Charter regarding this site in particular, and City -owned land in general, or would a Charter amendment be required to implement the proposed project. So, again, as we just discussed, Section 1402 says that there shall be reserved forever to the people, the public use of strip of the bayfront - that Bob just read - above mean high tide, not less that 85 feet in depth in the City owned — and it's bounded by — and, it's this piece of property. So, my concern here is that this — I mean that this was not answered in the EIR. It was brought up in the notice of preparation but nothing that was brought up in the notice of preparation was brought up in this EIR. So, we got used to that when we looked at it in EQAC. This is the City Charter. Our forefathers had the foresight to realize that this could possibly happen one day and that Section 1402 in the beginning says, there was already the Marinapark — trailers on the property — so, I mean like releasing for that is okay according to — wouldn't invalidate it — according to those paragraphs above. Now, what you're doing here is you're giving this property to Sutherland Talla, or to whoever it is. I haven't caught up with the latest LLC name. And, you're giving it in perpetuity. This is a Charter amendment. This is our Constitution. So, I'm sure there's attorneys in the room right now on this issue, so that's why I'm bringing this up, because you might need two votes. You might need a Charter amendment and you might need - like this general plan amendment. And, another thing I wanted to bring up is in all the years that I've been going to City meetings and County meetings and — I've never before experienced where there was a public hearing that was advertised. And, our City Clerk was kind enough to e -mail me what the advertisement was and it was just this document. Okay, just this one. And, yet, on Friday afternoon, we got added the Fiscal Impact Report which I thought we were going to get a staff report on and which I feel that our community deserves to have a staff report this evening on that subject. We didn't have a Study Session, it's not easy to understand, it doesn't make any sense, are there 98 timeshare rooms or are there 98 timeshare things being sold. So, there's a lot that's left open and I guess it would be nice to have two separate items because %I they are two separate items. When you have a public hearing on a parcel of land, if two pieces are on the same street, you don't add them into one. So, I kind of feel that we didn't get the best that we should have gotten. And, this is an issue that has such visibility and I was always hoping that we would do things right. And, I know that we have a lot of outreach, we had a scoping committee — we had a scoping meeting and there was nothing from the scoping meeting that was put into this EIR. Okay. Your last meeting on May 25th was a Study Session for this item, but yet the minutes weren't going to be done according to page 162 of the notice to responses by Council Member Webb. He had to put in a separate response because his comments weren't going to be able to be done on time. Sorry that I'm boring you guys tonight. This is like really important. Thank you. City Attorney Burnham Mayor, a couple corrections to what Ms. Otting said. First of all, the City Council — and this is not the place or time to talk about the lease — but, the City Council has never said they're going give the property to Sutherland Talla. The term of any lease, assuming the Council approves one, would be limited to 50 years, not into perpetuity. And, as I indicated earlier, the lease must be consistent with provisions of the City Charter. And the lease will have that provision in it. And, I do believe that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution unanimously recommending certification of the EIR, recommending against recirculation of the draft EIR and I think it's fair to say that this environmental document has undergone probably closer scrutiny by the public and the Planning Commission and even EQAC than any other document I'm familiar with, so the scoping meeting in fact was reflected in terms of the content of the document. Council Member Heffernan Mr. Burnham, from what Ms. Otting gave us — the text of our Charter says notwithstanding anything else, the City has authority to lease City -owned property including tide and submerged lands so long as the lease, which means the lease term — the length of it - is limited to the term permitted by State law. And, as I understand what we've been — what is being proposed is a 50 -year lease. City Attorney Burnham State law actually allows you to lease of tidelands for up to 66 years, and some cases, 99 years. But, our tidelands grant contains a 50 -year limitation. Council Member Heffernan So as the legal officer of the City, is it your opinion that what is being proposed is in conformance with our City Charter. City Attorney Burnham The term can be up to 50 years, yes. And, that has been confirmed with State Lands Commission. 9 Council Member Rosansky Just following that up, as far as the 85 feet that's supposed to be reserved for the public. Can we lease the land with the understanding that the land will be open to the public. City Attorney Burnham The Charter simply says the land shall be reserved forever to the people, the public use of the strip of bayfront land. So, as long as it's reserved for public use, I guess the answer is yes, but there could be no impediment to public use of that land Council Member Rosansky So, if the developer in developing their project keeps an 85 strip of land open to the public for public access, then you would say that that complies with this provision City Attorney Burnham Correct. Council Member Rosansky Thank you. Council Member Webb Mr. Mayor, I don't understand. Where is this 85 -foot strip of public land going to be. Can you build a hotel in the middle of the 85 -foot strip? City Attorney Burnham No. Council Member Webb. Okay. Where is the 85 -foot strip being provided for in this project. City Attorney Burnham Well, the 85 -foot strip is measured from a line that has not been established yet. And, unless that line is established at a point 85 feet bayward of the line of the development, then the project could not move forward. Or, at least, private improvements could not move forward, I think it's fair to say that we've assumed for the sake of discussion that the current line of development probably represents the upland limit of the 85 feet. Council Member Bromberg Mr. Mayor. Mr. Burnham, if the voters on November 2nd approve this project and if the EIR is certified, isn't it true that the developer will have to secure all permits and basically do everything that any other project would have to go through, and then some, and that's where this 85 -foot line would probably come in. 0 City Attorney Burnham Yes. And, the "then some" is probably a very accurate understatement of what has to occur. Assistant City Manager Wood I had been prepared to do a quick summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis if the Council would like to hear that. Otherwise, I can just respond to questions. Mayor Ridgeway If it's brief, I would urge you to go ahead and do that. And, then will that be incorporated into our packet the next — on the 27th. Assistant City Manager Wood A draft of the Fiscal Impact Analysis is in your packet for tonight. Mayor Ridgeway I meant your staff summary. Assistant City Manager Wood That is as well. This analysis is one of the things that's required by our agreement with Sutherland Talla. We retained the firm of Applied Development Economics to do the Fiscal Impact Analysis for us. This is the same firm that's doing the economic and the fiscal work for our general plan update, and they used the model that's been prepared for our general plan update analysis, which has had a lot of review by citizen committees. Some of the assumptions in the Fiscal Impact Analysis include the terms of the lease that the City Council is still reviewing in Closed Session. And, so that analysis will likely be revised before your meeting of the 27th. But, with the terms that have been discussed by the City Council committee so far, the summary of the impact is that the existing uses on the site generate a net positive revenue to the City of $696,000 and the project is projected to generate a net positive revenue of about $3.5 million. This would be in the stabilization year of operation, year 4, and that's in 2004 dollars. Mayor Ridgeway Thank you. We are still in a public hearing. Public comments are welcomed on item 18. Joe O'Hora Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Joe O'Hora. I've lived on the Balboa Peninsula for about 30 plus years. I have about 25 years of management and consulting experience in the hospitality industry. Also, in another life, I was president and CEO of the firm which owned the Newport Ensign newspaper and when it was in its prime. This was during the development wars of the 70's and 10 80's and I have the scars to prove it. Let me go on record first as being absolutely appalled at what I view as the persistently unimaginative, lazy and shortsighted staff planning reflected in this proposal. You guys are considering the commercial development of the largest remaining undeveloped bayfront property left on the peninsula. Is that the best you can offer us. I guess that the Santayana was right when he said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Secondly, the longevity of this proposal is truly amazing. I remember working on a City Council presentation almost three years ago on the same subject from the same developer, and wonder why it keeps turning up like a bad penny. Even more amazing is that lives despite the fact that it is seriously flawed from an economic standpoint. Albeit, only looking at the financial document that we received tonight. There's more to be done in this area. But, it's my judgment, as well as that of other industry people with whom I reviewed the project, that this concept is operational naive in the extreme. Among other things, it's not large enough to consistently produce an operating profit. We're in a tough, competitive, over saturated hospitality market. Marinapark isn't likely to ever show an operating profit. And, the more 5 -star it becomes, the greater the probability that it's never going to show black ink. The developer and his banker know this of course and his carrot isn't in operations, it's in timeshare sales. Potential one time sales revenue from only 12% of these units could exceed $20 million. Once the timeshare revenue potential is exhausted, the developer is gone. The City not only has to deal with a facility that's inherently not viable as a going concern. What do you do? Authorize expansion? Allow more, or even all, of the units to be timeshared? Downgrade service and support to reduce the costs? This hit and run pattern's a familiar one in the industry. The lure of additional tax revenue is a siren song to most municipal managers. So this story's been repeated many times over from Hawaii to Florida. There's a saying in the industry that everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. Your challenge and ours doesn't lie in wording this proposal to death one more time. Rather it's inheriting the vision and the foresight to put it aside once and for all. It's time for us to move on to encourage and guide the creative noncommercial development of this site in a manner that will truly benefit our community for decades to come. You'll find no shortage of community support and help in this matter if you take this approach. Thank you. Assistant City Manager Wood Mr. Mayor. It is true that this project has been before the City Council over the years, because we started — at least in my memory — we started the process of trying to decide what to do with the property when the mobile home park is closed, back in 1997. There was an economic study that was done for the City by Keyser- Marston Associates, and it showed that a hotel use would provide the greatest economic return to the City. The City Council then authorized staff to send a request for proposals to developers for a hotel project. That was not done as that point in time, because we had also requested the State Lands Commission to give us a decision on the tidelands boundary. And, that hadn't been forthcoming. And, then Mr. 11 Sutherland came forward to the City Council with his hotel proposal. I think that was early in 1999. The City Council was interested in the proposal but didn't want to just enter into an agreement with that developer without seeing what else was out there as a possibility. So, at that point, we did issue a request for proposals. That was in late 1999. We had eight responses to those proposals, which the City Council analyzed for a couple meetings. We retained another economic consultant to help us review those and finally Sutherland Talla Hospitality was selected and the agreement that the City Attorney has been referring to was entered into. Since then, Mr. Sutherland has been working on his plans for approximately a year, and then we have, for the past several months, been working on the environmental impact report. City Attorney Burnham Mayor, I believe the first exclusive negotiating agreement with Sutherland Talla was entered into in 2000 or 2001. And, the agreement in March was a refinement and a modification of that original agreement. So, it went through a lengthy process. The Council selected Sutherland Talla as the preferred project and it's been four years in the making. So, I think that may help provide some context to the comments of the last speaker. And, I think it's fair to say, during that time, there have been some alternative proposals, but there certainly hasn't been an outpouring of alternative plans to the one proposed by Sutherland Talla. Council Member Heffernan Mr. Mayor, to the last speaker's comments about the fiscal impact and the effect of timeshare sales. That is an issue that has not been resolved, because I think the City Council — and I'll speak for myself — are keenly aware of the aspect of timeshares being sold for a lot of money and that money being taken off the table early and then being left with an operating hotel and where that would leave the City, visa vie under a lease proposal. We are aware of that issue and the balances of where - who's getting the money, in essence - and that is still open. And, that is, quite frankly, an issue of the continued Closed Session item that we earlier talked about. Tom Billings Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name's Tom Billings with Protect Your Parks. Our organization is dedicated to preserving Newport's public parklands and open space. I have a list of ten items regarding the EIR that we would like to object to, that you all have received. But before I do that, I'd just want to respond to Sharon Wood's comments regarding the process that the City went through in selecting Mr. Sutherland, in spite of their own rationale for choosing Mr. Sutherland's project. I just want to reference that in 2002/2003, there was a Godby research poll, which the City hired, which revealed that - and this was taken for the visioning festival, vision summiting that the City sponsored — 70% of residents and businesses in Newport Beach did not want a resort in two specific areas of the City 12 — did not want more hotels - and that's Newport Dunes and Marinapark. So, the public spoke and the public is speaking now. And, of course, it will be decided in November and we won't get all worked up right now about that, but just wanted to point that out — that research that was done. Quickly, I just want to refer to the memo that was sent. Number one — major issues that still need resolution — is that due to the confluence of this contract with the developer and the November election, we feel that the EIR was rushed and biased. And, we feel there needs more time to consider the objections that are going to be raised here — that has been raised. Number two, the timeshare hotel out of the EIR Planning Commission's recommendation was designated as the environmentally superior alternative, versus leaving the park as a park or an aquatic park — aquatic center. This is erroneous as the general plan calls for mobile homes to be removed and the land maintained as a park. That's right in our general plan. So, if it remains as a public park, with nothing more that an open field with turf, or an aquatic center — community center — developed in accordance with the PBR plan, this will create less noise, visual impacts and traffic than the proposed timeshare hotel. So, based on this, we feel the EIR needs to be relooked at. The proposed parking plan leaves the timeshare hotel seriously under parked. Either more parking is necessary to support what Mr. Sutherland's calling a 5 -star hotel or the hotel not receive that prestigious rating. You know like the gentleman previously — really aren't any 5- star hotels in Orange County. And, a survey of 4 -star hotels — and, I believe this is correct — requires an average of three employees per room. So using three employees per room, another 100 parking spaces would be required, assuming two employees per. car. Again, the EIR states that employees will not work in shifts, then there will be no valid possibility they could be bussed to the hotel from a distant parking lot. So, we feel that that needs to be relooked at. The tidelands — number five issue has already been addressed, but one point I want to clarify is that there is no clear demarcation line to establish the tideland boundary. So, this boundary needs to be further defined and established for timeshares. I'm not sure how it works Mr. Burnham, but in terms - I understand that timeshares are not permitted within tidelands, is that correct? City Attorney Burnham Mayor, that's an issue that State Lands Commission has not determined yet. There is an opinion from the Attorney General that, I think, suggests that timeshares would be permitted depending upon the length of time, or duration of the particular share, but the State Lands Commission has not made a determination as to whether timeshares or fractional ownerships of four, five or six weeks would be consistent with the tidelands trust. Tom Billings So to go forward, I would think we'd need to clarify that? Mayor Ridgeway 13 Mr. Billings, your time is close to being up. Tom Billings Okay. Thank you. Points seven, eight and nine are really mitigation points which we feel need further clarification. Point number six — I'll just quickly head on — the visual impacts cannot be ascertained unless views show all building elevations for the site. That we felt was inadequate. Thank you. Mayor Ridgeway Thank you. I think you did submit that letter. It's a part of our record. Assistant City Manager Wood Would you like us to respond to these as the speakers come forward or wait until the end. Mayor Ridgeway No, I think it's fine. Otherwise, it won't be very fresh in our mind. Assistant City Manager Wood Well, I feel like I've been working on this project, and particularly this EIR, for quite some time, so I guess I have a little difficulty saying it's been rushed. But, even if one looks at — since the draft EIR was released — that was back in April for a public review period of 45 days. We've received a large number of comments on the draft EIR, we've responded to all of them, this is the responses to comments document which is over 200 pages long. In the responses to comments, we added information, we clarified some information that had been in the draft EIR. We added and revised some mitigation measures to deal with some of the comments we received. There was public review of this draft EIR by our Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, there were study sessions at both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Harbor Commission held a review, the Planning Commission had their public hearing last week and now we have two public hearings scheduled at the City Council. So, while we are mindful of the July 27th date as being the deadline for making the November ballot, I still think that we have given this a thorough environmental review. Mayor Ridgeway Thank you. Assistant City Manager Wood I had wanted to talk about the environmentally superior alternative question, because that's come up quite a few times and that was the one change that the Planning Commission did make in their resolution recommending certification of the EIR. Because the draft environmental impact report found the project to have less environmental impact than any alternative, except the no project alternative, 14 the draft EIR found the project to be "the environmentally superior alternative ", which is a CEQA requirement. But, at the Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney advised that CEQA requires that the environmentally superior alternative that's identified be the one that's superior among the alternatives. So, the project is not one you consider at that point. So, on that basis, and having some more analysis from the consultant who prepared the EIR, the Planning Commission found that the reduced intensity alternative — the smaller hotel — would be the environmentally superior one among the alternatives. But, making this finding to satisfy CEQA still didn't change the conclusion of the draft EIR that the project would have less environmental impact than any of the other alternatives, except for the one that involved no development. Council Member Webb Mr. Mayor. One question on that environmentally superior alternative. Wasn't there a significant amount of discussion amongst the Planning Commissioners related to whether or not the marine use was really the environmentally superior one — was that a 7 -0 vote or was there some discussion on that. Assistant City Manager Wood There was discussion on that and I believe they did a straw vote on that before they actually adopted the resolution, and I think the straw vote was 5 -2. And, the main issue with regard to the marine /recreation alternative is the parking lot and how you treat that as far as traffic generation. And, if you care for some detail on that, Joe Faust, who prepared the traffic study is here and could discuss that some more. I also wanted to respond to Mr. Billings' comment about the lack of elevations, because the draft EIR does have a number of view simulations which were done with existing photographs from several areas around the site, including a shot from across the bay. And, then using the plans and using a computer simulation to show exactly what the project would look like imposed on those photographs. And, those were shown as part of the PowerPoint presentation at the Planning Commission and City Council study sessions, and the Harbor Commission meeting. And, in addition, the elevations are available in the Planning Department. With regard to the mitigation measures and not having specific dates for when those things need to be done, the mitigation measures have mostly been written to say, prior to the issuance of a specific kind of permit that something needs to be done. And, that is the typical way to write mitigation measures, because that's the best way to have enforcement that the mitigation measure will be accomplished, saying that the City or some other agency will not issue the necessary permit to the applicant until that study has been or a certain design has been done or replacement habitat has been established. So, I think that was an adequate response. Mayor Ridgeway Thank you. 15 Council Member Nichols I have a question. The question that I would have is the design of the hotel fixed — in other words, are we really looking at a fixed hotel design that we're going to be voting on or are we simply voting on a general plan amendment that would change the zoning and allow a hotel up to a certain size on the property. Assistant City Manager Wood Well, if you're speaking of the City Council... Council Member Nichols I'm talking about the vote in November. Assistant City Manager Wood Okay, the people in November. That vote will be on an amendment to our general plan to both the land use element and the recreationtopen space element — to change the land use designation from recreation to commercial and to remove the references to developing a future park on the marinapark site from the rec. and open space element. In addition to..... Council Member Nichols So, could you just say that last part of that — so, it would remove the — about the recreation and open space — in other words, that would be removed from there and it would now be zoned for hotels. Assistant City Manager Wood It wouldn't be zoned because this is just the general plan designation. General plan and zoning are two different things. So, the general plan gives a land use designation and an intensity of development that may be allowed on the site. Then, there is also zoning. In this case, it would be a planned community development plan that would have the detailed development regulations that you would usually find in the zoning ordinance — the height limits, the setbacks, the parking ratio, the landscaping standards - the review process, as I was mentioning earlier, which ties into your question about whether the site plan is set because as part of that development plan, there will be a requirement for further review by the Planning Commission of the more detailed designs for the project. But, as the City Attorney was saying earlier on this same subject, if there are changes to the site plan from what we see today as part of the EIR, they cannot be changes that make the project more intense unless additional environmental review is done and it's still needs to be consistent with whatever general plan amendment may be approved by the voters. Council Member Heffernan Mr. Mayor, this is a question for Mr. Burnham and has to do — and, is related to the fiscal impact issue that is still in process — and that has to do with the identity of IR who this potential tenant is. As I understand it, the LLC — the limited liability company that is the current party who is given the exclusive right to negotiate is not the party who is contemplated for — to be the tenant under any lease for the property. My question specifically is, does the City Council need to approve the transfer of those exclusive right to negotiate rights between that original LLC from four years ago to the current version, as part of the fiscal impact report, which is part of the EIR, which we are certifying or is that an entirely separate issue. City Attorney Burnham It's a separate issue, but I believe the City Council has to give its consent to an assignment of the rights from the original contracting party to the new LLC. Council Member Heffernan Well, maybe I'll be more precise — and, that is, does that consent need to be part of the City Council approvals on July 27th, so this matter would be a part of the ballot or can that be done later, after the vote in November. City Attorney Burnham It can be done later. It doesn't have to be done on the 27th for purposes of submitting the matter to the ballot — to the voters and putting it on the ballot. But, it's something that I suspect the City Council may want to do on the 27th. Council Member Heffernan Is the fiscal impact report going to give an opinion as to the strength and viability of the tenant to conform with its tenants obligations under the lease. Assistant City Manager Wood No. All the fiscal impact analysis does is look at the revenues that the project will generate and the costs to provide City services to that project, and look at the balance between those two. Behind the fiscal impact analysis is the market study that was done for the project proponent by PKF Consulting and then that was reviewed for the City by Keyser- Marston Associates, who's assisting us with the lease negotiations. Council Member Heffernan Okay, if that all being said, so we're not going to give a Council position on that specific issue, if I'm a voter in November and I'm relying upon a fiscal impact report that says the City is going to — will receive X amount of revenue, but we have no identify of who the tenant is at that point, then what sort of reliability are those revenue estimates if we don't know the viability of the tenant to generate the timeshare and hotel operational revenue necessary to pay the payments to the City. In other words, there has to be some relationship between the fiscal impact numbers and the ability of a tenant to operate on this site to generate the revenue 17 necessary to pay the City the revenue that the City is saying in this fiscal impact report. I don't know how you can do one without the other. Mayor Ridgeway Mr. Burnham, I don't know if that begs for an answer from the City Attorney. I agree with Mr. Heffernan and I think that on the 27th, we, need to have full information and disclosure, and part of the item for approval will be a consent to assignment. City Attorney Burnham And, I think part of the information presented to the City Council on the 27th will be the background information on the people to whom you might assign the rights that were initially given to Sutherland Talla and information that will or will not give you a comfort level that the people that are potentially going to construct and operate the facility will in fact do so in a manner that will make the fiscal impact report conclusions valid. You never know if a fiscal import report is going to bear out or not, but I think what Council Member Heffernan is saying is that he wants a level of comfort that at least the people that we're dealing with have every intention of meeting those objectives. Council Member Heffernan Well, I think from a fairness standpoint to the voters who will be trying to make a vote on this, they should have that type of information because — they are too interrelated. The revenue estimates and who is going to generate from operations on this site the amount of revenue - to be able to pay the City what the City is representing will be generated from the site have to be related, so I think as a practical matter, that potential tenant has to be identified and its background for a vote to make an informed decision on that strata of the overall land use decision being made as part of the ballot measure. Mayor Ridgeway I think we all agree, and intention has no bearing here, it's actually qualification and that's what we're talking about. Ma'am, go ahead. Dr. Patricia Frostholm I'm Dr. Patricia Frostholm and I live at 1805 West Bay Avenue, very near the issue property. I'd like to preface my remarks by saying, why are there are no women on the City Council. I would like to say,- men and women of the City Council, because you have a different view. Women who bear children in pain know how intimately - know how precious these children are. And, we're dealing with a place called a "Mothers Beach ". A mother's beach, I watch every day when the vans come up and the children play on the beach. This is very important and I think it would be wrong to have a hotel with its concomitant traffic and liquor and use and police activity so near a mother's beach. It would be a great loss. My vision would be to In have a community center where parents could work — could leave their children. A place where kids could learn to sail, elder people could get flu shots, an arts center, an open view of the water, a sailing school, a small boat launching facility such as we have now. Perhaps, the Nautical Museum there. I also see no need for another hotel. We have the Balboa Bay hotel, and right in back of me, is Best Western. The police were called to Best Western four times in one evening a couple of weeks ago..... Mayor Ridgeway Ma'am, I really urge you to be relevant to the issue at hand., which is comments to the EIR. Dr. Patricia Frostholm I'm speaking to the issue of environmental — adverse environmental effects and I think that we should keep the public land public. Thank you. Mayor Ridgeway I would like to make one comment or correction. I think Mother's Beach is down at 10th Street, is it not? Where is it? [Responder did not speak at the microphone, very little was audible] No ..................it's been there since I lived a block away. Mayor Ridgeway Okay, I was under the impression it was at 10th. Okay, that's fine. Marie O'Hora Hi, my name is Marie O'Hora and I also live in Newport Beach, and I would like to tell you that the 10th Street beach is called Mother's Beach, but now we're calling it the Young Mother's Beach. I'd like to comment, first of all, about the traffic problem that was reported in the EIR. I do not feel that its been dealt with completely. I know that over the 41h of July weekend, they put more strips over, so that they could tell what the traffic was on the peninsula. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of it was people going around in circles looking for parking spaces on the Balboa Peninsula. And, then I have one comment about a timeshare hotel. With an ever changing flow of transients located one -tenth of a mile from a grammar school and two churches, with extensive pre- and after- school program, is this a better choice than a park? How will a Girl Scout meeting facility located on the onsite of the hotel itself sound to parents of current and potential Girl Scouts. Thank you very much. Steven Sutherland Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council, I'm Steven Sutherland, I'm the proponent for the project. As Sharon has mentioned, this has been an ongoing 19 project that has probably received more public scrutiny that any development project that's been in front of this Council. I can tell you that over the last number of years, I have worked very hard with the community, with both residents and other members that were affected by this project. And, the project has changed quite a bit because of that, but it's made it a better project because of that — both for the development and also for the community. I think that a number of the faces you see here this evening, you've seen before. The difference is that tonight they're here supporting the project going to a vote. I think that residents in this City, they know that this is an important piece of property and they certainly want to have the final say on it. It's a project that is helping Girl Scouts, it is helping veterans, according to the EIR. It's also improving water quality, it's a very low rise, low density project that we feel is going to be a very positive for the community in the future, for residents, for the American Legion, for the Girl Scouts, all included. Any questions that you have of me, I'm here to answer. Mayor Ridgeway Thank you. Just be back on the 27th. Council Member Nichols I would like to ask one question. The question I had is do you feel that we have a representative fiscal study — are you, have you gone through it in any fashion? You're the proponent of the study and one who's working with that property consistently, do you feel that this is a representative study and one that you as a partner, could live with. Steven Sutherland Yes, Councilman Nichols, we did the original fiscal analysis, or marketing analysis, for the project back in 2000, utilizing the services of PKF Consulting, who are recognized as the premiere hotel consulting firm in the country. Since that time, we've worked on numerous updates, including a major new fiscal analysis study that we've been working on with PKF still, for a number of months. That information has been submitted to the City, and the City has taken that information to their own consultants. And I don't know what their own consultants say really at this point, but from what I have seen, I feel that it is very representative, yes. Is that a long way of answering a short question? Council Member Nichols No, that's a very appropriate way of answering it, and I appreciate it. I think it was important that we either have some confidence in the fiscal study that has been presented to us as a Council and is shown - or the residents have some queasiness about it - and I think, you're standing behind that is helpful. Steven Sutherland It's been four years in the making. Thank you. 20 Council Member Heffernan Maybe we can cover an area that I raised with Mr. Burnham, and that is the current composition of the tenant, because I think it's a relevant topic, because I think between now and the 27th, we're going to have to deal with this fiscal impact report. And, the identity of the tenants is a related issue to the numbers that the City has come upon. Can you address the tenant issue. Mr. Sutherland Yes, we have basically, up until just recently, I've had two partners in Bayside Pacific LLC and we are now moving to just one partner. It will be myself and one other partner, who has been involved already, it's not a new partner, but I think all of that will be presented to the City Attorney's office, most likely, by the end of this week, if not sooner, but it's Tuesday — we will have a full disclosure, yes. Council Member Heffernan And, then specifically, as to capital capability to do this as far as experience in operating a facility similar to this. And, the ability, of course, to address the fiscal impact revenue items that are part of that.. Steven Sutherland That's correct. We have — I think — maybe I should stop while I'm asked to leave. We have been with Regent International Hotels for a number of years. We cannot sign an operating agreement with them until we have an agreement from the City. But, we still are anticipating that it will be operated by Regent. Mayor Ridgeway Phil, I thought you were here on number 12. Philip Arst That's a long wait so I ...... I got antsy, you know. Mayor Ridgeway, members of the City Council, someone has commented on the fiscal impact report. My background is that I have a minor in economics, my MBA degree, and spent my career in consulting and doing some financial analysis in specialized fields in the high tech industry. I think the principle source of difficulty to start with is that, as you announced, the lease agreement will not be available. Well, the principle source of revenue shown for the hotel is apparently land use, which I believe is based on the lease agreement. So, one cannot draw any final conclusions from this current issue of the fiscal impact report. It's open, and I hope - will be closed, and will be given enough time to review the lease before the next Council meeting. Now, having — another is we had a gentleman, a professional in the hotel industry and stated that the hotel - the number of employees averaged three employees per room for four star hotels in Orange County. This hotel claims to be five star, they have one employee per room. They say, well, that's because we don't have a lot of dining rooms, we don't have a banquet hall and the like. Well, those are amenities that a 21 major hotel has and attracts five star paying customers. The numbers work out to approximately $450 per night per room, which is maintained at a 60 0r6 level, growing to 75, over the first four years. And, I find that just unbelievable. According to Mr. Sutherland's own testimony, he's only going to have 100 employees. This was some time back when we debated at a previous meeting. And, it just doesn't match. It's not a five star hotel to draw that kind of room rent, or there need to be some major changes in the parking and the number of employees. Five star hotel customers demand very high level of personal services. You just can't provide it at that level. Mr. Sutherland has mentioned Regency, we don't know if Regency signed off on this. We certainly haven't any major hotel operator that said this — these economics will work. We had a gentleman here with many years experience in the industry and he said they wouldn't, and the numbers I've seen would support that. We have no information on the tidelands /uplands demarcation line, so we don't' know how many timeshares can be put into the property — timeshares, of course, reducing the amount of TOT tax available to the City. It's an open -ended proposition, the way it is. And, finally, the fiscal impact report compared the hotel to what's on the ground now — 58 mobile homes that are on a short -term lease, so paying a reduced lease ate. I remember those hearings here at the Council. And, the homeowners have said that with longer term leases, they would pay approximately $1.7 million a year. Given business cycles, given the fact that the five star hotel concept is very questionable, I think the City Council is much better served — instead of rolling the dice on an unknown proposition — the City Council is better served if they were to leave the mobile homes there to take guaranteed money that's steady every year, independent of business cycles. Now, the preferred alternative is a park, but the fiscal impact report compared to what's on the ground. Certainly, comparing to what's in the general plan, the hotel would produce a great deal more money, but what kind of value can you assign to serving the public — the public getting use of the beaches, the public having full use of that parcel as a park. There are concepts floating around to show it as an aquatic park. That's what we should be doing. So far, I see this fiscal impact report as being very questionable and I certainly don't recommend rolling the dice based on this conflicting information. Thank you. Mayor Ridgeway Thank you. I would just make one comment to Mr. Arst's letter and item six, and I've been working on this project for six years. I have never heard $1.7 million from the mobile home park. It was a little over a million and that was at — and everything disintegrated after that. Philip Arst I do remember the session and — I thought it was at and just I called them — and I just didn't invent the number. Mayor Ridgeway 22 Okay, well, that was not the number, and the record will support that. Philip Arst Well, then I think this fiscal impact report should get the correct number instead of taking just what's on the ground and saying well - short term lease, that's what it is. Mayor Ridgeway Thank you, Phil. Council Member Heffernan Sharon, have we gotten any — addressing that last point — have we ever gotten a proposal orally, in writing, from the existing tenants there, what they would do if the lease was recast — anything to address the fiscal impact numbers at all. Assistant City Manager Wood I'm not sure if there's ever been anything in writing. I know that they have made comments as to what they would be willing to increase their rent to at some study sessions or public meetings on the subject, some time ago, and we could look back at the record for that. Council Member Heffernan But, quite frankly, they have not addressed this specific........... Mayor Ridgeway Actually, my memory serves me of the eight proposals - they also sent in a letter with the eight proposals that proposed that they raise their rent from the then existing $600,000 to about — it was a little over a million. They actually physically made a — they actually made a proposal — you're not showing a proposal? Assistant City Manager Wood Not in response to the RFP. I think it was during the discussions of those proposals that....... Mayor Ridgeway They did send in a letter, but basically, agreeing to raise their rent, but....... Council Member Nichols Did that proposal include the ability to sell the trailers to other people, as well. In other words, one of the things that greatly decreased this is the ability for them to sell, other than to the City. Mayor Ridgeway It was a proposal for a long term lease. 23 Council Member Nichols Which would have the resale capability of their leasehold. Mayor Ridgeway Correct. City Manager Bludau Mr. Mayor, at one point, $7 million for approximately 60 mobile homes, that would be $28,000 a year that they would be paying the City for lease. About $1,200 a month. Council Member Heffernan Let me address the second question, that is as to a park use — and this may not be relevant and you can just say they've never addressed this - the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission — have they ever addressed a park site — that use as an alternative, as to development costs and proposed uses and issues like that. Or, was it off the table because we had an exclusive right to negotiate on this specific use. Assistant City Manager Wood The Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission was one of the parties that responded to the City's RFP, and they submitted a proposal for park use on the site. There was never any cost analysis or revenue analysis. Council Member Heffernan That was one of the options that was presented to the Council that was cast aside for — I don't mean cast aside — but, was....... Assistant City Manager Wood Not selected. Council Member Heffernan It was not selected. Thank you. Council Member Nichols This non - selection was based on the criteria though in the EIR, right? Assistant City Manager Wood No, this was in 2000, when....... Council Member Nichols Oh, this was prior to that. Assistant City Manager Wood 24 That this is what led to the agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality. Council Member Heffernan Okay, because the EIR selection criteria essentially eliminates any recreational alternative. And, that we didn't feel was appropriate in the committee. Assistant City Manager Wood Just a couple other responses, I think we also have to keep in mind that with the mobile home park, even if the lease revenue were to go up, we wouldn't realize the transient occupancy tax from that, which is estimated at over $1 million. And, then Mr. Arst made a comment about — without knowing the tidelands boundary, we can't know how many timeshares there could be, and therefore, we wouldn't know the full impact on the TOT. Well, the fiscal impact analysis assumed that - the maximum of 12, which is what's cited in the EIR, would be the fractionals. And, so I think in that sense, it's a worst case analysis. Mayor Ridgeway And, I would remind Council when we made this decision some four years ago, we do have an objective — a Council objective — on this piece o� property for a reasonable financial return, which is inconsistent, by the way, with the underlining park proposal. Stewart Berkshire My name is Stewart Berkshire and I live at Marinapark, I have a long history of experience with this - all these plans and projects, and so forth, and RFP's and this and that, that has gone on over here, the past several years. Of course, the request for proposals was answered by nine actually, proposals that came in, because there was two from one proponent. And, the contractor that you hired to judge whether these were in response - responsive to the RFP — listed several that were, including one that we had cooperated with, but not the one you chose. You went out and said, well, we need more information and nobody knew quite what you wanted to do. But, then the next April, why, Sharon got up and said, well, the only one that's responsive at all is Steve Sutherland's. And, therefore, the City Council decided that he would be the City's agent to determine what project would be built. Guess what. It's his project that he decided would be built. The rents that we're talking about — we have done our own studies and I'm sure you are aware of the fact that we have, and you have done the same thing — you've had the appraiser out and you've made your studies. You know exactly what the going rate for rentals for mobile home parks on the bay are. There being three in number already that we can compare with. The highest possible rate currently is about $3400 a month. This is the highest — this is not the average, by any means. But, it does represent much more than double what we are paying now. I mean, much more than double what we are paying now to the City because we are not given a lease that has — that allows a person to make any plans to live there for a while. So, the $1.7 million is a 25 very good figure. I've worked out myself and I know it's okay. You ask, was there anything in writing with us. No, of course not. Normally, we're given a lease to sign and that's it, or else get out. We've done the homework and we know exactly what these figures are. So, I don't think that we need to quibble about it. And, to say that if you kick us out and put in a hotel in, well, glory!. You get the transient occupancy tax. Well, sure, you won't get our rent though. You'll get the transient occupancy tax — I don't think you're going to get any more — I don't think you're going to get as much from that tax as you get from us. So, as far as the fiscal impact is concerned, you don't really have a whole lot of choice. You'd have to take the figure, as any marketer would — is take the figure that he's promising you times the probability you're going to get it and determine what that number is. And, then take our figure and say that's times 100 %, because you haven't lost a dime yet on rent for 50 years, that I know about, from rents here. So, as far as the fiscal impact is concerned, I think there's no — there's not much choice in this thing. But, I think that your project is very iffy and I — whatever happens will be taken care of with the law, alright. But, I just think that the City is walking into something very naively and the whole process, which I won't go into now — I can start way back over this thing and say all these things that were done, like the Keyser- Marston report, and the farce that that thing was and you guys swallowed it. I can't believe it. But, anyway, that's — we won't go into that — but, I do think that you ought to consider the people's objections. And, Tod, you said yourself, if the people of this peninsula do not want this project, you'd never vote for it. You did say it. So, did Gary Adams. Assistant City Manager Wood Mr. Mayor, I don't recall that in entering into the agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality, the City Council made Mr. Sutherland your agent. I believe that he was selected as the developer to develop the project that he had presented to you, which at that time, was I think 146 rooms. It's still substantially the same, although a smaller resort proposal. Madelene Arakelian Madelene Arakelian, resident on the peninsula. Since we're addressing the EIR and I was at the Planning Commission meeting, I think in the EIR, the traffic issue is inadequate beyond belief. And, it being that that's the most superior project for the land is also inadequate. I'm not a traffic engineer, but driving from the Coast Highway to the house at the end of the peninsula, takes 35 minutes even during the winter. Now, I don't know what kind of a survey they did, I listened to them, it made no sense to me whatsoever. Traffic is terrible on the peninsula and I think that needs to be looked at before you okay the EIR. And, the superiority of that stake as open land. Thank you. Dr. Jan Vandersloot C Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, my name is Jan Vandersloot. I live up in Newport Heights. I would like to also advocate for inclusion of a total open space alternative for this property that would be consistent with the underlying designation of recreation and environmental open space. And, I'd like to ask that you couch this in terms of what this means to the future people of Newport Beach, our children, our grandchildren. I've asked that the people from Newport Coast come down to take a look at this property. I asked the people of Corona del Mar to come down and take a look at this property. And, the people from Newport Heights come down and take a look at this property. Because this property is the best kept secret in Newport Beach. It's actually a beautiful spot. The beach is quiet, it's serene, it's practically empty, people don't know about it, they can't see it from Balboa Boulevard. And, if I think they see this property, they will find no way that they will allow this property to be sold to a private developer. I'd like to ask why this City thinks we have to sell our heritage to a developer. And, if you look at the budget of Newport Beach, it's something like $170 million for about 75,000 people. And, if you look at the budget of Costa Mesa of about $110 million for 85,000 people, Costa Mesa is spending 40% less budget for more people. So, why do we, in Newport Beach, need to sell off our precious assets for some transient occupancy tax, or in the future, if all this turns into a timeshare hotel. Why do we need to do that. I submit that we don't need to do that and one way that we can inform the people of Newport Beach about the value of this property is to develop an alternative in the EIR that is totally open space. This would be as Bob Burnham says, a plan to plan type alternative. And, I think that this to be complete, the EIR should include this alternative and we should also invite the people to come down and take a look at what they will be losing if this hotel is built. I'd like to ask people that they envision this place as being an open window to the bay that where I, as a Newport Heights resident, can come down, rather than driving around and around looking for a parking space, I have a place to park at this site. I think that the people of Newport Beach will be best served if we keep this recreation and environmental open space. And, I think that we really need to evaluate the alternatives before we go ahead and approve the EIR. Thank you very much. Mayor Ridgeway Okay. Anybody else like to be heard on this item? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. I believe we need a motion to continue this item. Council Member Bromberg Mayor, I'll move that we — what I believe we're supposed to do it per the agenda — is I'll move that we continue the public hearing to July 27, 2004. Council Member Rosansky Second. Mayor Ridgeway 27 Any discussion? Okay, call for the vote. City Clerk Harkless Motion carries. NE EIR -14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 16 July 27, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Robert Burnham, City Attorney 644 -3131, rburnham Acitv.newport- b each. ca. us Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 644 -3222, swood(a)city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan APPLICANT NAME: Sutherland Talla Hospitality (STH) ISSUE: Consideration and approval or certification of various actions related to the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (Project). RECOMMENDATION: Take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit A) certifying that the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, making the findings required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. 2. Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit C), pursuant to Section 423 of the City Charter, the Measure S Guidelines and the agreement between the City and STH dated March 11, 2003, submitting to the electorate at the regular municipal election on November 2, 2004 proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan pertaining to the Project and Marinapark (Property). 3. Adopt Resolutions (Exhibits D and E) authorizing any member or members of the City Council to file arguments in favor of, or against, the proposed amendments, and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and authorize rebuttals. 4. Receive and file the Market Analysis prepared by PKF Consulting (Exhibit F) and the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Applied Development Economics (Exhibit G); Marinapark Resort and Community Plan July 27, 2004 Page 2 5. Receive the report of the Marinapark Negotiating Committee (Ridgeway and Heffernan) regarding the status of discussions with the Project proponent regarding a lease of the Property and approve the recommendations of the Committee regarding appropriate lease terms and conditions. INTRODUCTION The redevelopment of Marinapark has been a topic of discussion and analysis at numerous public hearings and public meetings (approximately 29) during the past seven years. This public hearing is yet another opportunity for public input and represents the continuation of a lengthy process that, assuming City Council certification of the EIR, will continue with a decision by the electorate on proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element. The key elements of the Project can be summarized as follows: (1) A luxury resort with a maximum of 110 guest units (of the 110 units up to 12 could be "fractional ownership "), a spa, lobby, a small restaurant and cafe, and other hotel amenities that, combined would not exceed 96,000 square feet would be developed on the 5 acre site of the existing 56 unit mobilehome park (2) The guest units are proposed to be in one -level or two level structures with average roof heights of 14 and 24 feet respectively. The average roof height of the lobby would be 34 feet. Parking will be provided on site with 100 surface spaces and a 100 space subterranean facility; (3) One long dock that could accommodate approximately 6 vessels, depending on size, would serve resort guests or visitors. (4) An expanded Community Center would be constructed by the resort developer to accommodate Girl Scout and community events and activities and the existing public recreational facilities (four tennis courts, playground and public parking) would be reconstructed except the "half- court" basketball court would be eliminated. This memo summarizes the history of the Project, the City's compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines including the resolution proposed for certification of the EIR and the resolutions necessary to submit the General Plan Amendment to the voters. This memo also discusses the Fiscal Impact Analysis and the status of discussions between the Marinapark Negotiating Committee as well as the recommendations of that Committee. Marinapark Resort and Community Plan July 27, 2004 Page 3 HISTORY The following is a brief summary of key events related to Marinapark and the Project: • 1997 The State Lands Commission staff advised the City that Marinapark is primarily tidelands and that permanent residential use — such as the existing mobilehome park - is inconsistent with tideland trust restrictions. The City Council commissioned and considered a Keyser Marston revenue study that concluded a hotel use on the bayfront and residential uses on Balboa Blvd. would provide the highest economic return to City. The City Council directed staff to discuss the tidelands issue with State Lands Commission staff, to begin negotiations with American Legion on a new lease for that property and to prepare an RFP for the remainder of Marinapark. • 1999 The Economic Development Committee and City Council received a presentation on hotel redevelopment by Sutherland Talla Hospitality. The City Council directed staff to request proposals from all interested parties and issued the RFP. • 2000 The City received 9 responses to the RFP including proposals from STH, the American Legion and the PB &R Commission. The City Council conducted noticed public hearings to receive presentations from those submitting proposals and the public. The City Council directed staff to prepare an economic analysis and asked 4 interested parties to submit additional information. The City Council, after extensive discussion and public input, approved an agreement designating STH as the sole entity with which the City would participate regarding any redevelopment. • 2001 STH submitted a Draft Project Description (DPD) and the City conducted a community forum on the DPD to obtain public input. STH engaged in public outreach and worked with the American Legion and the Girl Scouts. • 2002 STH submitted a Modified DPD, which excluded the American Legion site from the Project. The City Council initiated the General Plan and Zoning amendments that would, if approved, change the Land Use Element designation from "recreational and environmental open space" to "recreation and marine commercial." • 2003 STH, in response to public input, submitted revised site /floor plans for a 110 -room resort with related public and community improvements. STH and the City agreed that the City Council would approve a Project description for CEQA purposes only and submit the Project related General Plan amendments to the voters in November 2004. The City Council appointed a Marinapark Negotiating Committee (Ridgeway and Heffernan) to discuss terms of a lease that might be approved assuming the electorate approved the GPA and other conditions were satisfied. The City issued a Notice of Preparation of the EIR for the Project, conducted a scoping session and the Citizens Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) reviewed the NOP in November. Marinapark Resort and Community Plan July 27, 2004 Page 4 • 2004 A Notice of Completion was issued and Draft EIR released for public comment. Extensive comments received from the public, EQAC, the Harbor Commission and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held two noticed public hearings /meetings on the EIR and the City Council held three noticed public hearings /meetings to receive public input and consider the EIR and the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT With very limited exceptions, the City is required to comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines prior to submitting any measure to the voters. In the case of this Project, the City Council decided to prepare a full "Environmental Impact Report" (EIR) for the Project and the City issued a Notice of Preparation in November 2003. The City issued a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR in April 2004 and received numerous public comments during the 45 day review period. Staff and the EIR consultant prepared responses to all comments and, on July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the draft EIR and the responses to comments. On July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council determine that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Some minor corrections to the EIR were made at the Planning Commission hearing and subsequently by staff. These corrections are documented in a supplemental letter from the City's environmental consultant, Michael Brandman Associates (Exhibit B). Chris Taylor of Shute Mihaly & Weinberger, a CEQA expert, has reviewed the EIR and also concluded that the DEIR fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Exhibit H) CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require the City Council to make findings with respect to each potentially significant impact identified in an environmental impact report, the reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives and to adopt a program for "reporting on or monitoring the changes it has required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects." The EIR for the Project identified potentially significant impacts related to "Geology and Soils ", "Hydrology and Water Quality', "Biological Resources ", "Air Quality', "Hazards and Hazardous Materials" and "Cumulative Impacts." The EIR also identified feasible mitigation measures that, if adopted and implemented, would reduce each potentially significant impact to a level of insignificance. Staff, the EIR consultants and special counsel have collaborated in the.preparation of a resolution (Exhibit A) that certifies the EIR, makes the findings required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (including the adoption of all mitigation measures) and identifies the "location and custodian of the documents that constitute the record of the proceedings on which the decision is based." Marinapark Resort and Community Plan July 27, 2004 Page 5 City Council certification of the EIR does not approve the Project. A vote to certify the EIR represents that Council Member's determination that the EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines — a determination that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended and a determination that special CEQA counsel is recommending. The practical effect of a vote to certify the EIR is to give the electorate the opportunity to express their opinion as to the future of Marinapark. ELECTION The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Property as "Recreation and Environmental Open Space." The current Land Use Element designation does not allow hotels or resorts. The Project proponent has asked that the Land Use Element be changed to "Recreation and Marine Commercial" and that corresponding amendments be made to the Recreation and Open Space Element (GPA). The proposed GPA would establish entitlement for a resort with a maximum of 110 guest units and 96,000 square feet and retain the community center and most of the public recreation facilities. In March 2003, the City Council approved an agreement with STH regarding the processing of the Project. This Agreement specified that the City Council would, assuming certification of the EIR, submit the proposed GPA to the voters in November 2004. In June 2004, the City Council approved amendments to the Measure S Guidelines that require hotels to be entitled in terms of the number of rooms and the amount of floor area (intensity). Section 423 of the City Charter and the Measure S Guidelines require voter approval of any General Plan amendment that, when compared to allowed uses (individually or when added to increases from other City Council approved amendments within that statistical area within the preceding 10 years), increases intensity by more than 40,000 square feet, increases traffic by more than 100 peak hour trips, or increases density by more than 100 dwelling units. The proposed GPA does not involve density and the total peak hour trips generated by the Project — 24 AM peak hour trips and 32 PM peak hour trips - are below the Section 423 threshold. However, the proposed GPA would exceed the 40,000 square foot intensity threshold and requires voter approval. Staff has prepared a resolution that submits the proposed GPA to the electorate (Exhibit B). The City Attorney prepared the language in Exhibit C after receiving comments from interested parties and members of the City Council, but the City Council makes the final decision on the precise language of the ballot measure. Staff has prepared resolutions (Exhibits C and D) authorizing any member or members of the City Council to file an argument, directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and authorizing the submittal of rebuttals. Marinapark Resort and Community Plan July 27, 2004 Page 6 FISCAL IMPACT REPORT We have attached copies of a "Market Analysis" prepared by PKF Consulting (Exhibit F) at the request of the Project proponent and a "Fiscal Impact Analysis" prepared by Applied Development Economics at the direction of the Assistant City Manager (Exhibit G). PKF is a nationally recognized firm that specializes in conducting marketing studies for hotels and resorts. PKF predicts that, in 2010 — projected to be the fourth year of operation and the first year in which hotel rents and occupancies are expected to stabilize — daily room rates would be $367.00 (in 2004 dollars) and occupancy rates would be 76 %. The Fiscal Impact Analysis, which is based on the assumptions in the PKF Market Analysis, predicts that total revenue to the City in 2010 (primarily from rent and Transient Occupancy Tax) would be $2,141,966 (in 2004 dollars) and City expenses would be $26,185. The draft Fiscal Impact Report released on July 8, 2004 projected much higher revenue due to an error in calculation. The Market Analysis and the Fiscal Impact Analysis are projections that, while based on the best available data and prepared by experienced professionals, may be higher or lower than actual revenue and costs depending on numerous variables including final terms of the lease and general economic conditions. These reports were prepared to provide the City Council and the public with the best available projections and the reports clearly indicate that Project revenue will greatly exceed the City's expenses in providing municipal services. LEASE DISCUSSIONS The Marinapark Negotiating Committee (Ridgeway and Heffernan), Cal Hollis of Keyser Marston, Kim Thompson of Rutan & Tucker and staff have discussed possible lease terms and conditions with STH and Bayside. Mr. Hollis has extensive experience representing the pubic and private sector in real estate matters and currently represents the City of Beverly Hills in their negotiations with the Montage. Mr. Thompson is an attorney who specializes in real estate transactions with almost 20 years experience in drafting ground leases. These discussions have produced a consensus - among those involved in the discussions - on certain issues and differences of opinion on other issues. The Marinapark Negotiating Committee has been advised that STH is considering an assignment of their rights in the exclusive negotiation agreement to Bayside Pacific LLC and has directed Mr. Hollis and Mr. Thompson to conduct appropriate "due diligence" with respect to all persons and entities associated with the prospective assignee. The areas of general agreement include the term of the lease (50 years), a five year option to lease, the conditions to the Project proponent's right to exercise the option (satisfy all conditions necessary to begin construction), the base rent ($1.1 million), the proponent's obligation to rebuild the Peninsula Community Center (which accommodates Girl Scout activities and community events) and a commitment to fund Marinapark Resort and Community Plan July 27, 2004 Page 7 major renovations of the American Legion facility. The negotiators have not reached a consensus on other issues including the option consideration and the percentages of each category of revenue to be used to calculate percentage rent. Mr. Hollis has conducted an extensive review of the PKF Market Analysis and determined that $1.1 million represents a fair base rent for the Property given the constraints on the property. The Marinapark Negotiating Committee has asked staff to present to the City Council, for approval, the following direction general recommendations to guide them in continued discussions: 1. That the terms and conditions of any lease of Marinapark are reasonably calculated to generate revenue to the City consistent with the projections in the Fiscal Impact Analysis. 2. That the terms and conditions of the lease, or the right to exercise an option to lease, are consistent with the City Charter as well as all relevant plans, policies, ordinances and resolutions of the City. 3. That the lease protects the City's non - economic interests including assurances that all public improvements are constructed and maintained and the City maximizes its ability to control the use of the Property in the event of any default. 4. That the lessee has the financial ability and the experience necessary to construct and operate a luxury resort (or has contracted with an entity or individual with the requisite construction operation experience) as well as a reputation for responsible and community sensitive development. Submitted by: Sharon ood Assistant City Manager List of Attachments: City Attorney nn Exhibit B Supplemental Letter from Michael Brandman Associates Exhibit C Ballot Measure Resolution; Exhibit D Argument/Impartial Analysis Resolution; Exhibit E Rebuttal Resolution; Exhibit F PKF Market Analysis; Exhibit G Applied Development Economics Fiscal Impact Analysis; Exhibit H Legal Opinion — Chris Taylor. Michael Bran&nafl J \SS dates ENVIRONtMENaAI, SERVICES • 1'I ANNIM; • NAI'IIHAL FfhaUll CES MANAUNEN'I' July 21, 2004 James Campbell City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 Subject: Supplemental Information for the Final Environmental impact Report for Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Dear Mr. Campbell: During the Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2004, there were a few comments that were raised that warrant the preparation of this supplemental information letter. Following is a general discussion of each comment and a response is provided. These supplemental responses are to be considered part of the final FTR, under CEQA. Guidelines section 151.32. There was a comment regarding response to comment K5 incorrectly referring to response to comment K7 about emergency evacuations. This comment is correct, and the following responds to comment KS with respect to the project physically interfering with the City's plans for emergencies on the peninsula or carrying out emergency evacuations. The proposed project is located on Balboa Peninsula and includes a 110 -room luxury hotel. The ancillary facilities arc sized to accommodate the guests at the luxury hotel. Based on a review of the City of Newport Beach Land Use Element, there. are currently 2,150 dwelling units east of the project site on the Peninsula. Based on an occupancy of 24 units within the existing Marinapark mobile homes, the net increase in rooms /dwelling units on Balboa Peninsula would be 86. Comparing the number of dwelling units east of the project site (not accounting for the existing number of hotel/motel rooms east of the project) to the net increase on 86 units/rooms, the project would result in a 4 percent increase in units/rooms. Since this figure does not include existing hotel/motel rooms east of the project site, and since the new hotel will not maintain a constant 100 percent occupancy rate, and since the existing mobile home park may have an occupancy higher than 24 units at certain times of the year, this is considered 'a worst -case estimate. Based on this worst -case estimate, a 4 percent increase in units/rooms along the north side of Balboa Boulevard is expected to generate a relatively nominal increase of people and vehicles during emergencies and evacuations. This nominal increase would not physically interfere with or 220 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, ( : 4 92602 714 . 508 . 4100 im 714 . 508 . 41 111 Inland Empire: Bq Area I(em County 909.884.2255 925.830.2733 W.'),34-2755 www.brmndmma.com EMAIL mba @hrmdmmn.com EXHIBIT 8 James Campbell July 21, 2004 Page 2 significantly contribute traffic during the City's responses to emergencies or implementation of emergency evacuations of the community. 2. Thcre was a comment regarding response to continent 02 incorrectly referring to response to comtttent B22. The correct cross- reference is to comment B24 regarding land to water issues. There was a comment regarding the demand for recreational services and facilities in Comment Letter U. The issue in this comment has been responded to previously in response to comment B15. 4. There was a comment regarding, response to comment C6 about the timing for in- water construction activities. To clarify the intent of the additional bullet to mitigation measure HWQ-1, which will further reduce potential; impacts to marine life by avoiding construction disturbance during the reproductive season, the hul let is modified to read: • Construction Timing: In -water construction activities shall not occur between March 3land October 1. $. During the Planning Commission meeting, there was a comment regarding the number of mobile home units that were assumed to be occupied for purposes of the traffic analysis. The analysis in Section 5.5 in the Draft EIR evaluated the potential impact of the proposed project on traffic during the shoulder season. It was noted that the last sentence on page 5.5 -2 and continuing to page 5.5 -3 of the Draft EIR staled that the evaluation assumed a fully occupied mobile home park. This sentence is incorrect. As indicated in Table 5.5 -2 of the Draft EIR, the traffic analysis assumed a partially occupied mobile home park (24 mobile homes were assumed to be occupied). Assuming the luwer occupancy of the existing use resulted in a higher number of net new trips, which is the more conservative approach. The last sentence on page 5.5 -2 and continuing to page 5.5 -3 of the Draft FIR is revised to correctly describe the analysis that was done, as follows: Delete: "To he conservative related to the project's traffic contribution, the not increase in trips was determined by the difference of the number of trips associated with a fully occupied hotel and the number of trips associated with a fully occupied mobile home park." Add: "To be conservative related to the project's traffic contribution, the net increase in trips was determined by the difference of the number of trips associated with a fully occupied hotel and James Campbell July 21, 2004 Page 3 the number of trips associated with a partially occupied mobile home park" In addition to the above comments during the Planning Commission bearing, City staff' noted that the hazards and hazardous materials impact relating to the removal of existing structures that may contain lead and/or asbestos, which was identified as potentially significant, and the recommended nutigalion measure, both identified on page 1-4 in the Draft EIR, were not included in Table 2 -1 in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR. As stated in the Draft OR, the mitigation measure will reduce the potential hazardous materials impact to less than significant. Therefore, page 2 -15 in the Draft FiR is revised to include the information regarding lead and asbestos materials as shown in Attachment 1. Finally, staff noted a scrivener's error iu the drafting of additional measure LU -1. The third sentence is corrected to read as follows: "The floating dock is anticipated to accommodate up to six (6) 30 -foot boats, or a greater number of shorter watercraft" The above supplemental information serves to clarify or amplify, or make insignificant modifications to the Draft RTR. Tt does not provide significant new information regarding environmental effects of the Marinapark Resort ht Community plan project or mitigation measures. If you have any question regarding the above information, please call me. Sincerely, MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES Michael E. Houlihan, A1C,P Manager of Environmental Services H: \Qlienr (PN- fNP00641)06400 0\Afarirmpurk /CPC Supplemew r.errer rr.V21_2.d� ATTACHMENT 1 C: I WlNDOWSITemporary lntermt Fil esIOLK90D01Environmenml lmpact.doc r U w- U w �n z z N_ 'V ttl N � N N d >O p °SET ^ L ld O > L m G cO O L O m a L ' y s � to O ad N E L=moo g c o 0 N z a y O O U U N p p U O E a L o P N y L (Q p E y .E ❑ o d w a iio 'iJ . =, M, `:za?^i- Q. 0 O L cd m O ..� 'L L m ld Vi N = m m a 0 to f0 r N O Woo Y Y O. 'O > N E E w N u aao m N -a O 'o c o y N Y 'C p r0 .O .ti a 0.0 m .v 0 0++ d YN C'% 0 y f0 tl RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF A CERTAIN MEASURE RELATING TO THE MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004 AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -53. WHEREAS, the City Council has, by Resolution No. 2004 -53 that was adopted on June 22, 2004, called a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 2, 2004; and WHEREAS, Section 423 of the City Charter and the Measure S Guidelines require voter approval of any amendment to the General Plan that exceeds certain thresholds; and WHEREAS, the City Council has, pursuant to an agreement with the proponent of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (Project) and assuming certification of the relevant Environmental Impact Report, committed to submitting to the electorate those General Plan Amendments necessary to ensure that the Project conforms to the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements; and WHEREAS, the City Council the proposed amendments to the Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements require voter approval pursuant to the provisions of Section 423 of the City Charter and the Measure S Guidelines because the increase in intensity exceeds 40,000 square feet of floor area. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, the following question: Shall the Newport Beach General Plan designations for Marinapark, approximately 8 acres of City -owned bayside property on Balboa Peninsula between the American Legion and 18th Street, be amended from Recreation and Environmental Open Space to Recreational and Marine Commercial to permit a resort with a NO maximum of 110 guest units and 96,000 square feet on approximately 5 acres and a Community Center and public recreation facilities on 3 acres? ExHIBIT C SECTION 2. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 3. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON JULY 27, 2004. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Newport Beach, California, on November 2, 2004 at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure: Shall the Newport Beach General Plan designations for Marinapark, approximately 8 acres of City -owned bayside property on Balboa Peninsula between the American Legion and 18th Street, be amended from Recreation and Environmental Open Space to Recreational and Marine Commercial to permit a resort with a maximum of 110 guest units and 96,000 square feet on approximately 5 acres and a Community Center and public recreation facilities on 3 acres? NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes ALL members of the City Council to file (a) written argument(s) In Favor of or Against City measure(s), accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the city attorney. The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure affects the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney, the city clerk shall prepare the impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON JULY 27, 2004. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. WHEREAS, Sections 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorize the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 9220 and 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures are repealed. SECTION 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 2, 2004 and shall then be repealed. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON JULY 27, 2004. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR EXHIBIT E PKF Consulting ees SOLO Fge� soeet Sulam 104 LW Anpelee CA 80017 May 19, 2004 Telephone (213) 680-OM WOW 823 -8240 Mr. Stephen Sutherland Bayside Pacific, LLC. 4500 Campus Drive Suite 500 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Sutherland: In accordance with your request, we have completed our market analysis for a proposed luxury hotel in conjunction with fractional ownership units to be developed at the Marina Park site in Newport Beach, California. This letter is brief in scope and provides facility recommendations and an analysis of the potential market demand for the proposed hotel facility and fractional private residences. We have also estimated 10 -year cash flows for both projects and presented our results in a consolidated statement of cash flows. The conclusions reached are based on our knowledge of the lodging and fractional ownership markets in the competitive area as of April 2004. Our letter and the analysis presented herein assume the opening of the proposed hotel on April 1, 2006. This letter report is designed for your internal use in planning for the proposed project. We understand that it may be shared with representatives of the City of Newport Beach. It is subject to the attached statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions. SITE ANALYSIS AND ACCESSIBILITY The site is located on the northern side of Balboa Boulevard on Balboa Peninsula in Newport Beach, California. The site is bordered by West Balboa Boulevard to the south, 18t4 Street to the west, 16i4 Street to the east, and Newport Channel to the north. The site offers waterfront frontage and a beach. One block to the south of the property is the beach (Newport Beach), and one half mile southwest of the subject is Newport Pier. Across 18i4 Street to the west is the 25 room Best Western Bay Shores Inn. Bordering on the east side of the site is an American Legion Building, the American Legion Yacht Club, and an apartment building. The greater area surrounding the subject site is composed primarily of residential dwellings with a number of small commercial businesses located along Balboa Boulevard. Currently, the site is improved with four tennis courts, a small park, and a residential mobile home park. The site is clearly visible from Balboa Boulevard, which borders the southern portion of the site. Additionally, the site is clearly visible from passing boats along A wholly owned subsidiary of Hospitality Asset Advisors International, Inc. - EXHIBIT. F ;l a the Newport Channel. Freeway access is provided via Highway 55 or Newport Boulevard, which becomes Balboa Boulevard. Additionally, the property is accessible from the northwest and southeast via the Pacific Coast Highway to Balboa Boulevard. The subject property is expected to benefit from its unique waterfront location in a highly residential area, its proximity to the beaches, attractions, and commercial centers located within Newport Beach, and spectacular views of the Newport Channel. Additionally, as waterfront property available for resort development becomes increasingly scarce, this project will maintain a competitive advantage due to its waterfront location. AREA OVERVIEW The subject site is located in the City of Newport Beach, California. Newport Beach is known as a tourist destination, as such it has a year -round population of about 79,000 permanent residents with summer population figures of over 100,000 residents. The City of Newport Beach is located within a five to ten mile radius of John Wayne Airport and has excellent access to all of the major highways in Orange County. Furthermore, it is located proximate to the commercial and industrial areas of Orange County, including the cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach. Due to Newport Beach's proximity to various commercial office and industrial areas, and a major airport, the majority of the hotel demand in the area is driven by group and commercial business. Additionally, home to a variety of attractions, Newport Beach offers an excellent climate, ocean orientation, and a variety of shopping and entertainment venues for the leisure visitor. The future economic outlook for the City of Newport Beach indicates continued modest economic growth with overall economic stability. The following statements provide an overview of the Newport Beach market area. From 1990 to 2003, the population of the City of Newport Beach rose from 66,600 to 79,392, representing a compound average annual growth of 1.4 percent, which is a stronger rate than that of neighboring Costa Mesa, but below that of Irvine. From 2002 to 2003, the population of the City of Newport Beach grew by 10.7 percent, whereas Costa Mesa and Irvine grew by 1.0 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively. The Newport Beach office market has remained strong. Included as part of the Greater Airport Area submarket, which consists of 35,206,537 square feet of office space, Newport Beach and the surrounding communities posted a 2003 year -end vacancy rate of 15.0 percent, making them the second lowest Orange County submarket. Currently, the average rental rate for Class A office space in this submarket is $2.25 per square foot per month, the highest in the county. In 2004, the Orange County office market is expected to continue its growth towards higher occupancy and lease rates, with a limited amount of new construction taking place. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California FJ In 2003, approximately 40,811 square feet of new office space in the Greater Airport Submarket was completed and by the end of 2003, approximately 85,939 square feet of space remained under construction. John Wayne Airport has become one of the country's busiest regional airports, with passenger numbers increasing at a compound average annual rate of 4.9 percent between 1990 and 2003. 2003 passenger figures reached 8.54 million at John Wayne Airport, an increase of 8.0 percent over 2002 figures. In 2001, According to CIC Research, Orange County hosted 40.9 million visitors that spent an estimated $6.5 billion during their stay. The tourism industry is still recovering from the events of September 11, 2001 and the weakened economy. In 2002, the latest information available, Orange County posted a slightly higher number of visitors with 41.8 million, but spending decreased to $6.4 billion. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SUBJECT HOTEL AND FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed for the subject site is a 98 -unit luxury hotel, 12 fractional ownership residences, boat slips capable of accommodating yachts up to 80 feet in length at waterline (LWU, and a 6,000 square foot spa facility. Architecturally styled after Villa Fiorentina, built in the 1880's and located in Southern France, the project captures the essence of a European villa through its low -rise structure, complete with landscaped courtyards and fountains. The property should capitalize on its waterfront location by ensuring that a majority of the guestrooms and public space areas afford waterfront views. In keeping with the Newport Beach atmosphere, the property is anticipated to have a total of 12 slips for use by yachts in transit, a sailing and rowing club, and four visitor slips. The hotel will offer an array of other motor and sailing craft for use by hotel guests as well as area residents. The proposed subject hotel will include a 6,000 square foot spa, a 1,100 net square foot signature restaurant, a 3,600 square feet ballroom, 1,500 net square feet of restaurant and lounge area, swimming pool, and a Racquet Club consisting of two tennis courts. The Racquet Club will be used by hotel guests, as well as the local public, on a non - reservation basis at no cost. The guestrooms will consist of a mixture of junior suites, double queens, and full suites. The rooms will range in size from 500 square feet for a junior suite to 2,500 square feet for the presidential suite. Additionally, boaters in transit will be able to tie up to the hotel's docks and make use of room service and housekeeping, and the spa and hotel facilities will be made available to them as well. The fractional ownership units will be 1500 square feet. Each unit will contain a kitchen, a fireplace, private Jacuzzi and patios, five fixture bathrooms, and guest bathrooms. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach. California 4 Ownership intervals are anticipated to be sold in 1/8" interests (or roughly six weeks per year of usage), and a floating program will be implemented. Overall it is expected that the hotel's waterfront location, luxury amenities, excellent spa services, and Newport Beach location will enable the property to be highly competitive in the Southern California resort hotel market. Furthermore, the property will have the unique advantage of accommodating yachts in transit, increasing the resort's appeal to niche (sailing and boating) market demand. MARKET ANALYSIS To determine the future market potential of the competitive properties and the subject, we reviewed our database, conducted primary research relative to the competitive hotel sub - market and prepared a five -year history of occupancy and average daily rate trends for that market. To obtain data on current conditions, market mix, and likely future results, we conducted primary research in the area, consisting of interviews with the management of key competitive hotels, developers and city officials. It should be noted that the proposed property, by virtue of its location near the ocean, facilities including spa, and its services, can be classified as a destination resort. As such, the property is expected to compete within the coastal resort market. Competitive Supply In order to identify the competitive market of the proposed hotel, we have analyzed the overall Southern California coastal resort market. Newport Beach and its surrounding coastal resort areas have been developed to a point where they warrant being considered their own market. After analyzing the properties in Orange County, we selected five properties that we feel will offer competition to the subject hotel. The selection of the competitive hotels was based on each property's location, number of guestrooms, quality level of facilities and amenities, room rate structure, and market orientation. The following chart presents the primary competitive supply for the proposed subject hotel. Proposed Marina Park Hotel Historical and Current Competitive Supply 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Proposed Marina Park Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 98 98 Four Seasons Newport Beach 285 285 295 295 295 295 295 295 295 295 Ritz Carlton Laguna Niguel 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 St. Regis Monarch Beach (8/01) 0 0 167 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 Balboa Bay Club (5/03) 0 0 0 0 88 132 132 132 132 132 Montage Resort (3/03) 0 0 0 0 224 262 262 262 262 262 ADDITION TO SUPPLY Pelican Inn 204 204 Cumulative Rooms Supply 678 678 855 1,088 1,400 1,482 1,482 1,556 1,784 1,784 % Change N/A 0.0% 26.1% 27.3% 28.7% 5.9% 0.0% 5.0% 14.7% 0.0% Source: PKF Consulting Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 9 Additions to Supply In addition to the current competitive supply, we have identified one proposed coastal - oriented resort project as possible future additions to the supply. This project is set to open in 2007 and contain a total of 204 rooms. Pelican Inn The 204 -room Pelican Inn will be located adjacent to the existing Pelican Hill Golf Club in the City of Newport Beach. The hotel is planned to include 20,000 square feet of indoor meeting space and several outdoor function areas. Other facilities will include a 20,000 square foot spa, swimming pools, and five food and beverage outlets, including a lobby lounge and pool bar. This project is being constructed by the Irvine Company and is set to open in 2007. The 98 -room subject hotel is assumed to open in April 2006. Historical Performance The aggregate total annual available and occupied rooms, the resulting occupancy levels, average daily room rate, and REVPAR (revenue per available room) for the competitive supply from 1999 to 2003 are presented in the following table. Hiclnriral 10nr4n1 of thn fmm�nlilion Gmnly source: rhr consulting From 1999 to 2003, the annual supply of rooms increased at a compound aggregate annual growth rate of 19.9 percent. This outpaced growth in occupied rooms, which increased at 14.3 percent on an aggregate annual basis. The competitive set is relatively new, with two properties opened in 2003 and one in 2001. The combined result of the influx of rooms in 2001 and the events of September 11, 2001 was a decrease in occupancy from 80.1 percent to 60.8 percent in 2001. 2002 showed strong signs of recovery, reflected in a growth in occupancy to 62.7 percent, while not quite having maintained the ADR from the prior year. 2003, however, showed both a strong increase in occupancy as well as a 7.8 increase in ADR. This resulted in a 9.0 percent increase in the revenue per available room in 2003. Though the market is still below 1999 and 2000 levels, it has fared remarkably well through the weakened economy and shows strong signs of growth. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, Cal {%rnia Annual Percent Occupied Percent Market Average Percent Percent Year Supply Change Rooms Change Occupancy Daily Rate Change REVPAR Change 1999 247,470 189,755 76.7% $276.10 $211.71 2000 247,470 0.0% 198,333 4.5% 80.1 307.91 11 .5 % 246.78 16.6% 2001 312,075 26.1 189,642 -4.4 60.8 301.97 -1.9 183.50 -25.6 2002 397,120 27.3 248,796 31.2 62.7 292.13 -3.3 183.02 -0.3 2003 511,000 28.7 323,706 30.1 63.3 314.88 7.8 199.47 9.0 CAAG 19.9% 14.3% 3.3% 1 -1.5% 03 ytd 511,000 263,573 51.6% $294.75 $152.03 04 ytd 540,930 5.9% 335,866 27.4% 62.1% 289.51 -1.8% 1 179.76 18.2% source: rhr consulting From 1999 to 2003, the annual supply of rooms increased at a compound aggregate annual growth rate of 19.9 percent. This outpaced growth in occupied rooms, which increased at 14.3 percent on an aggregate annual basis. The competitive set is relatively new, with two properties opened in 2003 and one in 2001. The combined result of the influx of rooms in 2001 and the events of September 11, 2001 was a decrease in occupancy from 80.1 percent to 60.8 percent in 2001. 2002 showed strong signs of recovery, reflected in a growth in occupancy to 62.7 percent, while not quite having maintained the ADR from the prior year. 2003, however, showed both a strong increase in occupancy as well as a 7.8 increase in ADR. This resulted in a 9.0 percent increase in the revenue per available room in 2003. Though the market is still below 1999 and 2000 levels, it has fared remarkably well through the weakened economy and shows strong signs of growth. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, Cal {%rnia 6 Year to date 2004 portrays a healthy increase in market occupancy and an 18.2 percent increase in revenue per available room over the same period in 2003. This is largely attributed to the opening of Montage Resort, which has led the market in ADR. The Orange County coastal resort market has shown that it is very successful at absorbing additional properties and inducing demand as a result Mix of Demand for the Competitive Market As illustrated in the following table which presents the 2003 mix of demand, the competitive market is driven primarily by the leisure and group meeting market segments. The group market segment is the primary source of demand, representing approximately 55 percent of the total market demand in 2003. This segment is primarily corporation and association group business. The leisure market accounted for approximately 33 percent of the total market demand, or approximately 105,900 total room nights in 2003. Commercial demand, which was 13 percent, or 41,100 rooms in 2003, is derived primarily from businesses and corporations located in the local areas. Projected Performance of the Competitive Supply Using the historical growth in the market as a base, and taking into account the current demonstrated and future projected economic conditions, we have estimated future growth in overall market demand and average daily rate as outlined in the following table. While new supply has been readily absorbed into the market in 2001 through 2003, this has hampered the growth in occupancy in the Orange County coastal resort market, especially combined with the effects of the terrorist events and the weakened economy. There is, however, strong potential for future growth. As the market adapts to its new rooms supply, and the newly opened resorts reach stabilization, the market will be able to regain the strong ADR and occupancy levels attained prior to 2001. We have estimated continued future growth in all three market segments, with greater growth levels expected in the leisure and group segments. With this growth and our estimates of induced leisure and group demand generated by the remaining rooms of Balboa Club and Montage entering the supply, we project that market occupancy will increase to 66 percent in 2004. The market occupancy is expected to rise to 69 percent in 2005. In 2006, when 74 rooms of the proposed subject enter the market, assuming an opening date of April, 2006, we project that the market will achieve 70 percent Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Competitive Market 2003 Mix of Demand Market Segment Room Nights Ratio Group 176,700 55% Corporate 41,100 13 Leisure 105,900 33 Total 324,000 100% Source: PKF Consulting The group market segment is the primary source of demand, representing approximately 55 percent of the total market demand in 2003. This segment is primarily corporation and association group business. The leisure market accounted for approximately 33 percent of the total market demand, or approximately 105,900 total room nights in 2003. Commercial demand, which was 13 percent, or 41,100 rooms in 2003, is derived primarily from businesses and corporations located in the local areas. Projected Performance of the Competitive Supply Using the historical growth in the market as a base, and taking into account the current demonstrated and future projected economic conditions, we have estimated future growth in overall market demand and average daily rate as outlined in the following table. While new supply has been readily absorbed into the market in 2001 through 2003, this has hampered the growth in occupancy in the Orange County coastal resort market, especially combined with the effects of the terrorist events and the weakened economy. There is, however, strong potential for future growth. As the market adapts to its new rooms supply, and the newly opened resorts reach stabilization, the market will be able to regain the strong ADR and occupancy levels attained prior to 2001. We have estimated continued future growth in all three market segments, with greater growth levels expected in the leisure and group segments. With this growth and our estimates of induced leisure and group demand generated by the remaining rooms of Balboa Club and Montage entering the supply, we project that market occupancy will increase to 66 percent in 2004. The market occupancy is expected to rise to 69 percent in 2005. In 2006, when 74 rooms of the proposed subject enter the market, assuming an opening date of April, 2006, we project that the market will achieve 70 percent Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California occupancy. This accounts for the rooms induced by the subject, as well as a continued strong growth in the leisure segment. We project that 2007 will remain at 70 percent occupancy due to the absorption or the remaining rooms of the subject and the opening of the 204 -room Pelican Inn. The occupancy level is then estimated to increase to 72 percent in 2008, 74 percent in 2009, and reach stabilization at 76 percent in 2010. The table on the next page sets forth our projection of market performance over the next seven years. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Proposed Marina Park Hotel Competitive Market Estimated Future Growth in Lodging Supply and Demand 3004 -2010 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2109 2010 ROOMS SUPPLY 1,088 Addittons/Weletions) to Supply Proposed Marina Park Hotel 74 24 Balboa Bay Club (5/03) 88 44 Montage Resort (3/03) 224 38 Pelican Inn 204 Cumulative Rooms Supply 1,400 1,482 1,482 1,556 1,784 1,784 1,784 1,784 Total Annual Rooms Supply 511,000 540,930 540,930 567,940 651,160 651, K0 651,160 651,160 Growth Over the Prior Year 28.7% 5.9% 0.0% 5.0% 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DEMONSTRATED DEMAND IN BASE YR Group 176,733 55% Corporate 41,059 13% Leisure 105,914 33% TOTAL DEMONSTRATED DEMAND 323,706 100% INDUCED /(UNSATISFIED) DEMAND Group 14,000 0 2,500 18,000 0 0 0 Corporate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leisure 6,000 0 8,000 26,000 0 0 0 TOTAL INDUCED /(UNSATISFIED) DEMAND 20,000 0 10,500 44,000 0 0 0 GROWTH RATES Group 4.0% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Corporate 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Leisure 7.0% 5.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% PROJECTED DEMAND Group Demonstrated 176,733 183,802 205,714 211,886 220,817 245,982 253,361 260,962 Induced /(Unsatisfied) 0 14,000 0 2,500 18,000 0 0 (2,075) Total 176,700 197,800 205,700 214,400 238,800 246,000 253,400 258,900 Growth Over Prior Year N/A 11.9% 4.0% 4.2% 11.4% 3.0% 3-0% 2.2% Corporate Demonstrated 41,059 42,290 43,559 44,866 46,212 47,598 49,026 50,497 Induced/(Unsatisfied) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (402) Total 41,100 42,300 43,600 44,900 46,200 47,600 49.000 50,100 Growth Over Prior Year N/A 2.9% 31% 3.0% 2.9% 3.0% 2.9% 2.2% Leisure Demonstrated 105,914 113,328 125,294 130,306 143,838 176,632 181,931 187,389 Induced /(Unsatisfied) 0 6,000 0 8,000 26,000 0 0 (1,490) Total 105,900 119,300 125,300 138,300 169,800 176,600 181,900 185,900 Growth Over Prior Year WA 12.7% 5.0% 10.4% 22.8% 4.0% 3.0% 2.2% Total Market Demand 323,700 359,400 374,600 397,600 454,800 470,200 484,300 494,900 Growth Over Prior Year N/A 11.0% 4.2% 6.1% 14.4% 3.4% 3.0% 2.2% Market Occu an 63% 66% 69% 70% 70% 72% 74% 76% Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 9 It should be noted that supply is projected to increase at a compound average annual rate of 3.1 percent. During the projection period, we have projected accommodated demand to increase at a compound average annual rate of 5.5 percent and average daily rate to increase at a compound average annual rate of 3.1 percent. Market occupancy is projected to stabilize at 76 percent in 2010. Based upon historical data and year -to date performance, the market average daily rate is anticipated to increase 4.2 percent in 2004 over 2003 levels, resulting in a 2004 year end rate of $328.00. We have estimated average daily rate annual growth of 3.0 percent in 2005, 3.6 percent in 2006, and three percent annually thereafter. The following table summarizes the projected supply, market occupancy, market average daily rate and REVPAR for the period between 2004 and 2010. Praiected Market Perfnrmanre of the Cmmnetitive Sunnly Year Annual Supply Percent Change Occupied Rooms Percent Change Average Dail Rate Percent Change REVPAR Percent Change 2004 540,930 5.9% 359,400 11.0% $328.00 4.2% $217.93 9.3% 2005 540,930 0.0 374,600 4.2 338.00 3.0 234.07 7.4 2006 567,940 5.0 397,600 6.1 T 350.00 3.6 245.03 4.7 2007 651,160 14.7 454,800 14.4 360.00 2.9 251.44 2.6 2008 651,160 0.0 470,200 3.4 371.00 3.1 267.90 6.5 2009 651,160 0.0 484,300 3.0 383.00 3.2 284.86 6.3 2010 651,160 0.0 494,900 2.2 395.00 3.1 300.21 5.4 CAAG 3.1% 5.5% 3.1% 5.5% Estimated Market Performance of the Subject Hotel We estimate that the subject will have an overall market penetration of 86 percent and a corresponding occupancy of 60 percent in 2006, its first year of operation. In its second year of operation, we project that the subject will penetrate the market at 94 percent, resulting in an occupancy of 66 percent. As the competitive properties have historically run high occupancies, it is reasonable for the subject to benefit from the strength of the market. As such, we have estimated market penetration to increase to 101 percent and occupancy level to 73 percent by 2008, its third year of operation. Due to the subject's waterfront location and unique marine orientation, we have estimated that the property will achieve a stabilized penetration rate of 100 percent of fair share over the long term resulting in a 76 percent occupancy. The following table sets forth our estimates of penetration by year and by market segment. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 10 Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Proposed Marina Park Hotel Market Penetration and Projected Occupancy 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL ROOM5 AVAILABLE Proposed Marina Park Hotel 27,010 35,770 35,770 35,770 35,770 Competitive Market 567,940 651,160 651,160 651,160 651,160 Fair Share of Supply 4.8% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% ESTIMATED TOTAL MARKET DEMAND Group 214,400 238,800 246,000 253,400 258,900 Corporate 44,900 46,200 47,600 49,000 50,100 Leisure 138,300 169,800 176,600 181,900 185,900 TOTAL 397,600 454,800 470,200 484,300 494,900 397,600 454,800 470,200 484,300 494,900 FAIR SHARE OF DEMAND Group 10,200 13,100 13,500 13,900 14,200 Corporate 2,100 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 TOTAL 18,900 24,900 25,800 26,600 27,200 5UBJECT PENETRATION Group 75% 80% 85% 85% 80% Corporate 95% 105% 115% 125% 125% Leisure 100% 110% 120% 120% 120% ROOM NIGHTS CAPTURED Group 7,600 10,500 11,500 11,800 11,400 Corporate 2,000 2,700 3,000 3,400 3,500 Leisure 6,600 10,300 11,600 12,000 12,300 TOTAL CAPTURED DEMAND 16,200 23,500 26,100 27,200 27,200 MARKET 5HARE CAPTURED 4.1% 5.2% 5.6% 5.6% 55% OVERALL MARKET PENETRATION 86% 94% 101% 102% 100% SUBJECT OCCUPANCY 60% 66% 73% 76% 76% MARKET MIX Group 47% 45% 44% 43% 42% Corporate 12% 11% 11% 13% 13% Leisure 41% 44% 44% 44% 45% TOTAL 100% -- - - 100% _a=_ 100% =_=s 100% se - - 100% " " Source: PKF Consulting Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California l Our derivation of the average daily rate for the subject property in a stabilized year of operation is based primarily on the historical average daily rates achieved by the other hotel properties in the competitive supply, as well as its unique positioning as a marina-oriented hotel. We have estimated that the subject will achieve a $387.00 average daily rate in 2006, its first year of operation. We have estimated that the subject property will experience a 3.5 percent rate increase in 2007 (its first full year of operation) over 2006 levels. Thereafter, the subject's average daily rate is expected to increase at three percent annually. This equates to an average daily room rate of $425.00 in 2009, when the subject is projected to achieve a stabilized occupancy, and a stabilized ADR of $367.00 in 2004 dollars. This positions the subject property at the upper end of the competitive market in terms of rate due to its proposed amenities and management by Regent or a comparable management company.. The following table summarizes our estimates of penetration and occupancy as well as average daily rate and the resulting revenue yield for the subject for the period 2006 through 2010. Vmin,t" M.r4ot Vnrfnr­ M tho 4,hiart Hntnl Year Annual Supply Percent Change Occupied Rooms Percent Change Occupancy Percentage Average Daily Rate Percent Change REVPAR Percent Chan a Market Penetration Revenue Yield 2006 27,010 16,200 60% $387.00 3.0% $232.11 86% 95% 2007 35,770 32.4% 23,500 45.1% 66 401.00 3.5 263.45 13.5% 94 105 2008 35,770 0.0 26,100 11.1 73 41300 3.0 301.35 14.4 101 112 2009 35,770 0.0 27,200 4.2 76 425.00 3.0 32118 7.2 102 113 2010 35,770 0.0 27,200 0.0 76 438.00 3.0 333.06 3.1 100 111 CAAG 7.3% 13.8% 3.1% 9.4% STATEMENTS OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS Basis of Projections To prepare estimates of future operating results for the proposed Marina Park Hotel, the starting point or basis is the best estimate of results that could be achieved with good management in a representative year or stabilized market, calculated in 2004 dollars. We estimate that during a representative year, the subject property could achieve a stabilized occupancy of 76 percent at an average daily room rate of $367.00, stated in 2004 dollars. From this base, we considered the effects of inflation, and occupancy levels for the projection period for a ten -year operating period, from April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2016. The underlying rationale and assumptions used in preparing these estimates are presented in this section. The estimates of revenues, costs and expenses are based on the proposed facilities and services and the operational characteristics thereof. The basis for our projections are the operating results of comparable resorts in California and Arizona that are believed to operate with efficient management and proper control over costs and expenses. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 12 Comparable Hotels We have used information on the operating performance of five other comparable facilities. This information is primarily obtained from confidential statistics compiled as a basis for the PKF Consulting publication Trends in the Hospitality Industry. Our comparable hotels consist of five full- service, resort- oriented hotels that are located in affluent areas and are all considered comparable to the subject due to their size, facilities and rate. Two of the comparable properties are in Arizona and three are in California. Given that the information is provided to us on a confidential basis, we cannot disclose the identity of the comparable hotels. The figures for the comparables are stated in 2002 dollars. While five comparable resorts have been included in our write -up of the estimated annual operating results, numerous additional sources were utilized in our analysis and to confirm the reasonableness of our projections going forward. Summary data pertaining to the comparable hotels is provided on the following pages. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California N rvrrvi'mmo m vq w �NrH�EE '+i w s �l La a�v8w 'n E E ° N v c '% ° + i i n o N = q v E a < v f n w e N r K 5 0 q a t v E o O v 0 �LL o o d u ° z z f o v o < a o S � O N N N o v o - c6a. -moo 0 a fi 4 U a �e�oon ry v w o n O E nm otO �e 1G Vf N N 16 O Q %G m %G N m m Q T 11; 4 V S n9 O N S O O m n1 N N n1 N n1 a E N N M e+1 f � rcf of O w no � N m �m ore �n ry o vin o N N n T m n1 Q n1 n1 w s° ae aE ae aE ae ae ae ae a° a° a° a% aE ae a' ae ae of O of S of S mo m o m vrne n.e M �n nN m n m mm m m m � ovv�e vi m vnio �o ni ria ooi � ni Leo � 0 0 N � r f Q N w d w m o m o N o M�en m m � omo m o a nee m n n m o � a m o vmn o mmNO o m � .ern �n .e .e d s o a o cvmmN o - .e viovi� o c+i vi o n o 41 r: ri a co e v m +i ni ni ry � v v A K Q N N O a�nmin N .e ncn m � a oa v r� n �e v Nvm.e mmmm �n nm -v �'+ m ry m M ry ry Q O vt C N N N � N O �O 1� r .- O (n n O m N M M m Q N O e+1 th N N d w w e innin a in m$ n� m .en d m n� n ry m mnry m vi e o m m ry vi n v ry a �nM m m �'+ N rvrrvi'mmo m vq w �NrH�EE '+i w s �l La a�v8w 'n E E ° N v c '% ° + i i n o N = q v E a < v f n w e N r K 5 0 q a t v E o O v 0 �LL o o d u ° z z f o v o < a o S � O N N N o v o - c6a. -moo 0 a fi 4 U a �e�oon ry v w o n O E nm otO �e f ¢ a R a E N � rcf of O N rvrrvi'mmo m vq w �NrH�EE '+i w s �l La a�v8w 'n E E ° N v c '% ° + i i n o N = q v E a < v f n w e N r K 5 0 q a t v E o O v 0 �LL o o d u ° z z f o v o < a o S � O N N N o v o - c6a. -moo 0 a fi 4 U ¢ a E o a E N a fi 4 U Q Qp N omP rn� 1i1m n p v'P d o O O ^ V1 P P N P P n o n V m o N m LM m m m O 1� m m V1 P m N V1 m N N N m m w m. -Nm.G rn o� oP P in .n rn m m n n o m m P d m o m rn m w m n o n n O m .LL a mA WnG l 'u w p > 06 � m �iN N m O 6 mIam P nP PA d pnn G l N m r-� vO�wmvm O .m ' m E OuC p -i l 1 m �N rn ON rn QN OsOmn P N O � P P � d E A d p � . � Be Be ae a a Be 6aN v1m 1N uoN �n P ��r .A � : d d d 2_ � -� G 1 l aN QO P w m dVOw�m m �m �P �P Cw m G Ge v aP N NO am P �1mP �mP P P m P m mP cc O A A A A n d _ G `G � G e aN N N d N V� vO m m N OP n O P Vm Yn e 1 1 , � « �N N m O m rn w O ? m m Vm P n O m m m m n �n i1W d � A d _ G n n C � 1 avm m O m N m V�iP N N m �am m uf m P P N P n d dE ry q p G e e 1 1 a.O m d P O Orn O N a - � 1P n n P o .0 `O � - - e Be aw w w w w r m n m N m N w d vvN a.n N m N m sN � vn n P a n E G d v d u d e wmrn Q V1 lG N P m N Qn V1 On rn rn P n p e ae a a as e e s a a a e 910-1 nrnmdin P d' m�rio�ri ai a w d o A OO O A` � V1 P P N P P n o n V m o N m LM m m m O 1� m m V1 P m N V1 m N N N m m w m. -Nm.G rn o� oP P in .n rn m m n n o m m P d m o m rn m w m n o n n O m .LL a mA WnG l 'u w p > 06 � m �iN N m O 6 mIam P nP PA d pnn G l N m r-� vO�wmvm O .m ' m E OuC p -i l 1 m �N rn ON rn QN OsOmn P N O � P P � d E A d p � . � Be Be ae a a Be 6aN v1m 1N uoN �n P ��r .A � : d d d 2_ � -� G 1 l aN QO P w m dVOw�m m �m �P �P Cw m G Ge v aP N NO am P �1mP �mP P P m P m mP cc O A A A A n d _ G `G � G e aN N N d N V� vO m m N OP n O P Vm Yn e 1 1 , � « �N N m O m rn w O ? m m Vm P n O m m m m n �n i1W d � A d _ G n n C � 1 avm m O m N m V�iP N N m �am m uf m P P N P n d dE ry q p G e e 1 1 a.O m d P O Orn O N a - � 1P n n P o .0 `O � - - e Be aw w w w w r m n m N m N w d vvN a.n N m N m sN � vn n P a n E G d v d u d e wmrn Q V1 lG N P m N Qn V1 On rn rn P n p e ae a a as e e s a a a e 910-1 vw � m 1O � m uO m P m 1G p � . N N N Vm m P vovO d Q.O 0 o m �P P G o P O m o d O A` � N �m � o N w aO � <e � m m � n � d N � � N um d vP aO V m P ° ' e i l � v1 1G v1 t O. v m O� 16 v1 O m 4 m d o wo O , e s v 01-1 a a a N e MINI "G m ut O O Cc O p E E o °n w y a w O o O 0Z e E t 1 l 2 � lw G H c U ° c m N O 15 STABILIZED YEAR ESTIMATE As indicated previously, we have estimated the performance of the subject for a stabilized year of operation. This estimate is primarily based on our review of the performance of other comparable resorts. The support for our stabilized year estimate is detailed in the following paragraphs, and is stated in calendar year 2004 dollars. Departmental Revenues and Expenses In the Uniform System of Accounts for Hotels, revenues to the facility are categorized by the department from which they are derived. In the case of the subject, these include income from rooms, food and beverage, telephone, spa, other operated departments, and rentals and other income. In the Uniform System of Accounts for Hotels, only direct operating expenses associated with each department are charged to the operating departments. General overhead items, which are applicable to the overall operation of the facility, are classified as undistributed operating expenses. Direct or departmental revenues and expenses, which typically vary with occupancy, are generally analyzed on a per occupied room (POR) or ratio basis, while undistributed expenses, which are more fixed in nature, are typically analyzed on a per available room (PAR) basis. Room Revenue and Expense Room revenue is based on the number of occupied rooms multiplied by the ADR for each respective year as presented in this report. As indicated in our previous analyses, we estimated that the stabilized occupancy rate of the subject would be 76.0 percent, with an ADR of $367.00 (expressed in 2004 dollars). 98 Rooms x 365 Days x 76.0% Occupancy x $367.00 = $ 9,977,000 The following is a table illustrating average daily rate, annual occupancy and annual rooms revenue commencing April 1, 2006 (date of opening). Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Estimated Rooms Revenue Average Annual Rooms Year Daily Rate Occupancy Revenue 2006/07 $391.00 61.0% $ 8,532,000 2007/08 404.00 67.0% 9,684,000 2008/09 416.00 74.0% 11,012,000 2009/10 428.00 76.0% 11,637,000 2010/11 441.00 76.0% 11,991,000 2011/12 455.00 76.0% 12,371,000 2012/13 468.00 76.0% 12,725,000 2013/14 482.00 76.0% 13,106,000 2014/15 497.00 76.0% 13,513,000 2015/16 512.00 76.0% 13,921,000 Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California lh Room expense consists of salaries and wages, employee benefits, commissions, contract cleaning, guest transportation, laundry and dry cleaning, linen, operating supplies, reservation costs, uniforms, complimentary benefits, and other items related to the rooms department. The operating results for the comparable hotels have a range of 25.0 percent to 33.1 percent of room sales, or a range of $66.69 to $94.49 per occupied room. Based on our analysis of comparable properties, we estimate that for a stabilized year of operation the room department expense for the subject will be $80.00 POR or 21.8 percent of room revenue. This estimate is within the range of comparables on a POR basis and in line with industry standards on a ratio basis. Rooms Expense Per Occupied Room Ratio to Rms Revenue Comparables A $84.84 25.0 B 69.59 33.1 C 66.69 25.4 D 89.48 27.4 E 94.49 30.4 Food and Beverage Revenue and Expense Food and Beverage revenue is typically generated by the sale of meals to both hotel guests and outside patrons in the restaurants and lounges; room service; banquet revenues, including banquet room and audio /visual rental income; and other associated revenues. At the comparable properties, the food and beverage revenue ranged from $114.60 to $413.16 per occupied room. We have projected $200.00 per occupied room for food and beverage revenue for the subject during a stabilized year, stated in 2004 dollars. Food and Beverage expense includes the cost of food and beverages, payroll and related expenses, and other items such as laundry, linen, china, glassware, silverware, uniform costs, supplies, and other miscellaneous items. The food and beverage expenses at the comparable properties ranged from 65.2 percent to 83.7 percent of departmental revenues. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California I otal Amount I Per Occupied I Comparables A $14,763,658 $276.41 B 4,523,385 114.60 C 11,737,838 413.16 D 22,629,000 311.33 Food and Beverage expense includes the cost of food and beverages, payroll and related expenses, and other items such as laundry, linen, china, glassware, silverware, uniform costs, supplies, and other miscellaneous items. The food and beverage expenses at the comparable properties ranged from 65.2 percent to 83.7 percent of departmental revenues. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 17 We have estimated food and beverage expenses at 78.0 percent of food and beverage revenues in a representative year. Comparables A 76.3% B 65.2 C 70.4 D 78.7 E 83.7 Year Telecommunications Revenue and Expense Telecommunications revenue is derived from the use of telephones and internet connections within guestrooms. Telephone revenues are highly dependent on the surcharges imposed by the property. Telephone revenue at the comparable hotels ranged from $4.23 to $15.30 per occupied room. Telephone revenues are variable, tend to correlate directly to occupancy, and have been decreasing in recent years with the increased usage of cell phones and the trend toward complimentary high -speed internet access. We estimated telephone revenue at the property to be approximately $12.00 per occupied room in 2004 dollars in a representative year, which is within the range of the comparables. Comparables A $ 8.27 B 4.23 C 8.60 D 15.30 E 11.46 Telecommunications expense includes the cost of calls, operation of the telephone switchboard and internet connection, and any telephone and internet service charges. The comparables' telephone expense ranged from a 39.4 percent to a 80.7 percent departmental expense ratio. For a representative year of operations, we have estimated expenses at approximately 60.0 percent of revenues, which meets industry standards and is within range of the comparables. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 18 Spa Revenue and Expense Spa revenue is generated from beauty and wellness treatments provided in the health spa and in guest rooms, use of the fitness facilities, and sales of retail items in the spa boutique. Spa revenues at comparable hotels and resorts located in California and Arizona ranged from $12.68 to $71.93 per occupied room, and $56.25 to $178.86 per square foot. We have estimated the income for the subject to be approximately $40.00 per occupied room in a representative year of operations, which is equivalent to $181.23 per square foot for the proposed 6,000 square foot spa facility. This estimate is within the range of comparable spas on a per occupied room revenue basis. Sna Rwenue Total Amount Ratio to T {om Comparables Comparables A 72.4% B $12.68 80.7 C 3,597,829 52.9 D C 39.4 Spa Revenue and Expense Spa revenue is generated from beauty and wellness treatments provided in the health spa and in guest rooms, use of the fitness facilities, and sales of retail items in the spa boutique. Spa revenues at comparable hotels and resorts located in California and Arizona ranged from $12.68 to $71.93 per occupied room, and $56.25 to $178.86 per square foot. We have estimated the income for the subject to be approximately $40.00 per occupied room in a representative year of operations, which is equivalent to $181.23 per square foot for the proposed 6,000 square foot spa facility. This estimate is within the range of comparable spas on a per occupied room revenue basis. Sna Rwenue Spa expenses include payroll costs, employee benefits, the cost of retail sales, and other operating supplies. The comparable spa departments had an expense range of 71.0 percent to 96.4 percent of departmental revenues. For a representative year of operations, we have estimated expenses at approximately 80.0 percent of revenues for the subject, which is within the range of projected performance and in line with industry standards. Ratio to Spa Rev. Comparables A 71.0% B 96.4 C 73.4 D 92.7 Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Total Amount Per Occupied Room Per Square Foot Comparables A $1,341,449 $12.68 $178.86 B 3,597,829 71.93 149.91 C 1,702,427 13.65 130.96 D 1,406,191 24.16 56.25 Weighted Average N/A 23.76 115.80 Subject Stabilized Year $1,087,408 $40.00 $181.23 Spa expenses include payroll costs, employee benefits, the cost of retail sales, and other operating supplies. The comparable spa departments had an expense range of 71.0 percent to 96.4 percent of departmental revenues. For a representative year of operations, we have estimated expenses at approximately 80.0 percent of revenues for the subject, which is within the range of projected performance and in line with industry standards. Ratio to Spa Rev. Comparables A 71.0% B 96.4 C 73.4 D 92.7 Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California /9 Other Operated Departments Revenue and Expense Other Operated Departments can vary significantly among the comparable properties and the subject depending on the nature of the additional revenue generators. Other operated department revenue is typically generated from guest laundry, business center, and /or other recreational amenities. Other operated departments at the subject property include revenue from business services, guest laundry and the sundry shop. The comparable hotels had a range of other operated department revenue from $5.78 to $226.98 per occupied room. Based upon the various components of this line item, we have estimated the income for the subject to be approximately $7.00 per occupied room in a representative year of operations. Comparables A $ 77.45 B 116.89 C 50.70 D 226.98 Other Operated Department Expenses include payroll costs, employee benefits, and other operating supplies of such other operated departments. The comparables' other operating expenses ranged from a 47.8 percent to a 725.3 percent expense ratio. For a representative year of operations, we have estimated expenses at approximately 65.0 percent of revenues, which is within the range of the comparables' performance. Comparables A 78.6% B 94.6 C 71.5 D 47.8 Rentals and Other Income Rentals and Other Income generally reflects the net revenues associated with the rental of retail, restaurant and office space, concessions, commissions, cash discounts earned, forfeited advance deposits, service charges, interest income and other. With no leased space at the proposed subject, we have projected $6.00 per occupied room for the proposed subject, or $447 per day, which falls in the range of the comparables. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 20 Rentals and Other Income Comparables A $ 2.90 $ 425 B 5.43 587 C 0.27 21 D 5.53 1,101 E 52.52 6.A47 Undistributed Operating Expenses Undistributed Operating Expenses are operating expenses that are not chargeable to a particular operating department and are presented as undistributed operating expenses, in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts for the Lodging Industry. These expenses include administrative and general, marketing, property operations and maintenance, and energy and utilities. These expenses are relatively unaffected by fluctuations in occupancies and ADR. Excluding management fees, which are a fixed percentage based on a contract agreement and market parameters, these expenses are analyzed primarily on a dollar amount per available room (PAR) basis. Administrative and General This category includes the salary and wages of the general manager and administrative staff, cash overages and shortages; credit card commissions; bad debt expense; security; data processing costs; accounting payroll expense; and professional fees. It should be noted that, according to the ninth revised edition of the Uniform Systems of Accounts for the Lodging Industry, general liability insurance is no longer included in this line item. Instead, it is included under the fixed charges "insurance" line item. Administrative and general expenses at the comparables range from $11,771 to $16,119 per available room with ratios to total revenue ranging from 6.2 percent to 9.6 percent. We have estimated an administrative and general expense for the subject property of $13,500 per available room, which is 7.7 percent of revenues. Comparables A $16,119 8.9% B 11,851 9.6 C 14,511 8.1 D 12,210 6.2 E 11.771 Al Year Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 21 Marketing This expense includes the cost of advertising, printing of brochures, salary associated with sales and marketing personnel, and other costs associated with an ongoing sales and promotion program. Marketing expenses for the comparables ranged from $8,921 to $13,182 per available room. The amount spent on marketing depends on the location, reputation, and brand association of the property. As such, we have estimated an expense of approximately $10,000 per available room, which equates to 5.7 percent of total revenues. Rev. Comparables A $10,264 5.7% B 10,880 8.8 C 13,182 7.3 D 8,921 4.6 E 9456 65 Subject Stabilized Year 1 $10,000 1 5.7% Franchise Fees As the property is assumed to be operated and managed by Regent or a comparable management company, only a management fee would be paid and not a franchise fee. Property Operations and Maintenance Property operations and maintenance expenses are a function of building age and usage. This category includes the engineering salaries, wages and benefits, maintenance of the building, grounds and landscape, electrical and mechanical equipment, engineering, refrigeration, operating supplies, cleaning, waste removal and uniforms. The comparable hotels posted expenses for 2002 ranging from $6,199 to $10,565 per available room. Property operations and maintenance expenditures for the subject are estimated at approximately $7,500 per available room in 2004 dollars in a representative year, which is 4.3 percent of revenues. Per Available Room I Ratio to Toti Comparables A $10,565 5.8% B 8,268 6.7 C 7,801 4.3 D 8,492 4.3 Year Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Utility Costs Energy and utility costs include electric, fuel, steam, water, and sewer charges. The cost of utilities at the comparable hotels ranged from $3,565 to $5,771 per available room in 2002. We have estimated energy and utility costs of $4,500 in a representative year of operation, equal to 2.6 percent of total revenues. Utility costs Per Available Room Ratio to Total Rev. comparables A $5,771 3.2% B 5,090 4.1 c 3,565 2.0 D 5,456 2.8 E 4,992 3.4 2.6% Management Fee and Fixed Charges Management Fee We have assumed a management fee of 3.0 percent in the first year of operation, stabilized throughout our projections. Real Estate and Property Taxes The subject property is in the real estate taxing jurisdiction of the Orange County Assessor's Office. In California, Proposition 13 limits property taxes to one percent of the assessed value as of the 1997/1998 fiscal year, plus city, special district, and county bonds. Assessed values are further limited to a two percent increase per year, except upon sale or major alterations of the property. The proposed resort will be built on land owned by the City of Newport Beach. For a proposed improvement such as the subject property, the assessed value is based on a tax rate applied to the replacement value of the property and it's underlying land value. We have applied a tax rate of 1.1 percent to derive a representative property tax base of approximately $430,000 in a representative year of operations. This figure has been inflated at two percent per year in accordance with the Jarvis -Gann Amendment. Insurance Insurance expense includes coverage for liability and buildings and contents, and has been on the rise in the last few years. Insurance expense for the comparable properties ranged broadly from $754 PAR to $2,091 PAR. This expense at the subject property is estimated to be $1,600 per available room in 2004 dollars in a representative year of operation, based upon the range of the comparables and our knowledge of the industry trends. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 23 comparables A $1,731 B 2,966 c 754 D 2,091 E 968 Ground Rent The property will be subject to a ground lease paid to the City of Newport Beach. The lease will be in the amount of $1,100,000 per year, and will remain consistent for the duration of our projections. This equates to 6.4 percent of revenues in a representative year. Reserves For Replacement An additional item not typically listed on an owner's income statement is the amount required for the periodic replacement of certain short-lived items such as carpeting, draperies, and other furniture, fixtures and equipment. For a new hotel, reserves are often lower in the first few years, because very little capital improvements will be necessary. We have increased the reserves gradually over the first three full years of the projection period to build up reserves as the building ages. We have projected reserve for replacement of two percent for the first year of operation, three percent for the second year of operation, and four percent for the third year and thereafter. STABILIZED YEAR OPERATING RESULTS Presented on the following page is an estimate of the subject hotel's stabilized year operating results expressed in current value 2004 dollars. This estimate is based on the foregoing analysis. For this twelve -month period, revenues are projected to total approximately $17,180,000. Gross operating profit, which does not include management fees, property taxes, direct assessments, insurance, or reserves for replacement, totals approximately $6,095,000, or 35.5 percent of total revenue. This ratio places the subject above the upper range of the comparables, which reported gross operating profits from 13.7 percent to 31.3 percent. Operating income for the subject in a stabilized year, after the deduction of a management fee, property taxes, insurance, ground rent, and a reserve for capital replacement, is projected to be $3,206,000 or 18.7 percent of total revenue. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units. Newport Beach, California 24 Marina Park Hotel Representative Year of Operation Number of Units: Number of Annual Rooms Available: Number of Rooms Occupied: Annual Occupancy: Average Daily Rate: Revenue Per Available Room: Rooms Food & Beverage Telecommunications Spa Other Operated Departments Rentals and Other Income Food & Beverage Telecommunications Spa Other Operated DeD Stated in 2004 Dollars 21.8% 22,194 98 4,241,000 78.0% 43,276 35,770 196,000 60.1% 2,000 27,185 870,000 80.0% 8,878 76.0% 124,000 65.3% 1,265 $367.00 7,606,000 44.3% 77,612 $278.92 Amount Ratio I Per Room P.O.R. $9,977,000 58.1% $101,806 $367.00 5,437,000 31.6% 55,480 200.00 326,000 1.9% 3,327 11.99 1,087,000 6.3% 11,092 39.98 190,000 1.1% 1,939 6.99 163,000 0.9% 1,663 60 17,180,000 100.0% 175,306 631.96 2,175,000 21.8% 22,194 80.01 4,241,000 78.0% 43,276 156.00 196,000 60.1% 2,000 7.21 870,000 80.0% 8,878 32.00 124,000 65.3% 1,265 4.56 7,606,000 44.3% 77,612 279.78 Departmental Profit 9,574,000 1 55.7% 1 97,6941 352.18 Undistributed Expenses Administrative & General Marketing Property Operation and Maintenance Utility Costs Total Undistributed Operating Expenses 1,323,000 7.7% 13,500 48.67 980,000 5.7% 10,000 36.05 735,000 4.3% 7,500 27.04 441,000 2.6% 4,500 16.22 3,479,000 20.3% 35,5 0 127.97 GrossOperating Profit 1 6,095,0001 35.5% 1 62,1941 224.20 Base management Fee 515,000 1 3.0% 1 5,255 18.94 Fixed Expenses Property Taxes Insurance Ground Rent Total Fixed Expenses Net Operating Income FF &F Reserve Net Operating Income After Reserve Source: PKF Consulting 430,000 2.5% 4,388 15.82 157,000 0.9% 1,602 5.78 1,100,000 6.4% 11,224 40.46 1,687,000 9.8% 17,214 62.06 3,893,000 j 22.7% 1 39,724 143.20 667,000 4.0% 7,010 25.27 $3,206,000 1 18.7% 1 $32,714 $117.93 Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 2s ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS The previous analysis provided for the income and expenses incurred in the operation of the subject in a stabilized year. In the following analysis, we provide estimated income and expenses for the subject during each year of the 10 -year holding period anticipated for a typical investor. Our estimate of the performance for the subject in the stabilized year is used as a basis for our analysis, considering the effects of inflation, business development, and varying occupancy. Inflation To portray price level changes during the holding period, we have assumed an inflation rate of 3.0 percent throughout the projection period. This rate reflects the consensus of several well- recognized economists for the current long -term outlook for the future movement of prices and is consistent with the inflation rates of the 1990s and early 2000s. All expenses are projected to increase at 3.0 percent throughout the holding period. It should be noted that inflation is caused by many factors and unanticipated events and circumstances can affect the forecasted rate. Therefore, the estimated operating results computed over the projection period can vary from the actual operating results, and the variations may be material. Statement of Estimated Annual Operating Results The estimated annual operating results for the proposed resort hotel from April 1, 2006 to May 31, 2016 are presented on the following pages. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California ° °n °N � � =m K f rc - oN X n 8� m8Pf n + m 8� � m opp 0 8 � m mN��mN mN8 o� so m 8°- m v 8 o ' {i a= .a6 Ov o A T m f M 5 Qf p �h O E . . v ry e m .c?'� E e g O= '`v ' v A e e O- E` O ` e ° e e w e e e b e _ f O aP c ;g £p `e e o ° .1.1 sN a m= aP e n 'E �e m`-� ev mv v mm v O e �n a OEa n �' n° aN 8°am N oaW 8sV -_ e xe e > e O 8 m am O < P aN e O a o m �n e E w b - N 8 aadQ ,� O V e - e °° o 0 aO adm E e a e ° d E " c Nry aN Q �Nv bn e e sPO aP O m- -£e e ° n N °s�N a0 Sd HJn dsQO e ° m aan m N O dk K m aam ab5m e O e e a Z e E ` c � K m O ao aO aO ¢ e „e a e Z 8 m m em a.rc a O o fm O 8 8 N Nm 0 m ml a m O o W P � O g ' {i a= .a6 Ov o A T m f M 5 Qf p �h O E . . v ry e m .c?'� E e g O= '`v ' v A e e O- E` O ` e ° e e w e e e b e _ f O aP c ;g £p `e e o ° .1.1 sN a m= aP e n 'E �e m`-� ev mv v mm v O e �n a OEa n �' n° aN 8°am N oaW 8sV -_ e xe e > e O 8 m am O < P aN e O a o m �n e E w b - N 8 aadQ ,� O V e - e °° o 0 aO adm E e a e ° d E " c Nry aN Q �Nv bn e e sPO aP O m- -£e e ° n N °s�N a0 Sd HJn dsQO e ° m aan m N O dk K m aam ab5m e O e e a Z e E ` c � K m O ao aO aO ¢ e „e a e Z 8 m m em a.rc a O o fm O 8 8 N Nm 0 m ml a m O I m a°� ¢ «g N « Nn < K - - - � 0N - ^ � n ,�, � n �� N N o o o N o ry o sm� N O NaN N �N rve Nse s-P naO O m °aNboe emaP m o- P h °P ma p m s e aaN N m v � me .d$o OOb e aN a� v � a b ds � x e aae aae ae a 0 mno o oP ' mm v Nm°m m m0 o o ^ - v o O 8 ° 88 8 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 p s m N O 0 P m O E 10 m 0 o W P O g m O O i = wO °w`° f O n �o. = n oo� f °n -� ° o O om w o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O P ^ ^° 8000008 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O m o E m O o W O m [0 + m • . O O w � O N w Q — o � C O N Y q m h n f 0 N°i - O 0 �s O O 00 O P o O0 N vM P O m M. 0 O O LO 0080000 000000 8000 O O 000 0000 O O O PN 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O m P T 0 O ° n O O m E o m O o n 0 �Z `P p ° L Z °n orv 8n wm - w a N yN K O O �o0 „ n m 0� 00o N � 00� O e SSv 3S 3 0 h X 0 0 m 19909 O 1 O O h O ON 0080 ^m 00000 0 e O e p L Z c a _ — 'Q V C m N T O N� n 2 y Q m E o' rc o e E rc o o o E fli-m- E °° °O o E °E E E E ry o °rcrcLLi Z Q Q O j c i ry Y P O o n oogooge 000eom 0 a- a- a- a- a- a- a m�R . A m 000n m o mm o N n g m w °v ^ o ry o ry o v o ggggg °s gg g ggg g g °s SMO�m — w �� m� ry o v m� o o - li IN ^�nvry o rvo e o s ggoss g g gg °sg g g s ^mvry o fiod of o 0 88SOO S o S8SS 8 0 8 0 000mo o 0 0000 o 0 0 O P S 0 n O P O O P O 0 ae ae as a ae o a° � � a � ae ae ae ae o ;e o ae s � aP ae as a= o ^ I m 6 o P o n o °-�- = mm -,d- o 00 -� °omm mvN o rvo�i w o rc oo °o °o °o °o °o °o °og °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o g °o °o o° °o °o °o OOOOOOO o0 ^ vn o -o�c.nm o rvoo�o �ti o 0 of 000 o r+N ww E v o P —.n o min mm v Noo m ry °v N N P P a ry m P — o ; o ae ; ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae e o ae ae mo —omN nmN o 0 0 0 Nm Om omv ^'^vry o ry om o ggoggg g g °s °sgs o g o$og o o g Cori n u mF o N a °ado M N ry ry o =v m ory `v — y v E u .q o rc t o cw v - E E e o O°m „ a'_°- 9 c i U `0 5 d i o o a c t c w � u „ � c E � % a u o 0 o p E 0' m E m E O 0 E n .e m£ T' w __ o _ c'y w A E E E c' u d° .dc c o A o o o 3 0 5 O O E .6 o$— o LL a s r o o i ZZZ «rc rc rc r °Orc �rc �U ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae as o u —PO m000^ o um� °v m oog0000 � O 0000 MN M$ „s��os�_ sgssssg o, o 0 0 0 o °asses° ssssgs MN E moP M_ 0000000 �000000 a— 000 w^ 0 oogooge 000eom 0 a- a- a- a- a- a- a m�R . A m 000n m o mm o N n g m w °v ^ o ry o ry o v o ggggg °s gg g ggg g g °s SMO�m — w �� m� ry o v m� o o - li IN ^�nvry o rvo e o s ggoss g g gg °sg g g s ^mvry o fiod of o 0 88SOO S o S8SS 8 0 8 0 000mo o 0 0000 o 0 0 O P S 0 n O P O O P O 0 ae ae as a ae o a° � � a � ae ae ae ae o ;e o ae s � aP ae as a= o ^ I m 6 o P o n o °-�- = mm -,d- o 00 -� °omm mvN o rvo�i w o rc oo °o °o °o °o °o °o °og °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o g °o °o o° °o °o °o OOOOOOO o0 ^ vn o -o�c.nm o rvoo�o �ti o 0 of 000 o r+N ww E v o P —.n o min mm v Noo m ry °v N N P P a ry m P — o ; o ae ; ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae e o ae ae mo —omN nmN o 0 0 0 Nm Om omv ^'^vry o ry om o ggoggg g g °s °sgs o g o$og o o g Cori n u mF o N a °ado M N ry ry o =v m ory `v — y v E u .q o rc t o cw v - E E e o O°m „ a'_°- 9 c i U `0 5 d i o o a c t c w � u „ � c E � % a u o 0 o p E 0' m E m E O 0 E n .e m£ T' w __ o _ c'y w A E E E c' u d° .dc c o A o o o 3 0 5 O O E .6 o$— o LL a s r o o i ZZZ «rc rc rc r °Orc �rc �U ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae as o u —PO m000^ o um� °v _ °om „� oog0000 � O 0000 MN M$ rc wwE °asses° ssssgs os °POs_ moP M_ 0000000 �000000 0000 S 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 O O O O 000000 O ^ ` oe an mN ^m m o�oov 'o 0 ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae as rc omoPae o 00 0000 _ °om „� oog0000 � O 0000 MN M$ rc wwE m moP M_ 0000000 0000 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 O O O O 000000 O ^ ` oe an mN ^m m o�oov 'o 0 .^n �.o m E — w^ ae ae ae ae as ae; o —.oP m o rc omoPae o 00 0000 _ °om „� oog0000 � O 0000 MN M$ m$e'°o� wwE 28 FRACTIONAL INTEREST OVERVIEW Introduction and Definition A fractional interest/private residence club is defined as "the selling of resort real estate in intervals of more than one week but less than whole ownership," Shares, or "fractions ", range from 1/25 (two weeks of ownership) to 1/4 (three months of ownership), periods of ownership longer than the traditional timeshare product. Deeded ownership in perpetuity is usually conveyed as with any form of traditional ownership. There are three price tiers of fractional interest, based on aggregate selling price per square foot of living unit. Traditional Fractionals are products selling for less than $500 per square foot. These resort condominiums are usually characterized as at a "three star" level and of average quality. High -end Fractionals are characterized as products that sell for $500 to $999 per square foot and represent a higher quality level than traditional fractionals. These are typically characterized as "four star" quality and offer a more desirable location, lower density, larger size, or higher level of finish. Private Residence Clubs are high -end fractionals representing the upper - priced segment of the fractional product with gross selling prices above $1,000 a square foot. These are usually located in top tier resort areas and offer a "five star" quality level. While fractional interest in theory has existed for many years, a new form of ownership was introduced in 1995. New variables introduced included a wide overlay of services and benefits to the consumer, smaller fraction sizes, and higher prices. The characteristics have differentiated the fractional industry from the resort timesharing, as individual weeks in a timeshare are sold at an average price of approximately $13,900. Of this amount, only about one - quarter of this price is allocated to the vacation home itself, with the rest left to fund administrative and sales and market costs. In a fractional interest, purchase prices are higher, but much more time is received and a greater portion of the price is allocated to the product itself. The following paragraphs present an overview of the existing fractional industry with data provided by RCI and Ragatz Associates. EXISTING PROJECTS Ragatz Associates 2004 edition of Fractional Interests: A Market Profile has identified 66 high -end fractional interest projects within the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean islands which all catered to upper- income consumers. Projects which have sales prices of $1,000 or more per square foot are categorized as private residence club projects while projects which sold for between $500 to $999 per square foot are considered to be high -end fractionals. The following lists the fractional interest projects in North America. Due to the scope of this market study and the positioning of the product being offered at the proposed subject, we have focused on the two higher segments of the fractional ownership market. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership nership Units, Newport Beach, California 19 Private Residence auks (>$1t000 per square foot) 1 Auberge Residence Club 2 Austria Haus 3 Cinnamon Hill Club 4 Club Residences at Vail 5 Exclusive Resorts 6 Fairmont Heritage Place 7 Four Seasons Aviara 8 Four Seasons Jackson Hole 9 Four Seasons Scottsdale 10 Hyatt Grand Aspen Lodge i 1 Hyatt Main Street Station 12 Hyatt Mountain Lodge 13 Les Saasons 14 Marriott Grand Residence Club 15 Poet's Cove Seaside Resort 16 Porches at More's Corner 17 Phillips Club at Lincoln Square 18 Residence Club at Tucker's Point 19 Ritz Carlton Aspen Highlands 20 Ritz Carlton Bachelor Gulch 21 Ritz Carlton Jupiter 22 Ritz Carlton St. Thomas 23 River Club 24 Roaring Fork Club 25 Sanctuary at Snowmass Club 26 Snowmass Club 27 St. Regis Residence Club Aspen 28 Storied Places at Natures Door 29 Timbers Club 30 Tonopalo 31 Valdoro Mountain Lodge High-end Fractionats (<$1, 000 per square foo0 32 Christie Club 33 Cirque at Copper Mountain 34 Club at Big Bear Village 35 Cottages at National Golf Club 36 Crescent Club 37 Deer Valley Club 38 Franz Klammer Lodge 39 Hemingways 40 Inn at Lost Creek 41 Lodge at Lincoln Peak 42 Mountain Club 43 Northstar Club 44 Owners Club at Barton Creek 45 Owners Club at Hilton Head 46 Owners Club at Puerto Vallarta 47 Owners Club at Homestead 48 Pine Meadows 49 Rancho Manana 50 Residence Club at Southshore 51 Residence Club at Seaside 52 Residence Club at Teton Pines 53 Rocks at Pinnacle Point 54 Scottsdale Club Villas 55 Sentinals Private Ownership Club 56 Teton Club 57 Villas of Gold Mountain 58 Villas at Trapp Family Lodge Kenaence Cabo San Lucas, Mexico Vail, CO Jamaica, West Indies Vail, CO Multiple destinations Acapulco, Mexico Carlsbad, CA Jackson Hole, WY Scottsdale, AZ Aspen, CO Breckenridge, CO Beaver Creek, CO Sun Valley, ID South Lake Tahoe, CA Vancouver, BC Steamboat Springs, CO New York, NY Tucker's Town, Bermuda Aspen, CO Beaver Creek, CO Jupiter, FL St. Thomas, USVI Telluride, CO Basalt, CO Snowmass Village, CO Snowmass, CO Aspen, CO Whistler, BC Snowmass Village, CO Tahoe Vista, CA Breckenridge, CO Steamboat Springs, CO Copper Mountain, MO Big Bear Lake, CA Village of Pinehurst, NC Los Cabos, Mexico, Vail, Co, and Scottsdale, AZ Park City, UT Telluride, CO Sun Valley, ID Telluride, CO Warren, VT Kirkwood, CA Northstar, CA Austin, TX Hilton Head, SC Puerto Vallarta, Mexico Hot Springs, VA Telluride, CO Cave Creek, AZ Zephyr Cove, NV Seaside, OR Jackson Hole, WY Scottsdale, AZ Scottsdale, AZ Kirkwood, CA Jackson Hole, WY Graegle, CA Stowe, VT Fl- Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units. Newport Beach. California 90 Among the existing projects, there are presently approximately 2,135 built units that comprise high -end fractional interests (HFI) and private residence clubs (PRC). Location A common thread among the 66 projects is their location in areas where overnight rental rates and real estate prices are high. The following table presents the locations of existing fractional ownership units. Location Comparison of Existing Fractional Ownership Units Location Type HFI' PRO Total Existing Western Ski 48.5% 52.9% 47.1% Golf- Oriented 24.2 17.6 18.3 Oceanfront 21.2 14.7 30.1 Multiple' 6.1 5.9 2.6 Urban 0.0 8.8 2.0 Total 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0% 'Deeded ownerships in single family homes in multiple resort locations. 'High -end Fractional Interests. 'Private Residence Clubs. Source: Ragatz Associates The majority of existing fractional projects are located within ski areas, however, 48.4 percent of the planned projects are either golf or ocean oriented. Of the existing projects, 28.8 percent are located within Colorado. Of the projects in North America, nine are located in California, up from only three projects in 2001. Also, of the 33 fractional interest projects starting sales in 2004 or later, 5 are planned for California. Planned Projects Currently, there are over 33 fractional interest projects under construction and in the planning phase. Some of these projects will be starting sales in 2004. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 31 Planned and Fractional Interest Projects Under Construction Name Location Argenta Lodge Solitude, UT Distinctive Retreats multiple locations Edgemont at Durango Durango, CO Four Seasons Celebration Celebration, FL Four Seasons Costa Rica Costa Rica Four Seasons Exuma Exuma, Bahamas Four Season Punta Mita Punta Mita, Mexico Kura Hulanda Curacao Las Villas de Tres Vidas Acapulco, Mexico Le Bear Resort Glen Arbor, MI Legendary Resorts multiple locations Little Red Ski Haus Aspen, CO Lodge at Cordillera Vail, CO mountain Grand Lodge & Spa Boyne Falls, MI Old Greenwood Truckee, CA Pelican Hill Newport, CA Private Quarters Club at Cimarron Hills Austin, TX Private Quarters Club at Lake Geneva Lake Geneva, WI Private Residence Club Miami Beach, FL Residence Club at Lighthouse Pointe Amelia Island, FL Residence Club at Little Nell Aspen, CO Residence Club at PGA West La Quinta, CA Ritz - Carlton Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA St. Regis Hotel & Residence Ft. Lauderdale, FL Storied Places at Lake Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV Storied Places at Mammoth Lake Mammoth Lake, CA Storied Places at San Destin San Destin, FL Storied Places at Tremblant Tremblant, Quebec Storied Places at Whistler Whistler, BC Swiss Hotel & Spa Vail, CO Villas of La Solana Punta Mita, Mexico Whiteface Lodge Lake Placid Lake Placid, NY Source: Raeatz Associates 2003 Fractional Sales During 2003, 65 fractional resorts were in active sales, containing a total of 1,710 units. This includes projects that were closing sales, taking pre- opening bids with refundable deposits, or taking non - refundable deposits on contracts closing once a certificate of occupancy is issued. Of these projects in active sales, 26 were high end fractionals and 29 were private residence clubs. New fractional interest sales totaled about $513 million in 2003, with private residence clubs providing the largest share with $428 million in sales. The high -end fractional interests had sales of $61 million. Total sales of new units increased by 37.6 percent over 2002 sales, largely credited to the popularity of membership clubs, which accounted for 27 percent of 2003 sales. Trend in Project Size The average size of a high -end fractional project active in sales in 2003 was 28 units. Once all under - construction and planned units are built, the average size will increase to 42 units, signifying a trend towards larger size projects to support more amenities and Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 32 flexibility in duration and time -of -year for fractional ownership. Likewise, the current average size of a private residence club active in sales is 51 units. Upon completion of planned and under - construction projects, this will increase to 75 units. Unit Size, Configuration and Orientation Fractional units are available in a variety of configurations ranging from a studio size to four bedrooms or more. The following table summarizes unit sizes and configuration of Ragatz Associates sample of fractional projects. One - Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three - Bedroom Four- Bedroom Total Associates I Size and Confl uration PRC HFI onion s . Ft. Proportion s . Ft. 4% 550 7% 49 20 700 18 810 45 1,410 34 1,440 24 1,910 28 2,160 7 3,250 13 2,840 100% 100% Due to the lower price of real estate or construction costs, there are a larger proportion of three- and four - bedroom units in the high end fractional projects than in the private residence club projects. The majority of units in both PRC and HFI units, however, are one- , two -, and three - bedroom units. A survey conducted by Ragatz Associates indicates that buyers prefer two and three bedroom units rather than larger units. In the resort market, fractional (or residence club) units are typically constructed and located adjacent to the resort itself and owners are entitled access to the resort's facilities and amenities. In a limited case, fractional units are located within the resort itself alongside the hotel rooms. The Four Seasons Residence Club in Jackson Hole is an example of fractional ownership units and hotel rooms housed within the same resort building, located on a designated floor. This club's ski location is a driving factor in the design and layout, providing owners convenient access to resort facilities, amenities and service during winter months without having to leave the comforts of home or travel through the snow. Interval Prices Fractional interests range in time, size, and quality tiers. In order to best analyze interval pricing, we will utilize three methods of comparison: • Price per fraction; • price per square foot; and • price per week of ownership Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fraction! Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 33 We will focus on analyzing the pricing of similarly sized units compared to those the subject will offer. The following data table lists the different pricing methods for two - bedroom units in the three tiers of fractional ownership. Pricing Analysis of Two-Bedroom Fractional Interests Price per Price per Price per Week Fraction Square Foot of Ownership Traditional $117,400 $ 400 $11,300 HFI 146,400 710 20,100 PRC 214,300 1,425 43,400 Source: Ragatz Associates Based on an average of 1,670 square feet for the private residence clubs, the average price for a fraction is $214,300 or $43,400 per week. In terms of price per square foot, the average is $1,425 per square foot. For the high -end units, Ragatz Associates reports an average price of $146,400 per fraction or $20,100 per week based on an average size of 2,110 square foot. The average price per square foot for the traditional fractional interest is $400. Average Fractional Share and Maintenance Fees As previously mentioned, fractional interest shares range from 1/25 (two weeks of ownership) to 1/4 (13 weeks of ownership). The average fraction size of the comparable projects, both HFI and PRC, is smaller than the average fraction size of traditional fractional interest, which averages 1/4. Among HFI resorts in active sales in 2003, the average fractional size was 1/9, and similarly, the average fractional size of PRC in active sales during 2003 was 1/10. The average weekly maintenance fee is $1,100 for all unit sizes and configurations. This varies, however, between each tier and between unit sizes. The subject will offer two-bedroom units, therefore we will discuss maintenance fees accordingly for that size. In 2003, high -end fractional two - bedroom units averaged $3,820 per year per fraction, or $700 per week of usage. In comparison, private residence club two - bedroom units had an average yearly maintenance fee of $6,730, or $1,690 per week of usage. Average Performance Characteristics The economics of fractional interests vary from that of resort timesharing. Sales and marketing costs average 19 percent, general and administrative costs average seven percent, and product costs average 54 percent. This translates to a total cost of roughly 80 percent, resulting in a 20 percent profit. Emerging Trends and Survey Conclusions Based on a study conducted by Ragatz Associates, the following trends have been identified: Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 34 • There is a greater desire for flexible offerings in terms of exchange, rentals, and locations; • 2003 showed tremendous growth in membership club companies, resulting in sales growth of 33.8 percent; • There is fairly low awareness of fractional interest projects, with an estimated penetration rate of five percent. This allows for a still largely- untapped market of over 100,000 purchases in the next 10 years; • The market has preferences for smaller shares, moderate sized homes (price sensitivity /value), equitable use, external exchange, beach /ski /golf location, and mix of resort and urban location; • The market realizes the importance of rental and resale and prefers non - overloading of services and certainty over flexibility; • There is high interest in the fractional product; and • The fractional ownership market is untapped, but finite. Southern California Fractional Interest Projects Currently, only four private residence club fractional interest projects as defined by Ragatz Associates exist in California: The Four Seasons Aviara in Carlsbad, Tonopalo in Tahoe Vista, Calistoga Ranch in Calistoga, and the Marriott Residence Vacation Club in South Lake Tahoe. The projects at Tahoe Vista and Lake Tahoe are heavily seasonal, while the Aviara project enjoys a location in a coastal city and the Calistoga Ranch is in Napa Valley, both with a year -round temperate climate. The minimum number of fractional products in coastal cities within Southern California allows the development of the subject an opportunity to fill this niche. The Four Seasons Aviara Residence Club is considered to be the most comparable and competitive to the proposed subject project due to its coastal positioning, quality level, and facilities and amenities base. Aviara, however, is not a true fractional and operates more as a traditional timeshare since the fractional product was only vaguely established six years ago when Aviara opened. The Four Seasons Residence Club is now moving the Aviara project in the direction of a true fractional model. The Four Seasons Aviara Resort is a 329 - room, four -star property, with multiple food and beverage outlets, retail space, 22,900 square feet of meeting space, swimming pool, spa, and an Arnold Palmer golf course. The Residence Club consists of 240 one- and two- bedroom units, of which 80 units are part of the phase two "The Meadows" development. A minimum two -week share at Aviara is priced between $70,000 and $100,000 and four -week shares are priced between $140,000 and $200,000. The minimum interval purchase is two weeks of ownership. The first phase of the project is sold out, and residences at the second phase of the project are currently for sale. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 35 Calistoga Ranch is a private vineyard retreat nestled on 157 acres in upper Napa Valley, which currently offers a luxury resort, but no golf course. The property began selling 1/5" and 1/1W' fractional ownerships in April 2003. The two-bedroom fractional ownerships were built in phases, six at a time, with the complete build -out plan of 27 units recently completed. Each unit is 3,000 square feet and offers two bedrooms, the master bedroom featuring an outside shower and garden, kitchen with wine storage, outdoor living room with fireplace, and bungalow style architecture. The 1/101" fractional price is $360,000, which translates into $3,600,000 for a whole ownership unit. The property is managed by Auberge Resorts and features fine - dining, a bath house, and other amenities. Additions to Supply We have identified five properties which will open in California that could be competitive with the proposed fractional ownership units at the subject. One will be located within the subject's competitive set in Newport Beach, with the others in Santa Barbara, Mammoth, Napa Valley, and La Quinta. The Inn at Pelican Hill is a private residence club in the development phase in Newport Beach. The Inn at Pelican Hill is being developed by the Irvine Company, and will be positioned as a "five- star" residence club. A Ritz Carlton Residence Club has been proposed in Santa Barbara. This 56 -unit project will be developed in three phases, with the first phase consisting of 18 units. One, two, and three bedroom units will be offered at 1/16 interest shares starting at $150,000 per share. The project will also include 20,000 square feet of retail space, a Ritz Carlton Spa, and three restaurants. If ultimately developed, the project is anticipated to be competitive with the proposed subject. The project has not broken ground and has not begun marketing itself. It is assumed that a two - bedroom unit at this product will range between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet. The Old Greenwood development by East West Partners in Truckee, California, will complete phase one of a seven phase, 174 unit fractional ownership project on July 4th. Phase one includes 10 two- and three - bedroom cabins ranging in size from 2500 to 3000 square feet and seven townhomes ranging in size from 1300 to 1800 square feet. Both will sell in fractions of 1/1 7"'s and will range from $53,000 to $190,000 per share for three weeks of ownership. Old Greenwood will adopt a combination of fixed and floating reservation system where each owner chooses one week that remains the same from year to year and two weeks that float. Pricing is reflected by the fixed week the owner takes, choosing from one of nine weeks in the summer or eight weeks in the winter that are deemed high season. Old Greenwood began sales on April 4'", three months prior to the estimated opening of phase one, and has already sold roughly 40 percent of its intervals, closing 64 percent of them on the first day of active sales. The Residence Club at PGA West is a fractional development that has 32 homes surrounded by world -class golf courses. Each 3,000 square -foot home has double master bedrooms, individual pools and Jacuzzis, personal golf carts, and comes with a full golf, Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 36 tennis, and spa membership. They will be sold in 1/91h shares, starting at $179,000 for 40 days or approximately six weeks. The Residence Club at PGA West is set to begin marketing in June and open the first unit in October. The Storied Place at Mammoth Lake has not chosen a site yet, and is therefore considered too speculative. SUBJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION According to current plans, the subject is proposed to have 12 fractional interest units, all of which will be two bedroom units. Each unit will be 1,500 square feet and located adjacent to the hotel rooms. Within the fractional ownership industry, especially within private residence club fractional ownership, consumers tend to favor smaller fraction sizes. Ownership intervals are anticipated to be sold in 1/8'h interests (or approximately six weeks per year of usage), and a floating program will be implemented. ESTIMATED SALES PACE OF THE SUBJECT PROJECT Estimating the sales pace for a fractional project is an inherently difficult process because of the large number of factors that affect the level of demand for the product. Among these factors are the demographics of the area, the desirability of the area as a destination, the quality and pricing of the facilities, and the quantity and quality of the sales and marketing effort. To estimate the sales pace of the subject project, we have examined the pace of sales at comparable fractional projects and for the fractional industry as a whole. Comparable Projects and Industry Sales Pace In addition to other factors, the rate at which fractional intervals are sold depends heavily on the quantity and quality of the sales and marketing effort. Examining the sales pace at comparable projects (deemed comparable in terms of location and /or pricing) provides insight into the sales pace that the subject might reasonably be expected to achieve. One example of a recently opened fractional project is Storied Places at Tonopalo. Tonopalo finished its 19 units in March, 2004. In its three months of sales effort, it has sold roughly half of its 133 intervals, including its pre -sale period. This equates to a sales pace of 11 intervals per month during the 6 months of sales. According to Ragatz Associates, Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Hotel Marina Park Additions to Supply 2004 -2009 California Number Fraction It of Interest Cost per New Supply Location of Units Size Weeks Available Square Foot' Inn at Pelican Hills Villas and Casitas Newport Beach N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ritz Carlton Residence Club Santa Barbara 56 1/16 3 150,000 $1,200 - $2,400 Old Greenwood Truckee 174 1/17 3 53,000 - 190,000 $690 - $1,070 Residence Club at PGA West La Quinta 32 1/9 .5 -6 169,000 $540 Storied Place at Mammoth Lake Mammoth Lake n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 'Cost per square foot is derived by multiplying fractional cost by number of intervals, then dividing by square footage. Source: PKF Consulting SUBJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION According to current plans, the subject is proposed to have 12 fractional interest units, all of which will be two bedroom units. Each unit will be 1,500 square feet and located adjacent to the hotel rooms. Within the fractional ownership industry, especially within private residence club fractional ownership, consumers tend to favor smaller fraction sizes. Ownership intervals are anticipated to be sold in 1/8'h interests (or approximately six weeks per year of usage), and a floating program will be implemented. ESTIMATED SALES PACE OF THE SUBJECT PROJECT Estimating the sales pace for a fractional project is an inherently difficult process because of the large number of factors that affect the level of demand for the product. Among these factors are the demographics of the area, the desirability of the area as a destination, the quality and pricing of the facilities, and the quantity and quality of the sales and marketing effort. To estimate the sales pace of the subject project, we have examined the pace of sales at comparable fractional projects and for the fractional industry as a whole. Comparable Projects and Industry Sales Pace In addition to other factors, the rate at which fractional intervals are sold depends heavily on the quantity and quality of the sales and marketing effort. Examining the sales pace at comparable projects (deemed comparable in terms of location and /or pricing) provides insight into the sales pace that the subject might reasonably be expected to achieve. One example of a recently opened fractional project is Storied Places at Tonopalo. Tonopalo finished its 19 units in March, 2004. In its three months of sales effort, it has sold roughly half of its 133 intervals, including its pre -sale period. This equates to a sales pace of 11 intervals per month during the 6 months of sales. According to Ragatz Associates, Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 37 private residence clubs in 2003 had an average sales pace of eight fractionals per month, followed by five per month for traditional and four per month for high end fractional interests. In further analyzing sales pace, multiple location clubs had an average sales pace of 11 per month, beach destination eight per month, urban destinations seven per month, and ski and golf destinations five and four per month, respectively. Other considerations that contributed to our estimate of sales pace include the following • The area's relatively high - income demographic; • Proximity to Los Angeles and Orange County • Unique marina - oriented hotel and fractional ownership concept; • The lack of high -end fractional products in Southern California; • The area's amenities base including shopping, dining, and recreational options; • The high quality of the proposed units; and • The small size of this fractional project, in conjunction with the hotel units, will allow it to be absorbed into the market. We recommend that the subject develop its fractional intervals in one phase of 12 units, their opening correlating with the opening of the 98 hotel rooms. Roughly 10 percent of the units are estimated to be sold during the presale period. It is further estimated that the subject will average about four to five sales per month during the first year of sales and three to four sales per month during the second year. We have estimated that the subject project will sell out over a period of two years. ESTIMATED INTERVAL PRICE OF THE SUBJECT PROJECT In order to estimate a price for the interval project, we have utilized two approaches: a comparison approach and a rack rate approach. The two approaches are discussed in the following paragraphs. Comparison Approach Based on the location, marina orientation, and proposed facilities and amenities of the subject project, we believe that the interval units at the Marina Park Hotel should fall within the higher - priced category. We recognize the fact that the subject site is not located within a destination ski -resort area nor offers golf on -site, as well as that it is a single project without options to swap, and thus we have positioned it at the lower end of the high -end category range. Using the foregoing figures of the existing high -end interval projects as a guideline, we estimate that the subject can achieve an average interval prices as follows. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 38 Proposed Marina Park Fractional Units Average Interval Prices Unit Price Per Share (1 /8ths) $/SF Two-Bedroom $190,000 $1,013 Based on the proposed size of the units, this translates to $1,013 per square foot for the two - bedroom units. This is within the range of the high -end comparable interval projects, which had an average of roughly $1,300 per square foot. Rack Rate Approach Another method used to estimate interval price is the rack rate approach. We have estimated that the fractional interest units, if used as rentals, could achieve a rack rate of approximately $450 per night for the two - bedroom units. To achieve the weekly rate, the rack rate is multiplied by seven. The industry rule of thumb indicates that the price of the interval should be ten times the weekly rental rate. This number then is multiplied by six to equate to 1 /8ths per share. The calculation is presented in the following table. Year Round I Average Weekly I Rule of Thumb I Six Week Price 150 This method indicates an average sales price of roughly $189,000 for the two-bedroom units, which supports our estimates from the comparison approach. Therefore, we estimate that the subject can achieve an average interval price of $190,000 for the two - bedroom units. Taking into account that interval sale prices are typically discounted during the pre - construction period, we have applied an eight percent discount to the average interval price during the pre -sale period. Taking into consideration the foregoing information, industry trends, and current and projected market conditions, the estimated sales pace and revenues for the subject are presented in the following page. In 2006 and beyond, the average interval price is inflated by the annual inflation rate of 3.0 percent per year. The following table summarizes the sales pace as set forth by the comparable projects approach, the estimated average interval price, and the resulting interval sales revenue for the proposed subject. Our forecast assumes the opening of both the fractional units and the hotel in second quarter 2006. The projections for interval sales are based on fiscal years from April 1 to March 31. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 39 Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units Fractional Interest Interval Sales Presale Year 1 Year 2 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 REVENUES Two Bedrooms 12 12 12 Number of Intervals 8 8 8 Total Intervals Available 96 96 96 Percentage Sold 10% 50% 40% Annual Intervals Sold 10 48 38 Cumulative Intervals Sold 10 58 96 Intervals Remaining to be Sold 86 38 0 Average Interval Price $ 190,000 $181,394 $203,083 $209,175 Inflation /Discount 3.0% -8.000% 3.000% 3.0000/6 Gross Intervals Sales $1,814,000 $9,748,000 $7,949,000 Total Gross Annual Interval Sales $1,814,000 $9,748,000 $7,949 000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS OF FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP UNITS Basis of Projections To prepare estimates of future operating results for the proposed fractional ownership units, we have incorporated our previous projections of sales pace and fractional price. We estimate that the subject property can achieve a three year sales pace, including a year of pre - sales, for its 96 1/8 fractional ownership interests in the proposed 12 units. Furthermore, we have estimated a sale price per fraction of $190,000, stated in 2004 dollars. This equates to approximately $1,013 per square foot. Based on this sale price and pace, we have projected the operating results from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2016. This takes into consideration a one -year pre -sale period prior to the opening of the fractional units. The estimates of revenues, costs and expenses are based on the proposed facilities and services and the operational characteristics thereof. The basis for our projections is the operating results of comparable fractional ownership projects presented earlier in this report and the 2004 edition of Fractional Interest: A Market Profile by Ragatz Associates. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 40 Revenues The estimated revenues from the fractional ownership units are derived from cash sales of the fractional ownership interest. These projections assume that all sales will be a 100 percent cash. Expenses The expenses include sales and marketing, administrative and general expenses, and maintenance fees on unsold units. Sales and marketing is projected to be 25 percent of sales during presales, then trend down and stabilize at 20 percent of revenues for the remaining two years of active sales. Administrative and general expenses include overhead for the fractional project, as well as the salary and wages of the director of sales and administrative staff; cash overages and shortages; credit card commissions; bad debt expense; security; data processing costs; accounting payroll expense; and professional fees. We estimate administration cost of ten percent in year one, 8.0 percent in year two, and stabilization at 7.0 percent thereafter. Home owners association (HOA) fees are projected to run at $8,000 per fraction, which includes the engineering salaries, wages and benefits, maintenance of the buildings and individual units, grounds and landscape, electrical and mechanical equipment, engineering, refrigeration, operating supplies, cleaning, waste removal and utilities. These costs are not reflected on the income statement, but instead are passed directly onto the fractional owners and managed by the homeowners' association. There is, however, an estimated maintenance expense per unsold unit of $15,000 per year to upkeep the units prior to sale. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING RESULTS The previous analysis provided for the income and expenses incurred in the operation of the fractional project during its three year sales period. In the following analysis, we provide estimated income and expenses for the project during each year of the 11 -year holding period anticipated for a typical investor. This includes one year of pre -sales prior to the opening of both the fractional units and the subject hotel. Our estimate of the performance for the project considers the effects of inflation. Inflation To portray price level changes during the holding period, we have assumed an inflation rate of 3.0 percent throughout the projection period. This rate reflects the consensus of several well- recognized economists for the current long -term outlook for the future movement of prices and is consistent with the inflation rates of the 1990s and early 2000s. It should be noted that inflation is caused by many factors and unanticipated events and circumstances can affect the forecasted rate. Therefore, the estimated operating results computed over the projection period can vary from the actual operating results, and the variations may be material. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California 41 Statement of Estimated Annual Operating Results The estimated annual operating results for the proposed resort hotel from April 1, 2005 to May 31, 2016 are presented on the following pages. Proposed Marina Park Fractional Units $1,814,000 Statement of Estimated Operating Results $7,949,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 4 — Presales Opening Year 3 Year 11 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 REVENUES $453,500 Interval Sales Cash Revenue $1,589,800 Gross Interval Sales $1,814,000 $9,748,000 $7,949,000 $0 Total Interval Sales Cash Revenue $1,814,000 $9,748,000 $7,949,000 $0 TOTAL REVENUES $1,814,000 $9,748,000 $7,949,000 $0 EXPENSES Sales and Marketing Expense $453,500 $1,949,600 $1,589,800 $0 Administrative and General Expense $181,400 $779,840 $556,430 $0 Maintenance Fees on Unsold Units $0 $684,281 $302,357 $0 TOTAL EXPENSES $634,900 $2,729,440 $2,146,230 $0 NET OPERATING INCOME $1,179,100 $7,018,560 $5,802,770 $0 NET CASH FLOW $1,179,100 $7,018,560 $5,802,770 $0 Source: PKF Consulting COMBINED NET OPERATING INCOME The spreadsheet on the following page shows the combined projected operating revenues, expenses, and net operating income for the Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units. Projections are presented for 11 fiscal years, beginning 2005/06 through 2015/16. Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California Q K - O r O O p O ° n 0 O o O ae °o O O O ° O ° O O w e � O O P H O O O C O O d � O � pp •- P C L ai ` C w d 3 c e e d 0 0 O � A y E G 00 A « 0 O O g W LL p O O C 0 � � � m � n y = A Y e e W 0 P � m A 6 E p E .q o V o 0 O °o °o O N � V n n V of o o o >v o o = w 0 0 0 o 0 0 O O o w O O O V W W_ d d 7 > C d v m K C C � O � � LL F r �o v >m oo� C d a O de m O+ O W° w dQ O O 0 - A w z Z O O O O O O O n � � n N n N � O 0 O v t0 w w w ae C o FO LL e 6 P O 6 0 Q 0 S Q f O O O O O O O O N O P O 0 a i s O O OC ry n O OC O •- Q Q O O O O O O O O � T P ai vi ri ' m e e >y ae e 0 0 w P o 0 ra° o w o °0 w n n ae o v O O O O O O O O O N O N O O N O 1� ¢ D V m V O 0 O O at Nw ry � w vt e > 8 e > d = 0 o y P 0 n a o y o o M m o ae Q P n ,o o ae o n o O O o 0 0 o O v O O P a C O o O O P P O m O V W 1� vl N O ry w w w > e e e > e 0 op°j 0 0 0 0 o ae n o n n 0 ae n ,o Q � Q °0 ° °0 °0 O w P P w _o V V V P W C O V Y ti 0 N v C d a n � w w 7 Z 0 - A w z Z _ W 7 C C 2 6 O - Z Q v t0 Z c Q C r 6 FO LL W C O V Y ti 0 N Q a � L b0 1 c A � d O C O 9 = q C A ' 6 W Y A � � O [ q C r d f d f r � � r u o a r E O f V � ae ae ae ae O o d o n u�z O O� P Oi Y O O [e n a`pe O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O P P O O (T w w w w a° Be o °o o y uaQi u o fe o n a a ao n 0 0 v o o O o o O °o °o °O °O °O 0 0° w w w w a` s as s ae ae O 0 0 o fe Oi m o fe 0 0 f e o o f e n n • < � O � 0 n o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n n d d N OJ [O t/1 In ll cl m r r r\ f w V w w w w o o y c, m y .- o w a o+ o ec 0 0 e ry S O Q O ry O O O O O O 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 m o m m n o P 0 V w w w w w w o o v o O v o 0 ec °m m 0 °o °o °O °o o o o P IT f+1 d d 0 0 � w w w w w w � u � C N W ° n C w w Z Z 0 C v u io o o � 5 f°- �°- r ee We appreciate the opportunity to work on this assignment and look forward to answering any questions you may have regarding our findings and conclusions presented herein. Sincerely, PKF Consulting e�A By Bruce Baltin Senior Vice President Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This report is made with the following assumptions and limiting conditions: Economic and Social Trends - The consultant assumes no responsibility for economic, physical or demographic factors which may affect or alter the opinions in this report if said economic, physical or demographic factors were not present as of the date of the letter of transmittal accompanying this report. The consultant is not obligated to predict future political, economic or social trends. Information Furnished by Others - In preparing this report, the consultant was required to rely on information furnished by other individuals or found in previously existing records and/or documents. Unless otherwise indicated, such information is presumed to be reliable. However, no warranty, either express or implied, is given by the consultant for the accuracy of such information and the consultant assumes no responsibility for information relied upon later found to have been inaccurate. The consultant reserves the right to make such adjustments to the analyses, opinions and conclusions set forth in this report as may be required by consideration of additional data or more reliable data that may become available. Hidden Conditions - The consultant assumes no responsibility for hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, ground water or structures that render the subject property more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for arranging for engineering, geologic or environmental studies that may be required to discover such hidden or unapparent conditions. Hazardous Materials - The consultant has not been provided any information regarding the presence of any material or substance on or in any portion of the subject property or improvements thereon, which material or substance possesses or may possess toxic, hazardous and/or other harmful and/or dangerous characteristics. Unless otherwise stated in the report, the consultant did not become aware of the presence of any such material or substance during the consultant's inspection of the subject property. However, the consultant is not qualified to investigate or test for the presence of such materials or substances. The presence of such materials or substances may adversely affect the value of the subject property. The value estimated in this report is predicated on the assumption that no such material or substance is present on or in the subject property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. The consultant assumes no responsibility for the presence of any such substance or material on or in the subject property, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover the presence of such substance or material. Unless otherwise stated, this report assumes the subject property is in compliance with all federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and rules. Zoning and Land Use - Unless otherwise stated, the projections were formulated assuming the hotel to be in full compliance with all applicable zoning and land use regulations and restrictions. Licenses and Permits - Unless otherwise stated, the property is assumed to have all required licenses, permits, certificates, consents or other legislative and /or administrative authority from any local, state or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. Engineering Survey - No engineering survey has been made by the consultant. Except as specifically stated, data relative to size and area of the subject property was taken from sources considered reliable and no encroachment of the subject property is considered to exist. Subsurface Rights - No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights or whether the property is subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, except as is expressly stated. Maps, Plats and Exhibits - Maps, plats and exhibits included in this report are for illustration only to serve as an aid in visualizing matters discussed within the report. They should not be considered as surveys or relied upon for any other purpose, nor should they be removed from, reproduced or used apart from the report. STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (continued) Legal Matters - No opinion is intended to be expressed for matters which require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate consultants. Right of Publication - Possession of this report, or a copy of it, does not carry with it the right of publication. Without the written consent of the consultant, this report may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed. In any event, this report may be used only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety for its stated purpose. Testimony in Court - Testimony or attendance in court or at any other hearing is not required by reason of rendering this appraisal, unless such arrangements are made a reasonable time in advance of said hearing. Further, unless otherwise indicated, separate arrangements shall be made concerning compensation for the consultant's time to prepare for and attend any such hearing. Archeological Significance - No investigation has been made by the consultant and no information has been provided to the consultant regarding potential archeological significance of the subject property or any portion thereof. This report assumes no portion of the subject property has archeological significance. Compliance With the American Disabilities Act - The Americans with Disabilities Act ( "ADA ") became effective January 26, 1992. We assumed that the property will be in direct compliance with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. Definitions and Assumptions - The definitions and assumptions upon which our analyses, opinions and conclusions are based are set forth in appropriate sections of this report and are to be part of these general assumptions as if included here in their entirety. Dissemination of Material - Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be disseminated to the general public through advertising or sales media, public relations media, news media or other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the consultant(s). Distribution and Liability to Third Parties -The party for whom this report was prepared may distribute copies of this appraisal report only in its entirety to such third parties as may be selected by the party for whom this report was prepared; however, portions of this report shall not be given to third parties without our written consent. Liability to third parties will not be accepted. Use in Offering Materials - This report, including all cash flow forecasts, market surveys and related data, conclusions, exhibits and supporting documentation, may not be reproduced or references made to the report or to PKF Consulting in any sale offering, prospectus, public or private placement memorandum, proxy statement or other document ( "Offering Material ") in connection with a merger, liquidation or other corporate transaction unless PKF Consulting has approved in writing the text of any such reference or reproduction prior to the distribution and filing thereof. Limits to Liability - PKF Consulting cannot be held liable in any cause of action resulting in litigation for any dollar amount which exceeds the total fees collected from this individual engagement. Legal Expenses - Any legal expenses incurred in defending or representing ourselves concerning this assignment will be the responsibility of the client. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MARINA PARK RESORT July 21, 2004 Prepared for City of Newport Beach Prepared by Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue • Berkeley, California 94704 • (510) 548 -5912 1029 J Street, Suite 310 • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 441 -0323 www.adeusa.com EXHIBIT G CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................... ..............................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION....... Land Use Overview.......... Phasing.......... ............................... FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS .............. ..............................2 ............. ............................... 2 ............. ............................... 3 ............. ............................... 5 General Fund and Tidelands Fund Fiscal Impact Analysis ........... 5 REFERENCES................................................. ............................... 17 LIST OF TABLES 1 Proposed Marina Park Resort and Community Facilities ......................... ..............................3 2 Projected Phasing For Marina Park Fractionals and Rental Occupancy Stabilization ..............................4 3 Impact of Existing Marina Park Land Uses, 2004 ........6 4 Impact of Marina Park Hotel at Stabilization (2009), in 2004 Dollars ...................... ..............................8 5 Net Impact of Marina Park Hotel at Stabilization (2009), in 2004 Dollars ...................... ..............................9 6 Marina Park Fiscal Impact Projections, 2006 - 2014.... 11 INTRODUCTION This memo presents our analysis of the fiscal impacts of the proposed Marina Park resort on the City of Newport Beach, in comparison with the impacts of the site's existing uses. This analysis estimates the annual operating costs and revenues for all services provided to the existing uses and the proposed project through the Newport Beach General Fund, the Tidelands Fund, the Gas Tax Fund, and the Measure M Fund. Based on the assumptions and inputs outlined below, it projects the fiscal performance of the development from its initial year of operation through five years after rent stabilization, for a total of nine years. This projection reflects escalations in costs and revenues as the development ages, and is thus presented in future dollars. Many of the inputs used to estimate costs and revenues, including projected room rents, occupancy rates, food and beverage income, and other income, were obtained from market analyses conducted by PKF Consulting (PKF) and Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). Both are well- respected firms with extensive experience in California. PKF is an international consulting group that provides services specifically for the hospitality industry. Their projections are based on experience combined with information from several proprietary databases that track occupancies, room rates, and other factors in hospitality sub - markets throughout the United States. KMA is a real estate advisory firm that specializes in several areas including infill development projects. They frequently assist cities in negotiations with developers. Based on our knowledge of these companies and their past work, we believe their projections are reliable. The relevant assumptions they used in reaching their projections are noted in the Fiscal Analysis Methodology section below. L PROJECT DESCRIPTION LAND USE OVERVIEW The site of the proposed Marina Park Resort in Newport Beach is roughly bounded by Newport Bay and a public beach to the north, Veterans Memorial Park and the American Legion Building to the east, 18`h Street to the west, and Balboa Blvd. to the south. Encompassing 8.1 acres, the site currently houses the 56 -space Marina Park Mobile Home Park, the Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, the Balboa Power Squadron (a boating club), Las Arenas Park, four tennis courts, and a half basketball court. The mobile home court currently has 24 full-time and 32 part -time residents. The primary component of the proposed project is a 110 - room luxury resort hotel. Up to 12 of the rooms may be sold as fractionals, while the remaining 98 rooms will be available for rent. The 19,830 - square foot hotel lobby will include a registration area, retail, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, and supporting facilities. Other uses associated with the hotel include a business administration building (2,154 square feet) and a spa villa (6,191 square feet). The project also includes reconstruction of the Girl Scout House and tennis courts, a tot park, and a shared parking facility for the resort and community uses. A summary of the proposed uses is presented in Table 1. `• TABLE 1 Proposed Marina Park Resort and Community Facilities Land Use Rooms /Square Feet/ Spaces /Acres RESORT Luxury Resort Hotel 110 rooms /66,949 sf Hotel Lobby Building Lobby 3,000 sf Registration 483 sf Retail 600 sf CaM 550 sf Restaurant 1,124 sf Bar 1,154 sf Ballroom 3,603 sf Supporting Facilities 8.316 sF Total 19,830 sf Business Administration Building 2,154 sf Spa Villa 6,191 sf COMMUNITY Community Center /Girl Scout House 6,191 sf Tot Park 3,000 sf Public Tennis Courts 4 courts PARKING Structure 100 spaces Surface 100 spaces Handicap 9 spaces Total Parking 209 spaces TOTAL ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA 101,315 sf PROJECT SITE AREA 8.10 Acres OVERALL FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.285 Source: ADP:, based on information provided by Michael Brandman Associates PHASING This analysis estimates the fiscal impact of the Marina Park resort during each year of its development. Although it is expected that all of the project components will be in place when the hotel begins operations in 2007, it will take several years for rental rates to stabilize. According to PKF Consulting and Keyser Marston Associates, this should occur during the fourth year of hotel operations, in 2010. In addition, fractionals will be released over a period of three years, beginning the year before development is complete (2006), and ending during the second year of operations (2008). A summary of expected fractional sales, occupancy J 3 rates, and number of occupied rooms through stabilization is presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 Projected Phasing For Marina Park Fractionals and Rental Occupancy Stabilization Source: ADE, based on information provided by PKF Consulting and Keyser Marston Associates FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GENERAL FUND AND TIDELANDS FUND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This fiscal analysis addresses the revenues generated and costs incurred by the Marina Park resort development as they impact the City of Newport Beach General Fund and Tidelands Fund. The capital costs stemming from construction of public infrastructure and facilities related to the project would be fully funded by the project developer and are not detailed in this report. SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS Using the Newport Beach fiscal impact model developed for the City's General Plan Update, ADE estimated the annual costs and revenues associated with both Marina Park's existing land uses and those associated with the proposed development. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Next, we considered the net impact of the hotel project at stabilization when compared to the existing uses (Table 5). Finally, we estimated the annual costs and revenues of the proposed project over tune, from the first year of operations to five years after stabilization, for a total of nine years (Table 6). Existing Site Impacts The impact analysis of the site indicates that the current land uses generate positive net revenues of $696,000, with $718,000 in revenues against $21,000 in expenditures. This positive impact occurs despite the predominance of residential land uses (the mobile home park) because the City owns the site and collects land lease revenue from both the residents and the Balboa Power Squadron (Table 3). i TABLE 3 Impact of Existing Marina Park Land Uses, 2004 Revenues Mobile Power Total Home Park Squadron GENERAL FUND Property Tax $570 $570 $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 Business Licenses $432 $432 $0 Forfeitures Use or Property $1,4588 $1,458 $0 ry OWPOW. e- ... Interest Income $1 $1 $0 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $13,312 $13,312 $0 TIDELANDS FUND $0 Licenses, Permits, and Fees $318 $318_ $0 $0 Use of Money and Property $703,413 $701,479 $1,935 $0 OF MEASURE M $3 $3 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $704,599 $702,664 $1,935 TOTAL REVENUE $717,911 $715,976 $1,935 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,841 $2,841 $0 {yam yY3 {." 9 ??�...... * X Pd( i is tJ 'i iar k, h TY Fire $0 $0 $0 Community Development $622 $622 $0 �CIP Streets $146 $146 $0 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,894 $20,894 $0 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources Oil and Gas CIP GAS TAX MEASURE M SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $230 $230 $0 $175 $175 $0 $118 $118 $0 $523 $523 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $21,417 $21,417 $0 NET $696,494 $694,559 $1,935 Source: ADE, City of Newport Beach Project Impact & Net Impact at Stabilization Analysis of the proposed project indicates that in the year that hotel rents stabilize (year 4), the Marina Park resort will generate positive net revenues of about $2.12 million (in 2004 dollars), with $2.14 million in revenue against $26,000 in expenditures. Large revenues are generated due to both the prospective land lease terms and the transient occupancy tax generated by the project (Table 4). Subtracting the revenues generated by existing site uses from this amount results in a net revenue increase of $1.42 million for the Newport Beach budget, including the General Fund, Tidelands Fund, Gas Tax Fund and Measure M Fund (fable 5). ►tea TABLE 4 Impact of Marina Park Hotel at Stabilization (2010), in 2004 Dollars Revenues Lodging GENERAL FUND Property Tax $66,980 BONN" 5f `l`art = IN 7th Transient Occupancy Tax $903,301 R, ... ,. t 1X? Business Licenses $253 ff Other Intergovernmental $514 ip Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,027 Use of Property $1,736 v :�I:TWF�'I?t1�v Interest Income $15,327 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $1,043,964 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $379 + +p Use of Money and Property $1,096,753 � MEASURE M $860 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,098,003 TOTAL REVENUE $2,141,966 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,286 i T y y Fire $4,947 Community Development $740 rMmtF...:-: CIP Streets $845 ;m -St? SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $24,239 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 Oil and Gas $0 CIP $254 GAS TAX $1,009 MEASURE M $684 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,947 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $26,185 NET (COST) /REVENUE $2,115,781 Sourer AUE, City of Newport Beach, Keyser Marston Associates, PKI',' Consulting Note: Public uses are not listed because they do not generate any costs or revenues in this scenario. TABLE 5 Net Impact Of Marina Park Hotel at Stabilization (2010), in 2004 Dollars Revenues Existing Proposed Site Project Net Impact GENERAL FUND Property Tax $570 $66,980 $66,410 Transient Occupancy Tax Other Business Licenses $277 $253 and Forfeitures Use of Property $1,458 $1,736 Interest Income $1 $15,327 $15,327 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $13,312 $1,043,964 $1,030,652 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $318 $379 $61 Use of Monev and ProDertv $703.413 MEASURE M $3 $860 $857 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $704,599 $1,098,003 $393,404 TOTAL REVENUE $717,911 $2,141,966 $1,424,056 Expenditures $24,239 $3,345 TIDELANDS FUND GENERAL FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 General Government $2.841 $2286 ($555) Fire $0 $4,947 $4,947 5!' ItWP+Q 'ft alt�t�a Community Development $622 $740 $118 tl: '4 a: ,Gt: s Tn Iti dp, N I t r �grO r Y '"'14 � rt Cn bt �' � k'M HE ux ? ? ,Lt CIP Streets $$1446 $69,9y ryg$84455 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,894 $24,239 $3,345 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 $0 Oil and Gas $0 $0 $0 CIP $230 $254 $24 GASTAX $175 $1,009 $834 MEASURE M $118 $684 $565 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $523 $1,947 $1,423 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $21,417 $26,185 $4,768 NET fCOSTVREVENUE $696.494 $2.115.781 $1.419287 Source ADL, City of Newport Beach, Keyser Marston Associates,PKC Consulting C 9 Project Impact Over Time Based on our projections, the project will initially generate a negative fiscal impact for the City, but by the time the project commences operations in 2007, the fiscal impact will be a net positive. In year one of operations the proposed project will generate $2.01 million in net revenues, with $2.04 in revenue against $29,000 in expenses (in 2007 dollars). Net revenues are predicted to increase steadily through five years after stabilization. At this point, the development is expected to generate $2.93 million (in 2014 dollars) in net revenues, with $2.96 million in revenues against $36,000 in expenses (Table 6). [Phis space intentionally left blank] 10 TABLE 6 Marina Park Fiscal Impact Projections, 2006 -2014 Development Operations Revenues Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (2005 ) (2006) (2007) (2008 (2009) GENERALFUND Transient Occupancy Tax $790,870 $897,542 Business Licenses Interest Income $16,749 $17,251 $17,769 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $0 $0 $937,669 $1,052,865 $1,182,886 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Use of Money and $426 MEASURE M $939 $967 $997 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $550,000 $550,000 $1,101,365 $1,101,406 $1,240,316 TOTAL REVENUE $550,000 $550,000 $2,039,034 $2,154,271 $2,423,202 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,498 $2,573 $2,650 .7VFiire qg,�, _ $5,406 $5,5688 p $5,735 �lI §'�0', S R 1 I- u1,1i9 .. rl111' 1 1 l . I;i T-9 1$ "l11 Lii811-01A,ii � Community Development i $809 $8333 $;955.�8t uIrl1 v ��.. 1£u.��' �s. �,,r II. �!F.�.i 4. ',,..,El;3i.'!,N( CIP Streets $923 $951 $979 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $0 $0 $26,486 $27,281 $28,099 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 $0 Oil and Gas $0 $0 $0 CIP $1,080,000 $0 $278 $286 $294 GAS TAX $1,102 $1,136 $1,170 MEASURE M $747 $770 $793 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,080,000 $0 $2,127 $2,191 $2,257 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,080,000 $0 $28,614 $29,472 $30,356 NET(COST) /REVENUE ($530,000) $550,000 $2,010,420 $2,124,799 $2,392,846 CUMULATIVE NET ($530,000) $20,000 $2,030,420 $4,155,219 $6,548,065 Source: ADE, City of Newport Beach, Keyser Marston Associates, PKP Consulting *Revenues from Use of Money and Property may change based on credits given to the developer for option payments. Revenues Year 4 Year S Year 6 (2010) (2011) (2012) Year 7 (2013) Year B (2014) Year 9 (2014) GENERALFUND $32,575 $33,552 MEASURE M Property Tax $75 430 , $78,478 $80 047 $81,648 $83,281 r. ." }}yy •Lr :Xr�_. ='r - �i(i9.TM- 8 " -$76939 - .F.:;N J mA1$1- .. io4!- Transient Occupancy Tax $1078589 $1111,350 $1146631 $1179392 $1214673 $1252474 $0 Oil and Gas $0 GENERAL FUND Business Licenses $302 $311 $321 $330 $340 $350 :. �n.. '�1'i1'L°� i dFT...'!.R?'r. �"�.�iTr 191 ��4rz:"` �`i . . RY $3,165 `$2,896 , NFire n. . .:. Other Intergovernmental $613 $632 $651 $670 $690 $711 and Forfeitures Use of Property Interest Income SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees 1,340 $1 99 $18,302 $18,851 $19,416 $19,999 $20,599 $21,217 $1,246,547 $1,283,593 41,323,272 $1,360,547 $1,400,462 $1,443,020 $452 $466 $480 $494 $509 $524 Use of Money and Property* $1 309 581 $1,349,182 $1,391,166 $1 431 627 $11,474,08 $1 51979,1_ �yc�y' NEW 1 V $32,575 $33,552 MEASURE M $1,026 $1,057 $1,089 $1,122 $1,155 $1,190 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,311,072 $1,350,718 $1,392,749 $1,433,257 $1,476,177 $1,521,521 TOTAL REVENUE $2,557,620 $2,634,311 $2,716,021 $2,793,804 $2,876,639 $2,964,541 Expenditures $0 Oil and Gas $0 GENERAL FUND $0 $0 $0 General Government $2,730_ $2,812 $2,983 $3,073 $3,165 `$2,896 , NFire $331 $5 908 $6 085 $6267 $6 $6 649 $G 848 � }�-n � 1+id{l(Ytiu LNt _ r� $.44' X4{55 $1,278 .n..r?8 $884 $910 $937 $966 $966 $995 $1024 _Communi�ty y�Development £. �r.R�.'.. fkY, 3 xr� 4;K #(jam mfflm �; IF A tF $841 r�fir .,..��,.� CIP Streets ..... �' ...r.r.9 1 .....r.-1-1 ;� $1,009 $1,039 $1.070 $1,102 $1A35 $1.170 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $28,942 $29,811 $30,705 $31,626 $32,575 $33,552 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Oil and Gas $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP $303 $312 $322 $331 $341 $352 GAS TAX $1,205 $1,241 $1,278 $1,316 $1,356 $1,397 MEASURE M $816 $841 $866 $892 $919 $946 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $2,324 $2,394 $2,466 $2,540 $2,616 $2,695 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $31,267 $32,205 $33,171 $34,166 $35,191 $36,247 NET $2,526,353 $2,602,106 $2,682,850 $2,759,638 $2,841,448 $2,928,294 CUMULATIVE NET $9,074,418 $11,676,524 $14,359,374 $17,119,012 $19,960,460 $22,888,754 Source: AllG, City of Newport Beach, Keyser Marston Associates, PKP Consulting *Revenues from Use of Money and Property may change based on credits given to the developer for option payments 12 FISCAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The Newport Beach fiscal impact model, developed for the City's General Plan Update, was used as the framework for the analysis. Known characteristics about existing and proposed uses —such as building square footages, assessments, population, and number of employees —were input into the model to generate costs and revenues. Where costs and revenue items specific to the project were known, they were substituted for the model - generated outputs. In the case of the proposed project, this procedure was followed for property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), and use of property. The first portion of the analysis looks at fiscal impacts of the existing site and proposed site at stabilization, and calculates the difference between the two. For a valid comparison, both of these impacts were calculated in 2004 dollars. The second portion of the analysis looks at the fiscal impacts of the proposed project over time and, thus, must take inflation into account. To this end, we utilized the three percent inflation rate assumed by PKF Consulting in their calculations. This rate is consistent with Consumer Price Index trends over the past several years. PKF AND KMA MODEL INPUT ASSUMPTIONS As noted above, our fiscal impact analysis utilized data and projections from reports previously prepared by PKF Consulting and Keyser Marston Associates. These inputs included annual occupancy rates, average daily room rates, annual food and beverage income, and other annual income, as well as the expected rate of inflation. In conducting their market analysis of the proposed hotel, PKF utilized data from a variety of sources. These included information from PKF's proprietary database, a five -year history of occupancy and average daily rate trends in the project submarket, and interviews with management of key competitive hotels, developers and city officials. Due to its location, facilities, and services, the project was assumed to be a destination resort and part of the area's coastal resort market. Competitive supply data was thus drawn from similar properties judged to be part of the same market. 13 Based on population, job, tourism, and other economic trends in the area, PKF believes that Newport Beach will experience continued modest economic growth combined with overall economic stability. Using these economic projections combined with the above market data, PKF estimated future occupancies, average daily room rates, and income from food, beverages, and other sources. In their pro forma review of the Marina Park Hotel, Keyser Marston concurred with the average daily room rates and stabilized occupancy levels presented in the PKF report. They also did not make adjustments to income estimates for food and beverage and other hotel departments. KMA's analysis did include additional revenue from hotel parking, and noted the potential for revenue from boat slips. However, as these revenue sources have not yet been confirmed or fully analyzed, we have excluded them from our analysis. REVENUES Property Tax Because of their public and nonprofit status, most of the existing uses on the Marina Park site are exempt from paying property taxes. However, personal property and improvements related to the mobile home park are taxable, as are boats. The sum of these assessments was multiplied by the County tax rate of one percent and then by 17 percent to obtain the City share of property tax. According to Keyser Marston's estimate, at stabilization the project will generate a property tax of $394,000 (in 2004 dollars), which is equal to one percent of the property's assessed value. AIDE applied a rate of 17 percent to this value to determine the portion of the property tax allocated to the Newport Beach General Fund. For the fiscal impact projections, property taxes were inflated by two percent each year (with 2004 as the base year) in accordance with Propositionl3.' Because we projected to only five years after Under the provisions of Proposition 13, property assessments may only be raised by a maximum of two percent each year until the property changes ownership (with a few exceptions). Once sold, the property is reassessed to market value and the two - percent increases begin again. Taxes are limited to one percent of assessed value, plus any additional taxes up to two percent passed by two -thuds of the voters. rya 14 stabilization, we assumed that the property would not be sold and reassessed during the period of our analysis. Sales and Use Tax The existing uses on the site generate no taxable sales onsite, but out analysis accounts for off -site purchases by the mobile home park residents. The sales tax estimate for the proposed project is based on the food and beverage revenue projection prepared by PKF, Inc. The figure is about 20 to 25 percent higher than average for existing hotels in Newport Beach, reflecting the upper end market segments the project is anticipated to serve? TOTTax A TOT of ten percent is levied on guest room receipts in Newport Beach. This rate was applied to PKF's projected room rental revenue for each year of the proposed development. Use of Property A significant portion of the revenues generated by both the existing and proposed uses comes from use of property, or lease payments. In the case of the existing uses, mobile home park residents pay the City a total of roughly $700,000 per year in rent, while the Balboa Power Squadron pays an annual rent of $1,935. The proposed Marina Park resort is expected to pay an annual base land lease of $550,000 per year during the construction phase and increasing to $1.1 trillion per year once the project begins operation. The base rent would be credited against additional "percentage rents" equal to 7 percent of room income, 3 -5 percent of food and beverage income, and 10 percent of other miscellaneous income. In addition, the developer would make option payments during the initial years following voter approval of the project and receipt of the required permits. 2 CIC Research, Inc. Profile of Visitoa to Newport Beach 2001. p. 31. Based on surveys conducted by CIC Research, hotel /motel guests in Newport Beach generated about $108.3 million in taxable sales in 2001. For the projected stabilization year of 2010, this would equate to about $478 per room, vs. the $590 per room projected by PKF, Inc. 15 Other Revenues The remaining revenue categories were calculated based on per- capita and per- employee factors as described above. EXPENDITURES As with the revenues, the General Fund expenditures in Tables 3 through 6 were estimated based on per - capita and per- employee cost factors that were developed for the Newport Beach General Plan Update. According to the Draft EIR prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, existing fire and police capacities will be sufficient to serve the needs of the proposed project. Consequently, the project is not expected to incur significant expenditures in these categories. The cost figures shown for these services reflect the average cost of additional calls for service anticipated for the project. c 16 REFERENCES "Proposed Marina Park Hotel and Fractional Ownership Units, Newport Beach, California." PKF Consulting, May 19, 2004. "Marina Park Hotel and Timeshare Pro Forma Review." Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., June 3, 2004. Ia 17 E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. MARK I. WEINBERGER MARC S. MIHALY, P.C. FRAN M. LAYTON RACHEL S. HOOPER ELLEN J. GARBER CHRISTY H. TAYLOR TAMARA S. GALANTER ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR WILLIAM J. WHITE ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER OSA L. ARMI BRIAN J. JOHNSON JANETTE E. SCHUE MATTHEW D. )INN ISHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 TELEPHONE: (415)552-7272 FACSIMILE: (41 5) 552 -5816 WWW.SMWLAW.COM TO: Bob Burnham FROM: Christy Taylor RE: Marinapark EIR MEMORANDUM July 21, 2004 CATHERINE C. ENGBERG MATTHEW D. VESPA ROBIN A. SALSBURG AMY J. BRICKER JENNY K. HARSINE MADELINE O. STONE LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP CARMEN J. BORG UFBAM PFA..IA9 DAVID NAWI OP COUwS FI I have reviewed the Draft EIR for the Marinapark project, the comments received and responses thereto. This EIR contains the required information regarding the proposed project and its environmental consequences, and is a legally adequate informational document satisfying the requirements of CEQA. The Marinapark EIR identifies the significant effects of the proposed project, feasible mitigation measures designed to avoid or lessen those effects, and a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, as required by CEQA. Its contents include the elements set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, including the table of contents, summary, project description, environmental setting, list of organizations and persons consulted, and discussion of cumulative impacts. The public comments received on the Draft EIR did not involve significant new information regarding impacts or mitigation measures such that recirculation for additional public review would have been appropriate. The responses and revisions in response to the comments received address all significant environmental points raised in the comments; where corrections were necessary they have been provided, and additional mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to further ameliorate impacts already identified as significant in the Draft EIR. EXHIBIT H Bob Burnham July 21, 2004 Page 2 The mitigation measures proposed in the EIR are enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding mechanisms. They are well designed to reduce the impacts of this project, with the result that the record supports the conclusion that incorporation of the mitigation measures into the project will reduce all environmental impacts to levels that do not exceed the thresholds of significance. While commenters and project opponents can find some fault with any EIR, the document is not required to achieve perfection. An EIR should provide decisionmakers with the information they need to make a decision on the proposed project, which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. The Marinapark EIR provides a legally sufficient analysis of impacts and mitigation measures and represents a good faith effort at full disclosure. As such, the Marinapark EIR is a legally adequate disclosure document, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. +++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ )P: \NEW PWMT12\ch1002 (memo 7 21 04).wy0)